All you need to know about the WOMEN'S CHARTER

[amenda]

you have discussed about a very important thing. thanks

[cereal-killer]

wwoooo !!! extremely long reading ...

quick question, when do we stop maintenence of child ? when he/she turns 21 of age ?

[dauf]

My ex-wife now demanded that I disown my son citing excuse that she wants to remarry and her new husband don't want to be bringing up someone else's chid.

May I ask if its legally possible in the first place to disown a child and under what circumstances will the court approve it? I'm paying maintenance for the child now. Child is a Singaporean 5 year old.

[drekmaniac]

Originally Posted by Big Sexy

PART V
PENALTIES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOLEMNIZATION AND REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGES

Omission to appear before Deputy Registrar within prescribed time
34. —(1) Any person who, being required by section 29 to appear before a Deputy Registrar, fails to do so within the prescribed time shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.[26/80]

(2) The Registrar may, in his discretion, compound any such offence by collecting from the person reasonably suspected of having committed the same a sum not exceeding $400.[26/80]

Contravention of section 32
35. Any person who contravenes section 32 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

Interference with marriage
36. Any person who uses any force or threat —

(a) to compel a person to marry against his will; or

(b) to prevent a person who has attained the age of 21 years from contracting a valid marriage,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

False oath, etc., for procuring marriage
37. Any person who for the purpose of procuring any marriage under this Act intentionally makes any false declaration or signs any false notice or certificate required by this Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

False allegation in caveat
38. —(1) Any person who enters a caveat against the issue by the Registrar of a marriage licence and makes any false representation in or in support of the caveat knowing or believing such representation to be false or not having reason to believe it to be true shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

(2) Any person who enters a caveat against the issue of a marriage licence and pretends or falsely represents himself to be a person whose consent to the marriage is required by law knowing or believing such pretence or representation to be false or not believing it to be true shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.

Unauthorised solemnization of marriage
39. Any person who, not being authorised thereto under this Act, solemnizes or purports to solemnize any marriage shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $15,000.[9/67]

Offences relating to solemnization of marriages
40. —(1) Any person who knowingly and contrary to this Act solemnizes or purports to solemnize or officiates at a marriage —

(a) without first receiving a marriage licence or a special marriage licence;

(b) otherwise than in the presence of at least 2 credible witnesses other than the person solemnizing the marriage; or

(c) after the expiration of 3 months from the date of the notice of marriage given under section 14,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000. [9/67;26/80]

(2) The Registrar or any Assistant Registrar who knowingly and contrary to this Act issues any marriage licence —

(a) without publishing the notice of marriage as required by section 16;

(b) when a caveat has been entered under section 19 without having first complied with section 20; or

(c) contrary to section 17,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000.[26/80]

(3) Any person who marries or purports to marry or goes through a form of marriage with any person contrary to any of the provisions of Part III shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000.[9/67]

Destroying or falsifying register of marriages
41. Any person who by himself or another —

(a) wilfully destroys or causes damage to any register of marriages or any certificate in that register or any part thereof or any authenticated extract therefrom;

(b) falsely makes or counterfeits any part of such register or certificate; or

(c) wilfully inserts any false entry in any register or certificate or authenticated extract,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Consent for prosecution
42. No prosecution for any offence punishable under this Part shall be instituted except with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.[9/67]

Correction of errors
43. —(1) If the Registrar is satisfied by statutory declaration or otherwise that any entry relating to a marriage is erroneous in form or substance, he may, in the presence of the persons married, or, if they are absent, in the presence of 2 credible witnesses, correct the error by ruling through any entry in the certificate of marriage which is erroneous and making the correct entry therein.[30/96]

(2) The Registrar or the Deputy Registrar shall sign and date the correction made in the certificate of marriage.[30/96]

(3) Every entry made under subsection (1) shall be attested by the witnesses in whose presence it was made.

Inspection and search
44. —(1) Every marriage register and index kept by the Registrar under the provisions of this Act shall be open to inspection upon payment of the prescribed fee by any person applying to inspect the same.

(2) The Registrar shall upon payment of the prescribed fee furnish to any person requiring the same a copy of any entry certified under his hand and seal of office.

Proof
45. Every marriage register kept by the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar under the provisions of this Act and any copy of any entry therein certified under his hand and seal of office to be a true copy or extract shall be prima facie evidence in all courts and tribunals in Singapore of the dates and acts contained or set out in such marriage register, copy or extract.

That is no good. Aviod it

[asdfghjkl]

what do you mean by no good?

[The Milk Man]

Originally Posted by asdfghjkl

what do you mean by no good?

I think he meant it is no good to be married here. Avoid it.


FUCK THE WOMENS CHARTER

[84gunner]

For a well-enough-informed man, the risks is damn high. Seems many SG men are more well-informed nowadays, and I believe that is directly related to the dwindling marriage & birth rates in SG.

Pappy has been talking & worried about the dwindling rates, didn't they even take a look at this aspect? There is Legislation to protect the women, leaving the men vulnerable.

Well, I guess there is a political price, to re-look or make adjustments to the Legislation to make it the slightest bit more relaxed.

But if the Legislation were to be adjusted to be more balanced to both males & females, I believe the lost votes from the females can be covererd / compensated by the approval votes from the males. Unless statistically, the number of female population is more than the number of male population.

But well, again, if Pappy had thought about this Legislation being a discouraging factor to the males, SG would probably be somewhat different today. Either they didn't publicise via news propaganda that they did look at this factor but decided it's better not to make any adjustments, or they really overlooked it. I only noticed, a bunch of females were discussing on strengthening the protection of females thru more Legislation & tightening. And if they really overlooked it, that shows those Pappies in-charge of this Ministry or Stat Board or Dept are just simply looking at theories & the books, and don't know anything on the ground in the heartlands.

As the saying goes, "书生误国".

[Otaman]

Originally Posted by 84gunner

But well, again, if Pappy had thought about this Legislation being a discouraging factor to the males, SG would probably be somewhat different today. Either they didn't publicise via news propaganda that they did look at this factor but decided it's better not to make any adjustments, or they really overlooked it. I only noticed, a bunch of females were discussing on strengthening the protection of females thru more Legislation & tightening. And if they really overlooked it, that shows those Pappies in-charge of this Ministry or Stat Board or Dept are just simply looking at theories & the books, and don't know anything on the ground in the heartlands.

The MCYS did try to find out when the new minister CCS took charge.... he formed several committees from different sectors of the population to look into the problem (I think his intention is to have different angles to feedback to him)..... but he forgot one main problem...... all the committees were chaired and manned by women with links to AWARE !

so what is going on is basically LPPL
wonder how we ever got this no-brainer as our minister.

[84gunner]

Originally Posted by Otaman

The MCYS did try to find out when the new minister CCS took charge.... he formed several committees from different sectors of the population to look into the problem (I think his intention is to have different angles to feedback to him)..... but he forgot one main problem...... all the committees were chaired and manned by women with links to AWARE !

so what is going on is basically LPPL
wonder how we ever got this no-brainer as our minister.

Errr...I'm not quite familiar with the abbreviations you use, such as MCYS, CCS, etc. If not convenient to name it out fully, no problem. I can guess MCYS is a Dept or stat Board or Ministry, CCS is the initials of the person-in-charge.

Basically, even a junior manager should know the basic guidelines of assigning / delegating people, ie, 4WH (Management Skills).

Ay, the pappies are all scholars leh. All got belly high deglees one leh. What Plesident Scholar, Public dunno what scholar, SAF Scholar, SPF scholar, etc. No brain, how to stardy until got deglee?

Hee hee, again lor, administratively, he is doing something, he can also show that he formed / organised several committees, to gather information / feedback / data from several perspective. Then his ppt report can even look better, he can present from several perspective mah.

Again, a typical example of 纸上谈兵，might lead to 书生误国。

[Redbrick]

Originally Posted by Otaman

....but he forgot one main problem...... all the committees were chaired and manned by women with links to AWARE !

Spot on... the MAIN problem is AWARE
They have moved into the schools and are already giving talks to the schoolgirls at secondary level. This does not end there as there are also further talks in JC/Poly and when the girls enter into University they are approach to serve as volunteers at AWARE.

And AWARE likes to target those in the law faculty.... that is why the men always get screwed by the Womens Charter in the Family Court.... because AWARE has cornered all the women lawyers to be on their side.

[84gunner]

Originally Posted by Redbrick

Spot on... the MAIN problem is AWARE
They have moved into the schools and are already giving talks to the schoolgirls at secondary level. This does not end there as there are also further talks in JC/Poly and when the girls enter into University they are approach to serve as volunteers at AWARE.

And AWARE likes to target those in the law faculty.... that is why the men always get screwed by the Womens Charter in the Family Court.... because AWARE has cornered all the women lawyers to be on their side.

Yes, and the society is paying the price for it now...ie, dwindling marriage and birth rates, high divorce rates.

From observation, it seems the lower educated women have happier families, divorce rates are higher with better educated women.

Women are conflicting creatures by nature, let them have too much power, let them take the lead, it doesn't take a very intelligent person to know the risks.

[The Milk Man]

Originally Posted by 84gunner

Yes, and the society is paying the price for it now...ie, dwindling marriage and birth rates, high divorce rates.

From observation, it seems the lower educated women have happier families, divorce rates are higher with better educated women.

Women are conflicting creatures by nature, let them have too much power, let them take the lead, it doesn't take a very intelligent person to know the risks.

TOTALLY AGREE !!

FARK THE WOMENS CHARTER !!

[Otaman]

Originally Posted by 84gunner

Errr...I'm not quite familiar with the abbreviations you use, such as MCYS, CCS, etc. If not convenient to name it out fully, no problem. I can guess MCYS is a Dept or stat Board or Ministry, CCS is the initials of the person-in-charge.

MCYS = Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports
CCS = Chan Chun Sing the Minister in Charge of MCYS

[simoncheng]

Bloody AWARE bitches!!
They even dare to defy the Court Orders!!

The Chairwoman of AWARE Anamah Tan who is an Advocate & Solicitor was censured by the Courts for helping a client to circumvent a Court Order. (which I later found out from insiders working at the courts that she was the lawyer acting for the client in a divorce case. The judge ruled in favour of the husband but this lawyer advised her client to ignore the court order and do as advised by AWARE!!)

KNNCCB !! Since when has the f*cking Womens Charter superceded the Courts?

[Mayoress]

Originally Posted by simoncheng

Bloody AWARE bitches!!
They even dare to defy the Court Orders!!

The Chairwoman of AWARE Anamah Tan who is an Advocate & Solicitor was censured by the Courts for helping a client to circumvent a Court Order. (which I later found out from insiders working at the courts that she was the lawyer acting for the client in a divorce case. The judge ruled in favour of the husband but this lawyer advised her client to ignore the court order and do as advised by AWARE!!)

KNNCCB !! Since when has the f*cking Womens Charter superceded the Courts?

Like day oso can? Never see this case reported in the news leh...... you have the details or link?