Strengthening support for families and building resilience in Islamic institutions

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have risen to support this Bill. 

Introduction

The AMLA is an important piece of legislation for the Muslim community. Our reviews are intended to ensure that it remains robust and relevant, stays up to date with new programmes and processes, and above all, serves the needs of our Muslim community in Singapore.

I am heartened by the support from Members and your suggestions.

I hope Members will understand if I focus my responses on the issues directly related to this specific Bill. For example, I will not deal with issues on deviant teaching for which there is an ongoing police case under investigation.

Let me now address the points and queries raised. 

SYC/ROMM's digitalisation efforts 

Allow me to summarise the details on the processes that will be digitalised under the SYC. 

1. First, SYC will replace its old case management system with a new IT system to improve case management and communication with Court users. 

   1. The process of filing and issuing all Court documents will be digitalised. This means that a Court user will be able to file, or submit, documents anytime and from any location using SingPass, or if they are a lawyer acting on behalf of a party to proceedings, using CorpPass. 

   2. Through a fully personalised dashboard upon log-in, a Court user, whether a litigant or a lawyer, will be able to view upcoming Court attendances, outstanding tasks given by the Court, and access digital copies of filed documents. 

   3. This convenience is extended to the pre-Court process. For example, the registration process to attend the Marriage Counselling Programme will also be digitalised.

2. Second, this Bill will allow SYC and ROMM to conduct Court proceedings and marriage solemnisations via electronic means of communication in appropriate situations. 

   1. SYC and ROMM trialled these video-link processes during the pandemic, and the community benefitted from them. 

   2. Since May 2020, close to 100 couples or about 1% of total Muslim Marriages, have conducted their marriage solemnisation through digital means during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

   3. For example, this digital option allowed some couples to proceed with the video-link solemnisation even when their witnesses had contracted COVID-19 and therefore could not attend in person. This saved the couples the trouble of postponing the solemnisation, which would incur additional cost and time. 

   4. During these video-link solemnisations, the Kadi would conduct the same tasks as he would during in-person solemnisations. This includes confirming the identities and consent of the couples to the marriage, giving a short sermon and supplication, and blessing the couples. The only difference is that the entire process takes place via live video-link.

   5. I would like to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Faisal Manap that the Kadi will continue to emphasise the sanctity of marriage and the responsibilities of the spouses have to each other. For marriage applications involving minors, before a decision is made as to whether virtual solemnisation will be allowed, all parties and their parents must attend in-person sessions with the Kadi, who will assess the couples' readiness for marriage and the level of support from the parents.

3. To Mr Saktiandi's question, proceedings that are held virtually using electronic means of communication is neither the norm nor the default mode for hearings in the Court and before an Appeal Board. 

   1. We have learned from the various episodes of the COVID-19 crisis in the last 2 years that disrupted necessary processes even when technological options existed because there were no provisions in law for them. We needed to pass the time limited (temporary provisions) to enable these virtually. Therefore, the option to conduct proceedings virtually allows the Court and an Appeal Board to hear any matter expeditiously, even if there are disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

      1. Beyond national emergencies, where the circumstances of a particular case do not require the physical attendance of parties or their lawyers in the Courtroom, the presiding judge of the Court, or an Appeal Board, will assess the necessity and appropriateness of conducting the proceedings virtually on a case by case basis.

Mr Saktiandi asked whether the convenience of virtual solemnisations could be extended to marriages where at least one party is overseas. While we recognise the convenience that this proposal may bring, we will need to study this carefully. 

1. Under Section 95(3) of AMLA, the Kadi must be satisfied that there is no lawful obstacle under Muslim law or AMLA to the intended marriage. Hence, if the Kadi is unable to ascertain whether the party outside Singapore has legal capacity to contract the marriage, the conditions under this section will not be met. 
   

2. Similar to the requirements for the use of remote communication technology for the solemnisation of Muslim marriages under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures for Solemnisation and Registration of Marriages) Act 2020, currently all parties to the intended marriage must be physically present in Singapore. This acts as a safeguard to ensure that all the conditions set out under Muslim law on the validity of the marriage and other legal requirements under Section 95(3) under AMLA are fulfilled. 

Upholding justice and ensuring fairness

Digitalisation will not affect the fairness of the Court proceedings or the integrity of marriage solemnisations. This is our resolve and assurance to Mr Saktiandi and Mr Faisal Manap. The SYC and ROMM will ensure that religious and customary practices are still fulfilled, and justice is served. The SYC and ROMM have adopted best practices and developed multiple safeguards to protect the propriety, solemnity, integrity, and orderliness of digital proceedings. 

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim expressed concern that the proposed amendments may change the manner of appeal hearings and the delivery of verdict by the Appeal Board which lawyers and parties have been accustomed to. The concern is that allowing court proceedings to proceed without oral hearings could affect the perception of justice being done, as parties could feel aggrieved as they are not able to witness in-person the “process” or how the court arrives at an outcome. 

1. Let me explain. The new section 35B is an enabling provision to allow the Court or Appeal Board to decide any matter without an oral hearing, and asynchronously, in a suitable case. 
   

2. The traditional mode of conducting proceedings synchronously by an oral hearing is still in place and will continue to be the default manner of proceedings. 
   

3. I would like to assure the community that the new section 35B(4) prevents  the SYC and Appeal Board from hearing a matter in a manner that would be inconsistent with its duty to conduct proceedings fairly to all parties.
   

Ms Nadia Samdin asked what factors are considered when deciding that alternative modes of conducting proceedings are appropriate. 

1. This Bill will make available to the SYC and Appeal Board the option of using electronic means of communication in place of physical attendance, and the option to conduct proceedings in an asynchronous manner in place of an oral hearing. 

2.  Asynchronous hearings, which are proceedings without an oral hearing, are typically allowed if the application is straightforward.

   1. An example would be where both parties consent to the application, or the application is made by one party but may be dealt with in the absence of the other party. For such applications, an oral hearing is ordinarily not required because all relevant facts of the case have been submitted in affidavits, which is the primary mode of giving evidence to the Court. Legal submissions will also unlikely be required for such cases.

   2. Conducting the proceedings in an asynchronous manner would ordinarily not be appropriate where oral arguments are required from counsel or the litigants-in-person. This is typically the case for divorce hearings or trials, including an appeal hearing before the Appeal Board. While an oral hearing is necessary in such cases, physical attendance of the counsel and the litigants-in-person may be dispensed with and the proceedings of the oral hearing may be conducted virtually where appropriate.

To Ms Nadia's query, the Court is not precluded from allowing the use of an alternative device in the midst of hearing, should there be a technical difficulty as long as it is on an electronic communication platform approved by the Court.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked about a situation where the Plaintiff has already given oral evidence but the Defendant fails or refuses to participate in further proceedings. 

1. For such cases, where oral evidence has been given, there are safeguards to protect the rights of both parties in the litigation process. 

2. The Court will have to first assess whether the subsequent conduct of the hearing in an asynchronous manner will allow proceedings to be conducted fairly to both parties. 
   

3. The Court is required to obtain the consent of the Plaintiff to waive his or her right to continue with the oral hearing before the Court may proceed to conduct the remaining part of the proceedings in an asynchronous manner. 

We agree with Ms Nadia that in setting up a dedicated venue to provide a centralised setting for online trials, we need to protect the vulnerable, such as those suffering domestic abuse cases, and ensure that they are able to make their cases fairly and free from intimidation. 

I want to reiterate that SYC will adopt alternative modes of conducting proceedings only where appropriate and facilitative. 

Since mid-2020, SYC has worked closely with members of the Bar on the implementation of electronic communication technology for Court proceedings.  

1. The common goal is to ensure that all SYC hearings that are conducted virtually are done in a just, secure and private manner in accordance with the law and SYC's practice guidelines. 
   

2. For any reason where a virtual hearing may impact the fairness of the proceedings, the SYC will arrange for a physical hearing, where the Courthouse of SYC is the default location. Where there may be a serious risk of violence, separate courtrooms may be provided at the SYC. This is an additional measure on top of existing security protocols taken for all Court cases, such as police presence at each Court hearing. 
   

The legal community welcomes this introduction of virtual proceedings.  

1. For example, Ms Shahirah Nassir, a lawyer at R.W. Law Practice, supports having proceedings held virtually. While there were expected teething problems during the transitional period, such as video lag or audio quality issues, she felt that sessions were conducted on time and there were minimal technical issues faced.  More importantly, she found the platform to be a secure one that addresses security and privacy concerns in court proceedings, and the implementation of proceedings to be conducted remotely is in line with the numerous measures adopted by the Syariah Court to prioritise safety during COVID-19.                                                                                             

Prepare stakeholders for the new digital processes

Ms Nadia asked how we will get the public on board on these changes, who may not find the changes intuitive.

For its new digital system,

1. SYC will establish a Helpdesk to provide users with technical support. 
   

2. SYC will also publish clear and complete user guidelines and videos on the SYC website. 
   

3. The system is currently in the design stage and SYC will continue to work with partners and stakeholders to give litigants-in-person the necessary support and assistance they may need. 
   

4. SYC and its bench of judges will also continue to engage members of the Bar to help prepare all Court users for the upcoming changes in the second half of this year. The detailed implementation of the new electronic filing system will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

Marriage and divorce related proposals

This Bill also seeks to improve the legal processes relating to marriage and divorce. 

1. Mr Zhulkarnain asked who would be allowed access to the Register of Muslim Marriages and the Register of Revocation of Divorces.

   1. Only parties to the marriage and family members of parties to the marriage may do so. This is in line with who can access the Register of Marriages kept by ROM. 
      

2. For the Register of Muslim Divorces, the requesting party will be required to apply to the SYC for a copy of an entry in the Register and must provide reasons to show sufficient interest in the matter. This is in line with the way similar information in the Family Justice Courts is protected.
   

3. I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his support of the amendments to Section 50 on improving the process of proceedings conducted by the hakam. 

   1. The role of a hakam is described in section 50. He is a person appointed by the Court to act for either the husband or the wife in divorce proceedings and will endeavour to effect a reconciliation, and if that is not possible, to facilitate an amicable resolution to the marital dispute. 

   2. The number of cases in which hakam for the husband and hakam for the wife are jointly of the opinion that parties should be divorced because they are in a state of irreconcilable differences, but the husband refuses to pronounce talak or authorise his hakam to do so, is less than 1% a year. 

   3. Hence, the amendment seeks to reduce acrimony and emotional hardship in such cases. 

   4. To Mr Zhulkarnain's query, in situations where one party creates an impasse by refusing to pay the hakam fees, the aggrieved party may seek redress from the Court at the hearing on ancillary matters to be reimbursed for the payment that has been made on behalf of the defaulting party. On a quite unrelated note, on Mr Faisal Manap's query on the non-payment of divorce fees, the court has discretion to waive fees for reasons they deem acceptable like the unaffordability of the party.

   5.  To Mr Saktiandi's query, under current provisions, a divorce is registered upon payment of an administrative fee. This is a technicality that the amendment seeks to rectify by delinking payment of the divorce registration fee with the Court's power to order the registration of the divorce.

I fully agree with Mr Saktiandi that divorces are not to be taken lightly, and the SYC strives to save marriages where it is possible to do so. There are various opportunities for a disaffected couple to work out their issues. 

1. First, parties are required to attend the SYC's Marriage Counselling Programme, which was made mandatory at the last round of amendments. 
   

2. Second, after the divorce application has been filed in the Court, parties attend a mediation session where they can still explore reconciliation options as well as areas of agreement for an amicable resolution to their marital dispute. 
   

3. Third, parties may attend counselling or other family support activity or programme where they can receive support from professional counsellors and other social work professionals. 
   

We will continue to help couples work towards amicable solutions where possible. 

1. Our efforts are bearing fruit. More than half of the divorces registered in the past 5 years are settled amicably on all issues relating to the divorce application. 
   

Alignments to Women's Charter

 Next, let me address Mr Zhulkarnain's query on what more is being done beyond these amendments to align the support given to Muslim families going through divorce and non-Muslim families governed under the Women's Charter. 

The SYC works very closely with the FJC and MSF to support Muslim families going through divorce. 

1. For example, SYC partners MSF to refer acrimonious cases to MSF's Divorce Support Specialist Agencies (DSSA) to help these families with Supervised Exchange and Visitations. 
   

2. MSF provides these referred Muslim families the same level of funding support given to non-Muslim families undergoing divorce under the auspices of the Women's Charter.
   

Mr Saktiandi asked who the “prescribed class of persons” may be under Section 43A, where the SYC may advise them, in addition to any of the parties or their children, to attend a family support programme or activity. We recognise that there may be other significant caregivers involved in a child's life, such as grandparents. The availability of family support programmes and activities is expanded to allow participation by such persons so that they may in turn help the child to better cope with his or her parents' divorce. 

To Ms Nadia's query, the Programme for Children encompasses a range of possible support for children, including an assessment of the needs of the child, and specific interventions, such as group programmes, counselling or psychological services. 

1. The assessment process will be used to make recommendations to parents on suitable interventions based on the needs of the child. 
   

2. The overarching consideration is to work in the best interest of the child. 
   

3. MSF and MCCY will continue to work closely with the relevant professionals to ensure that these evidence-based intervention programmes will benefit any child who needs help to cope with his or her parents' divorce. 

4. Ultimately, parents are responsible for their child's well-being. If they do not comply with the Court's advice, the Court will have the discretion to make any order it deems fit, and in relevant cases, may take the non-compliance of the parents into consideration in making custody, care and control, and access orders, among other relevant factors in determining the welfare of the child. 

Muis-related Proposals

Finally, this Bill seeks to update the provisions relating to Muis.

1. Mr Saktiandi asked whether the existing section 32(7) can meet our intent to allow Mufti to testify where a case is made on false doctrine. 

   1. Sections 32(7) and 139(2) are significantly different in their scope and effect under the AMLA. I think this was also referred to by Mr Zhulkarnain.

   2. Section 32(7) is very wide, as it covers any question of the Muslim law, and it does not invoke any presumption in favour of the opinion provided by the Legal Committee, also known as the Fatwa Committee. It is also not restricted to a request from a court as it can be made by any person.

   3. On the other hand, Section 139(2) of the AMLA, relates specifically to evidence required for an offence on false doctrine, and currently invokes a presumption in favour of the evidence given by the President of Muis. The amendment seeks to allow the Mufti, which is the highest Muslim religious authority in Singapore, to give evidence in lieu of the President of Muis. 

   4. Hence, the two sections have their own specific purpose under the AMLA, and the powers of the Legal Committee are not affected by the operation of Section 139(2). More broadly, if the Court requests for the opinion of the Majlis on any question of the Muslim law, section 32(7) would apply. 

2. I also thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his suggestion on Section 114 of the AMLA to make Mufti the reference for Muslim law questions on inheritance and succession. Muis will study this suggestion.  

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to once again thank Members for their support of this Bill and their insightful comments. This Bill will help our Muslim institutions to better serve the community, improve legal processes, and strengthen the social support given to families and children. We will also continue to engage the community and religious fraternity to ensure that AMLA remains relevant for Muslims in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.