Women's Charter Discriminatory ?
-
I am sure most are familiar with this Charter. What are your opinions on it ? Does it go against the Constitution rights of equality for all ? Is it discriminatory in this day and age ?
-
no commentsOriginally posted by Great_One:I am sure most are familiar with this Charter. What are your opinions on it ? Does it go against the Constitution rights of equality for all ? Is it discriminatory in this day and age ?
-
hmm ..Originally posted by Great_One:I am sure most are familiar with this Charter. What are your opinions on it ? Does it go against the Constitution rights of equality for all ? Is it discriminatory in this day and age ? -
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by 'equality for all'?Originally posted by Great_One:I am sure most are familiar with this Charter. What are your opinions on it ? Does it go against the Constitution rights of equality for all ? Is it discriminatory in this day and age ?
There is no such thing in this world; the woman's charter's primary purpose is to protect the fairer gender.
For example, pre-nuptial agreements are NOT recognized in Singapore courts. Ergo, a signed agreement governing the distribution of wealth between husband and wife in a divorce will hold no water in a legal tussle; the wife still gets 50%, also contingent on prior legitimate agreements signed beforehand.
And some wonder why locals aren't in a hurry to get married...men have far more to lose in some ways that women.
-
I think the fundamental principle of equality may be further clarified as all men have equal rights.
If laws are passed to correct a perceived inequality of rights through giving one party more or greater rights, it is simply compounding the problem and only addressing the symptom. It also paves the way for more laws that promote inequality, well intentioned or otherwise.
I think that laws have to reflect the developments in society. If they become unenforcable, they should be reviewed and amended.
However all this must be done without losing sight of the fundamental principles. -
From wikipedia
"The Women's Charter was an Act of the Singaporean Parliament passed in 1961. The Act was designed to improve and protect the rights of females in Singapore and to guarantee greater legal equality for women in legally-sanctioned relationships (but not those of Muslims). Definitions of the rights of husbands and wives in marriage, as well as outlining legal potentialities with regard to divorce and separation, and the banning of polygamy are some of the major elements of the Act.
An amendment was passed to the Women's Charter in 1996, which focused around rights regarding domestic abuse and matrimonial assets."
Not mentioned above is that it also includes legislation dealing with the prostitution of women and girls. Doesn't seem to cover the prostitution of men and boys.
There is a basic assumption that the man is sole bread winner and therefore liable for maintenance but the woman is not.
I would consider that portion discrimination as house husbands are not protected. That part probably needs to be updated.
However if men find the laws governing marriages onerous then the entire Act relating to that should be examined and redressed. The purpose of the law was to protect women, not discourage marriage.
To abolish it would be to abolish many other things as well. It would be necessary to enact new laws to cover those other items. -
The law appears to be based on the assumption that the man is the sole breadwinner (not true in this day and age) and among other things, imposes liabilities on the man with regards to maintenance of his family.Originally posted by BillyBong:Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by 'equality for all'?
There is no such thing in this world; the woman's charter's primary purpose is to protect the fairer gender.
For example, pre-nuptial agreements are NOT recognized in Singapore courts. Ergo, a signed agreement governing the distribution of wealth between husband and wife in a divorce will hold no water in a legal tussle; the wife still gets 50%, also contingent on prior legitimate agreements signed beforehand.
And some wonder why locals aren't in a hurry to get married...men have far more to lose in some ways that women.
I looked at the law and there doesn't seem to be a mention of 50%. It may be a rule of thumb but the Court decides based on a number of factors.
Yes, pre-nups appear to be invalid as the Court's decision will overide any such agreement.
There is also some protection of gifts received by the wife that ensures it remains her sole property but no similar protection for the husband. Also some protection of gifts given by husband to wife against creditors but no similar protection if the case was reversed.
Yes, I actually went and read the Act. -
.... old, dated, & tall tall trees usually fell themselves in nature...
... I think same here... -
Kind of like the 377A?Originally posted by HyperFocal:.... old, dated, & tall tall trees usually fell themselves in nature...
... I think same here...
-
... well, yes sorta - whatever's lame will topple..Originally posted by phil30k:Kind of like the 377A? -