Gender-neutral maintenance claimsI agree with Gary Oos views but for different reasons.The law often imposes moral views upon the people, in order to maintain the moral fabric of society. This has been proposed by the learned Lord Devlin (a UK judge) in his seminal paper on morals legislation. Indeed, many laws have their basis in morals, eg, the law against murder (s300 of the Penal Code), the law against homosexual acts (s377A) and previously, the law against carnal intercourse against order of nature (s377). As society evolves, societal moralities change. Indeed, societal moralities have changed greatly worldwide the gay rights movement, cruel and inhumane punishment (eg, the death penalty), etc. This can be seen in the American decisions expanding homosexual rights and the fervor in the Singaporean Parliamentary Debates concerning s377A.In this day and age when people are arguably getting more well-informed, it is possible that the societal morality we are moving towards (as a result of greater public deliberation) is the objective, external and immutable objective morality, which some say can be realized either through rational reasoning (taking equal human dignity as the first principle) or through the interposition of a divine creator (one can study religious texts and come up with a core of objective morality).What Lord Devlin, a giant in his time, is saying, is that governments should protect the moral fabric of society by morals legislation; in other words, enforcing societal morality, or as some interpret it, objective morality. Not all morals need be legislated (eg, adultery) as societal levels of tolerance is not reached.In application to maintenance claims against women, the legislative bar under the Womens Charter, might be due to morals legislation. The moral legislated might be: Women should not be made to pay maintenance because they are weak, incapable and mere chattels. They are the weaker gender.First, is this moral norm correct? Second, if so, should the law enforce this norm? Regardless of whether we are talking about societal morality or objective morality, the outcome is the same.In terms of societal morality, it should be clear that the contemporary norm is that women are neither chattels nor the (financially) weaker gender (at least, generally) (the High Court has also ruled so in a tort case). Since my first interrogatory is answered in the negative, the second interrogatory is moot.In terms of objective morality, the starting point (as is generally accepted) is the equal dignity of persons. Is it dignified for women to be treated as the weaker gender? I would think not.In conclusion, the law should be amended beyond what was proposed, as Gary Oo suggests. With the equal status of men and women, the court should be the final arbiter, taking into account all circumstances as the interests of justice require. The committee should more closely examine the moral reasoning behind this gender-biased law, whether this is an appropriate basis/justification of legislation.How would justice be better served?