Enforcing divorcees’ maintenance payments, penalties on low-income earners debated as Parliament passes reformed laws governing family disputes

SINGAPORE — Low-income divorcees who genuinely cannot pay maintenance and being punished for it, as well as the kind of training and powers maintenance enforcement officers will have, were raised at a debate on the Family Justice Reform Bill.

The Bill was passed in Parliament on Monday (May 8) after 13 members of the House spoke on various provisions, including finding ways to improve divorce proceedings.

For instance, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Member of Parliament (MP) for Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency (GRC), suggested training social service officers and social workers to help vulnerable clients navigate the online application process.

Ms Hany Soh, MP for Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, suggested taking a coordinated approach across the entire family justice ecosystem.

The various MPs’ proposals will be studied. This was the response from Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law, and Ms Sun Xueling, Minister of State for Social and Family Development.

Changes will be made to the law to improve the enforcement of maintenance payments, streamline the process of divorce proceedings and strengthen therapeutic justice.

In his opening speech, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that therapeutic justice is an approach that tries to “get parties to reach a common ground and move on with their lives”.

Among the changes is the introduction of maintenance enforcement officers, who will assess whether a person cannot afford to pay maintenance to their divorced partner or simply refuses to pay.

These maintenance enforcement officers can directly access information from third parties such as the Housing and Development Board, Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore and the Land Transport Authority, allowing them to make an accurate assessment of the person’s assets.

If the enforcement officer’s report assesses that the person can afford to pay maintenance but refuses, the court can make more effective orders against the errant persons and take action.

This includes a show-payment order where the person will have to pay by specified dates, and may even be jailed if they do not comply.

If the party cannot afford to pay maintenance, he or she will be directed to appropriate channels of assistance.

The changes will also make the court process less legalistic and more accessible for self-represented parties since the court can then rely on evidence submitted by the maintenance enforcement officers, and not only from the parties.

Another change is that judges will have the power to make substantive orders that address the needs of the family, and may interview children to listen to their wishes.

The law will also establish a new maintenance enforcement process that will simplify applications relating to non-payment of maintenance orders and reduce the number of trips that parties have to make to court.

WHAT ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN CHECK

During the debate, Radin Mas MP Melvin Yong wanted to know whether maintenance enforcement officers can access information on foreign assets.

Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai asked about assets that are held in the name of proxies when they are really owned by the divorced person who owes maintenance payments.

Ms Rahayu said that if the enforcement officer has reason to suspect that the respondent, or the person who owes maintenance payments, has assets that are held in the name of proxies, the officer may seek a court order for a third party to disclose the relevant information. 

“It is for the court to decide if such information is relevant to the enforcement application. There are limits to the maintenance enforcement officer’s powers to uncover every fact. 

“It is ultimately the primary responsibility of the parties to be forthright about their true financial positions. Furnishing false information when asked by the maintenance enforcement officer or to the court is a criminal offence.”

Ms Rahayu also said in response to Mr Yong that the maintenance enforcement officers and the Singapore courts do not have powers to direct third parties in a foreign jurisdiction to provide information. 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LOW-INCOME DIVORCEES CANNOT PAY

MPs also debated on the impact of the harsher penalties on low-income persons who cannot afford to pay maintenance, and the difficulty in distinguishing between those who refuse to pay and cannot pay maintenance.

There may be cases of respondents who are able to earn an income or a better income but choose not to do so to avoid paying maintenance, MP Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) and Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan suggested.

For those who genuinely cannot pay due to their low income, Dr Wan Rizal Wan Zakariah, MP for Jalan Besar GRC, said that he was concerned about the tougher penalties of non-payment.

Ms Rahayu said in reply to them that this is where the introduction of maintenance enforcement officers comes in, because they will be able to truly assess the financial capability of the respondent.

In addition, the enforcement officers may also refer the parties to social service officers, or to seek financial assistance or other forms of support.

As for the maintenance enforcement officers’ recruitment, training and resourcing, Ms Rahayu said: “These are operational details that will be worked through in the implementation (of the laws).

“Suffice to say that we intend to hire and train a multidisciplinary team, with team members having been trained and equipped with knowledge and skills in different areas. This will include the skills needed to effectively manage the parties and family proceedings.”