So in the context of grave social inequalities between men and women, the Women's Charter was a noble attempt to, in every way possible, to require husbands to treat their wives as equal partners. It was okay during those days to have one-sided obligations; after all, inequality then too was one-sided (okay, maybe 99.999 percent). However, the egalitarian instincts of the Women's Charter has gone awry as socially, the status of women have progressed to a point where some obligations placed on husbands by way of the Woman's Charter in certain factual contexts are un-egalitarian instead.
The obligation for a man to maintain his wife starts during marriage.
Section 69(1) provides :
"Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or a Magistrate's Court and that Court may, on due proof thereof, order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance."
Only in the continuation of total existing social inequalities between men and women may such a one-sided obligation make any sense. Take a very likely scenario: a handicapped (or sick) husband with a wife who earns a sufficient income to provide for his needs. It is ludicrous that in such a case, the wife will not be obliged to provide for the husband. While the intention and spirit of Section 69(1) is commendable, as it requires husbands to take care of their wives when they can afford to and when their wives are dependent on them; it becomes equally callous to then not oblige the wives to do the same in a similar situation. The expression in Section 46(1) is clear - "the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union."
Section 69(1) provides :
"Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or a Magistrate's Court and that Court may, on due proof thereof, order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance."
If a husband has been duly paying all the pub, phone, TC, etc...
Also paying the expenses of their children BUT did not give money to his WORKING wife, is the husband liable?
again the law made can be "unmade" to uphold certain policy decisions...not to forget that...thats why legal advisor will only quote from the book..but the politician will twist accordingly to the policy and then justified it legally
There is strong evidence that the Woman's Charter is flawed
Section 69(1) conflicting with Section 46(1). This conflict results in direct violation of human rights belonging to men and unjust administration of law.
Well like somebody said above my post, politician need this Women's Charter to win votes. Without it, there will be a backlash from female voters.
So is the husband liable to pay his WORKING wife monthly allowances?
this is in same tune and has been practised in all aspects of our working life too...the company have certain rules and regulations...but it is the boss that made decisions and justify...we all know it....save the quote from law books..it can be modified with multiple meanings
it can be debatable academically....but we all missed out on the reality of men suffering the liabilities .... the authority has not made or willing to make that clarifications...but in most cases men are often than not liable
Originally posted by Fcukpap:this is in same tune and has been practised in all aspects of our working life too...the company have certain rules and regulations...but it is the boss that made decisions and justify...we all know it....save the quote from law books..it can be modified with multiple meanings
This is how the fcuking lawyers earn money
it is our founder's principle not to touch on CASINO...but this was retracted...he knows it has to given the times....likewise...he is extremely supportive of women (but he is overly doing it and times have changed), he must wake up to that reality and feel men's discontents
Originally posted by Fcukpap:it is our founder's principle not to touch on CASINO...but this was retracted...he knows it has to given the times....likewise...he is extremely supportive of women (but he is overly doing it and times have changed), he must wake up to that reality and feel men's discontents
guess he can't because he has such capable and supportive wife. what happen to kwa geok choo now?
The women's charter in Singapore was originally made in the 1960s to raise the status of women in society in general. Now it has remained the same when society itself has changed after the Women's Charter of the 1960s and its provisions. in 1996 , extra provisions have been added again with a matrimonial asset component where a woman may set to gain material/monetary possessions from the breaking of marriage union. It is this clause that is creating problems now.
Do u seriously think in 1980s, 90s or 2000s, anyone wants to belittle women in career , education and life?
This woman's charter sh*t at best is a piece of old metal scrap from a bygone era that is still around creating a nuisance
Nothing has been change so far....
with all respect, she is still the brain behind the man...that is love - with my greatest salutation to him after all...
but just want him not to be so dogged and feel our discontents...
Originally posted by Fcukpap:with all respect, she is still the brain behind the man...that is love - with my greatest salutation to him after all...
but just want him not to be so dogged and feel our discontents...
few indeed, many end up as a liability to men
in china, any woman who wants divorce will have to seek govt assistance if they cannot afford to engage a lawyer. In the govt office, the officials have not much time for you - all they need is for the man and woman to write down all they agree and disagree upon divorce. The judge will just chop and retain a copy and when there are future disputes, that copy will be used as a base to see who has violated the agreement signed. It is so simple and there is nothing anyone can complain so long as both agree to sign on what was mutually agreed or disagreed.
women charter here is so blessed at men's expense - and greatly biased towards women and against men. even though men disagree, there is nothing we can do. Even if he engage a lawyer, it ought to be the very best and of course expensive to minimize the liability to only a certain extent (due to women charter) but will still have to fork out huge legal costs.
End of it all, men are bound to be disadvantaged most times - ask any men...most will tell you it ain't worth it to tie the knot ... apart from pay and pay to the govt, men still need to pay and pay even more to women...
what the FCUKPAP!
One would rather save that money to buy more goodies and have the best reunion CNY dinner with his beloved parents and siblings than to pay and pay to ex-wife who leaves him for another...
FCUKPAP AGAIN
Originally posted by ☃®:when women plot on exploiting to their advantage, its time to rethink the women's charter. many see it as the main reason for falling birthrates, high divorce in singapore as a nuptial knot to a singaporean women means being at the mercy of the Women's Charter as educated women now are ever more scheming, merciless and greedy as much as their uneducated counterparts in the 3rd world countries. The Women's Charter possibly gives them a license to kill and gain from a divorce or maintenance legal suit. There will always be a segment of females who are bent on exploiting the Charter for their own selfishness.They demanded full rights, they got it. but at the same time wanted extra treatment.
Demanding for the right to work, for equal social status is fair. But belittling man, degrading them to slavery is a not.
so bloody true
i would rather pay for girl at geylang, than pay a unscrupulous ex wife. at least that girl give a man his money's worth.
dun look for those too highly educated, power hungry and modern woman lar...
sometimes, i feel that local malay girls are much better than local chinese gals...
just a thought
So now you know people. Stop being so sweet to your girlfriends, you will never know one day, they will stab you in the back & drain your future away.
it is not them being sweet, it is their brother who causes so much trouble for them.
Originally posted by angel7030:it is not them being sweet, it is their brother who causes so much trouble for them.
Can't deny that the sister wants a piece of brother anyway.