It does not yet appear that evidence of battered woman syndrome per se has been accepted and considered in Singapore's courts.

At present, under the Singapore Penal Code, the victim may generally rely on the following:

• the provisions on self-defense (Chapter IVA of the Penal Code)
• the exception to murder on exceeding private defense, to reduce the offense charged from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (exception 2 to Section 300 of the Penal Code)

Yes, protection orders should be sought via the avenues explained in the responses above.

Whether reasonable leave can be taken in such circumstances will depend on the terms of the employment contract and prevailing employment policies in place.

Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, Singapore employers are obliged to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work. In the context of domestic abuse victims, such measures may reasonably extend to denying the abuser access to the victim's workplace.

No. On the contrary, immigration laws and policies in Singapore compound the vulnerability of domestic violence victims who are migrant spouses in Singapore. This is because migrant spouses, as nonresidents (not citizens or permanent residents of the country) are dependent on their citizen spouses for the right to remain in the country and to be eligible for other citizen benefits (e.g., healthcare subsidies, public housing, state-funded legal assistance).

Migrant spouses in Singapore who do not qualify independently for an employment-based pass, need their citizen spouses to sponsor a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) for them to remain in Singapore. These passes may be valid for durations of three months to five years, and subject the LTVP holders to different conditions (employment rights, public housing and healthcare subsidies). In some cases, migrant spouses who do not qualify for LTVPs may be issued short-visit passes (SVP) that are valid for a period of up to 90 days. Subsequent renewals are possible but they will require departure from and reentry into Singapore. SVP holders are not allowed to work and do not qualify for any form of government subsidies.

Migrant spouses who are domestic violence victims are particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged because immigration policies in Singapore give citizen spouses all the power in the marriage. The migrant spouses have to depend on their spouses for the right to remain in the country. Citizen spouses who are domestic violence perpetrators may use the threat of canceling visas and visit passes as a way of inflicting psychological abuse and preventing their nonresident spouses from seeking help or reporting them to the police. Fear of losing their right to stay may force these migrant spouses to compromise their own safety and stay in abusive marriages.

According to a study of trends from cases filed in the family courts, obtaining custody of their children is a big challenge for nonresident parents:

• non-resident mothers are less likely to obtain joint custody or sole custody of their Singaporean children
• non-resident mothers are less likely to obtain care and control orders for their Singaporean children

Without custody or care and control of their citizen children, nonresident mothers face even more difficulty remaining in Singapore, e.g., they would not qualify for subsidized housing.

Migrant spouses whose LTVPs are canceled or not renewed by their citizen spouses cannot be sponsored by any other party as long as they remain married. In situations where their passes expire or are canceled, the nonresident spouse will usually be placed on an SVP, which has to be renewed every month at the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA). However, renewal is completely at the ICA's discretion, so this can be a stressful event every month for the migrant spouse.

 There are no statutory provisions expressly stipulating such remedies. See 6.3 (i) above.

There are no special statutory provisions for military protective orders for the protection of domestic violence victims.

However, all persons in active military are subject to military law and may be governed by the military court.

Under the Singapore Armed Forces Act, a person subject to military law who behaves in a cruel, indecent or disgraceful manner or in a manner unbecoming of a member of the Singapore Armed Forces may be sanctioned by the military court to imprisonment or other penalties (Section 26, Singapore Armed Forces Act).

Further, a person subject to military law who does any act that may be dangerous to life or property, or is likely to cause loss of life or bodily injury to any person or damage to property may also be sanctioned by the military court to imprisonment or other penalties (Section 41, Singapore Armed Forces Act).

Some relevant provisions of the Singapore Armed Forces Act are reproduced below:

Conduct to prejudice of good order or discipline

25. Every person subject to military law who is guilty of any act, conduct or neglect to the prejudice of good order or discipline will be guilty of an offense and will be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or any less punishment authorized by this act.

Cruel, indecent or disgraceful conduct

26. Every person subject to military law who behaves in a cruel, indecent or disgraceful manner or in a manner unbecoming a member of the Singapore Armed Forces will be guilty of an offense and will be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment authorized by this act.

Endangering life or property

41. Every person subject to military law who does an act in relation to any thing or substance that may be dangerous to life or property, the act causes, or is likely to cause, loss of life or bodily injury to any person or causes, or is likely to cause, damage to or destruction of any property will:

1. if he acted willfully, be guilty of an offense and be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or any less punishment authorized by this act
2. if he acted negligently, be guilty of an offense and be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or any less punishment authorized by this act

No, the court is given wide powers to make such orders subject to conditions it may think fit to impose. Therefore, domestic violence would just be one of many factors that the court considers.

The court follows the "welfare principle," per the Women's Charter Section 125(1), where the paramount consideration of the court is the child's welfare.

Per Section 126(1) and Section 126(2A), an order for custody and care and control may be made subject to such conditions as the court may think fit to impose.

Per Section 130, the court will also have regard to the advice of a person who is trained or experienced in child welfare, but is not bound to follow such advice.

A sole custody order may be considered in exceptional circumstances where a parent abused the child. (Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Family Law (Vol 11) [130.516])

Yes, per the Women's Charter Section 125(2), when deciding whose custody or in whose care and control a child should be placed, the court will have regard to the wishes of the parents of the child and the wishes of the child, if they are old enough to express independent opinion.

No, this would come under the general law of forfeiture of leases, whereby if certain conditions are met, the landlord can exercise their power of reentry that ends the lease agreement.

Section 18(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act states that a right of reentry or forfeiture for any breach of covenant or condition of lease swill not be enforceable unless the lessor serves on the lessee a notice specifying the particular breach and requiring the lessee to remedy the breach.

In which case, it is unlikely that a lease agreement would have a covenant that specifies the tenant must not be a victim of domestic violence.

No, there is no specific law allowing early termination of lease due to domestic violence.

Therefore, the relevant law would relate to surrender and determination of registered leases under Section 91(1) and Section 92(1) of the Land Titles Act. The tenant would have to fulfill the usual requirements of surrender or determination to terminate the lease.

Yes, under the Women's Charter Section 65(5)(a), the court can grant exclusive occupation of the shared residence or a specified part of the shared residence to the victim, regardless of whether the shared residence is jointly or solely owned or leased by the parties.

Yes, under the Women's Charter Section 65(5)(c), the court can give any such direction as necessary for and incidental to the proper carrying into effect any order (Protection/Expedited Order).