When Human Rights and Family Integrity are at Odds
Gloria Arlini (Singapore)“The foundation of a strong nation is a strong family”—Confucius
The confidence placed in families as the fundamental unit of societies has been
expressed in various literatures ranging from Confucius classics to the UN Declarationof Human Rights in 1948. However, matters take a curious turn when family integrity
and human rights do not converge, such as, in the case of domestic violence. This isespecially exemplified in Asia, where domestic violence is often still considered to be aprivate matter and women are considered to be the inferior sex.
Singapore is a country which depends heavily on human assets due to its lack ofnatural resources. Consequently, the importance placed on family leads to family (andthus national) interest dominance over individual's rights(1) . This balance jeopardizes
none other than the domestic violence victims. In fact, it was not until 1997 that legal
protection for domestic violence victims became more comprehensive.
(1) This is expressed in Singapore Shared Value, “Nation before community and society

before self”.
Prior to 1997, the police could not arrest abusers not ‘classified' as having voluntarily
causing grievous hurt (VCGH) under Singapore Penal Code in domestic violence cases
without a warrant. For a case to warrant an arrest without court order, the victims
must suffer frompermanent privation of the sight of either eye or of the hearing of either ear, privationof any member/joint, destruction/permanent impairing of the powers of any
member/joint, permanent disfiguration of the head/face, fracture/dislocation of a bone,
emasculation, or any hurt which endangers life or which cause the sufferer to be, during
the space of 20 days, in severely bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
(Section 322 Singapore Penal Code)In other words, only permanent incapacitation and/or severe injury could qualify thevictim to be rescued from his/her abuser.
Letting an abuse go unchecked up to the point of such “grievous hurt” undoubtedly infringes upon the human right for safety and security. In 1995, a Family Violence Billwas tabled by Dr Kanwaljit Soin, the first female member of the parliament inSingapore. The bill, aiming to enhance protection for victims of family abuse, demands,
among others, that even the slightest hurt in domestic violence be made a seizableoffence. In practice, the bill empowers the police to arrest abusers as they deem fit,
without warrant or court order.
The bill was rejected.
Fearing that family as the fundamental building block of society might disintegrate
once domestic violence is rendered a criminal offence, the Singapore state prefers tomediate in a ‘softer' way through mandatory family counseling. In response to the bill,
the government cites cultural defenses—that Asians would feel “uncomfortable” should
domestic problem be given such “harsh, high-handed, and detached” remedy. However,the biggest government concern is that the bill will posit the two sexes in opposing
stances (of victim and aggressor), thus, the government worries that a negative pictureof family life will be drawn, creating fatal implications on family integrity.
The Singapore government faces the challenge of ensuring a fine balance between theprotection of women's rights and the integrity of the family. Although the bill wasdefeated, constructive steps were undertaken to modify the existing legislation toensure greater provisions to victims of family violence. These steps resulted in theWomen's Charter (1996) Amendment Bill(2). Although family counseling is still
preferred over legislative measures, the police now have greater power to arrest abusers.
Legislative measures could also be undertaken if the victim reports any form of“intimidation, continual harassment, and restraint against the victim's will as well as
actual physical violence”. The amendment also protects a greater spectrum of potential
victims as it defines “family members” as anyone related by blood, marriage oradoption.
(2) This change is recorded in part VII, “Protection of Family” in the Women's Charter.
For the full content of the Women's Charter, see: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/
cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-353&doctitle=WOMEN%92S%20CHARTER%0a&date=latest&method=part (cited July 20, 2005)
This case might be a timely alert that there could possibly be a conflict of interestbetween family togetherness and its members' rights to safety. More particularly, Asianvalues, such as, not washing one's own dirty linen in public as well as its patriarchal
tradition could very well be the biggest hindrance to human rights maintenance,
especially in the case of domestic violence in Asia.