SINGAPORE - Legislation is being strengthened to better protect survivors of family violence, as well as enhance the rehabilitation and accountability of perpetrators.

Family violence goes against the fundamental values of society, and the Government does not condone violence in any form, said Minister of State for Social and Family Development Sun Xueling at the second reading of the Women’s Charter (Family Violence and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

The Bill, which was introduced in Parliament in May and passed on Tuesday, included new provisions to empower the court to better protect victims, and to strengthen the rehabilitation of abusers.

“Once protection and safety has been achieved for families that are facing or at risk of violence, we need to help perpetrators rehabilitate and families to heal relationships to help break the cycle of violence,” Ms Sun said.

Noting that family violence is a complex issue that can take various forms, she added that the Bill will update its existing definition of family violence to make clear that it includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse.

Ms Sun said that though it is less visible or understood than other forms of violence such as physical and sexual abuse, the harm of emotional and psychological abuse is no less significant.

She gave examples of these forms of abuse, such as perpetrators threatening to withhold monthly allowance from their spouses, making constant calls to check on their whereabouts, and isolating them from their friends or family, such as by not allowing them to leave the house.

These egregious forms of controlling behaviour, which some jurisdictions call coercive control, can cause distress or mental harm to a survivor and would be considered emotional or psychological abuse under the new Bill.

Ms Sun cited how the updated definition of family violence will protect the likes of Mrs B (not her real name) from her husband.

Mrs B would often face threats by her husband to chase her out of the house and not renew her long-term visit pass, leaving her with no other physical or financial resource.

She was afraid of applying for a personal protection order (PPO) as it may result in her being chased out of the house and separated from her child.

Ms Sun said: “The new amendments would provide greater assurance to people like Mrs B that such controlling behaviour is a form of abuse and that remedies are available for her.”

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) had also considered whether to include financial abuse in the definition of family violence.

Financial abuse is a complex issue and subject to different interpretations, and the ministry is working to further study this, said Ms Sun.

She added that MSF is prepared to consider the possibility of enacting a standalone Domestic Violence Act in the future to boost protection for non-family members, such as those in romantic relationships but who are unmarried.

She pointed out that there is no single cause of family violence.

The reasons for committing violence could be deep-seated such as the perpetrators themselves being abused, or witnessing violence in their own homes as children, or an inability to cope with stressors like unemployment, financial difficulties or other issues.

Medical or mental health conditions, addiction issues or disabilities may also impact one’s ability to manage emotions in a healthy way, she said.

Family violence is harder to detect as it often happens behind closed doors, she added.

“Survivors may hesitate to seek help due to shame, stigma, fear of breaking up their family and the perception that family violence is a private matter.”

“Similarly, individuals who observe family violence may remain as passive bystanders because they also consider it a private matter or are concerned about breaking up the family.”

The amendments to the Bill will empower family violence survivors to better protect themselves, through provisions such as allowing younger survivors to apply for a PPO on their own.

The Government will also have more power to intervene in family violence cases through granting powers to “protectors”, who will be allowed to obtain information on whether someone is experiencing, or at risk of, family violence.

These “protectors” can enter a home to make an assessment, and issue emergency orders on-site to help victims in high-risk cases. Protectors will be limited to making up to four emergency orders against a given perpetrator within three months.

The court will also be empowered to make additional rehabilitative provisions and raise penalties against those who breach orders.

Ms Sun said that about 93 per cent of PPOs issued from 2018 to 2022 were tagged with a counselling order. This means that one is required to attend a counselling programme offered by social service agencies appointed by MSF.

The new amendments will expand the scope of the existing counselling order to include other programmes, treatments and interventions such as parenting programmes, caregiver training and family therapy.

The court can also make mandatory treatment orders against a perpetrator under a PPO whose psychiatric condition is likely to be a contributing factor towards family violence.

An MSF study found that approximately 14 per cent of those who had PPO applications against them had been diagnosed with mental health conditions earlier.

A perpetrator under a mandatory treatment order may receive up to 36 months of treatment, which may include a requirement to reside in a psychiatric institution, or a place providing psychiatric treatment.

Currently, when a PPO has been revoked or has expired, the counselling order will also cease to have effect. This will no longer be the case under the Bill. Counselling orders and mandatory treatment orders will survive the PPO, so that the necessary interventions can be completed.

This will ensure that the root cause of family violence is addressed, to avoid recurrence of family violence against current or future family members, Ms Sun said.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC) noted that the element of intention of the abuser appeared to have been removed, as it will be deemed family violence as long as it causes injury or pain.

Ms Sun said that this change is deliberate, as survivors should be able to obtain protection against harmful conduct without having to prove what the perpetrator knew or ought to have known.  

“For example, a survivor should be able to obtain a PPO against a perpetrator who turns violent under the influence of drugs or alcohol, even though he might not fully know the effect of his actions.”

Referring to MSF’s 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT) that can respond to family violence reports and issue emergency orders at the scene, Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) expressed concerns that arrestable offences may now risk not being recorded as crimes.

She asked: “In domestic cases where arrestable crimes have likely been committed, can the Government assure the public that the police will follow the usual criminal processes and not simply leave it to MSF to handle such cases under the Women’s Charter?”

Ms Sun said that the police will continue to handle cases with law and order issues.

The DVERT officers, she added, will address immediate safety concerns and refer the families to Protection Specialist Centres for follow-up intervention.

To Ms Hany Soh’s (Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC) question on whether protectors would be able to make applications for PPOs on behalf of survivors, such as those below 18 who are willing but unable to apply for them, Ms Sun said this is already the case. 

“Social service professionals are already empowered to apply for PPOs on behalf of survivors who are below 21 years of age or who are incapacitated,” she said.