又讲关于婚姻法的问题。

重要的话说三遍：

婚内财产不等于共同财产。

婚内财产不等于共同财产。

婚内财产不等于共同财产。

1. 中国法律和新加坡法律不一样，不一样，不一样 （再说三遍）.....

按照中国的法律，婚后获得的财产属于夫妻共同财产。

摘自百度百科：夫妻共同财产，是指在夫妻关系存续期间夫妻所共同拥有的财产。

所以，按照中国法律， 结婚后的财产，“你的就是我的，我的还是我的” （朱重八语）

举个例子，在中国已婚夫妇其中一人持有的房子，理论上讲想要做委托公证的话，需要配偶声明无相关权利或者同意委托才可以做这个公证。

在新加坡，共同财产是共同财产，婚内财产是婚内财产。两件事不能划等号。

新加坡没有”夫妻共同财产”这个概念，只有共同财产（jointly-owned property)这个概念。

2. 什么是共同财产？

任何两个以上的人，共同拥有某个财产，这几个人都算是共同拥有。比如HDB房子，比如银行的联名账户。

注意的是新加坡法律有一个很有意思的原则叫做生存者权利（survivorship）。意思是说，当共同拥有者死亡，其共同拥有的财产产权自动归幸存的其他共有者所有。这项权利是排在遗产继承权之前 。所以共同有用的房产在死者死亡时不会被遗产继承，只会自动转让所有权。

说个冷知识：两个共有人同一场车祸死了，无法得知谁先死谁后死，该财产怎么继承？新加坡法律规定，这种情况发生时假设年长的先死。所以共有财产自动归年幼的死者所有。然后作为年幼死者的遗产分配。

扯远了，回来讲婚内财产。

总之你的个人财产，不管婚前还是婚后，你的就是你的 ，我的还是我的。互相不影响。这是新加坡法律和中国法律最大的区别。

3. 什么是婚内财产(matrimonialasset)。

婚内财产其实专指“在离婚时参与分配的财产”。这里其实需要考虑两个问题：第一步，是否参与分配。第二步，如果参与分配，按照什么比例分配。

关于什么财产参与分配（也就是什么财产属于婚内财产），法律说的很明确：（妇女宪章112条（10）款）

a. 无论婚前婚后，夫妻双方各人或共同获得的，要么用以婚姻生活相关目的，要么在婚姻存续期间由夫妻中一人或两人共同使其增值的财产。以及

b. 其他任何婚姻存续期间夫妻中任何一方获得的财产（馈赠和遗产继承除外）。

根据之前提的那个案例，婚前首付，婚后继续还贷的房子算婚内财产，参与分配。

4. 如何分配。

参与分配不代表对半分。

参与分配不代表对半分。

参与分配不代表对半分。（再说三遍）

新加坡法庭需要做的是对婚内财产进行公平和合理的分配（见Leong Wai Kum的文章）。

法庭考虑的主要是三个因素：

a. 双方对婚内财产的直接经济贡献（例如首付，还贷，装修等等）。

b. 双方对婚内财产的间接经济贡献（例如一方负责还贷，另一方负责养家）。

c. 双方对婚姻的间接贡献（例如家庭主妇不工作照顾家的情况）。

然后综合考量，做出一个合理的分配比例方案。

所以原则上，既不会出现家庭主妇辛苦半辈子什么财产都拿不到的情况，也不会出现男人通常担心的“见面分一半”的情况。

Google search 　“2015 Family Law – Matrimonial Assets – Division indirect contribution site:singaporelaw.sg”

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/15924-arx-v-ary-2015-sghc-55

妻子：直接贡献27-30%，间接贡献20-23% －》平分

46　　　　　As far as indirect non-financial contributions were concerned, the defendant claimed that she took care of the household and all the needs of the children, albeit with the assistance of the maid.^{[note: 14]}　The defendant also highlighted that the plaintiff was absent from the household for about 40-45% of the time due to his work commitments and that she was the sole caregiver of children during those periods.^{[note: 15]}　In support of her position that she made greater indirect contributions towards the household and children, the defendant highlighted various episodes where she had to tend to the medical needs of the children and helped them with their homework without any assistance from the plaintiff.^{[note: 16]}　The defendant gave examples of her active involvement in the school-related activities of the children,^{[note: 17]}　and highlighted the efforts she took to manage the healthcare needs of the plaintiff. Lastly, it was pointed out that the defendant’s indirect contributions had increased since the separation, as she had to singlehandedly managed the family, and especially so after the plaintiff relocated to live and work in Hong Kong.^{[note: 18]}　The boys stayed home with the defendant until they enrolled for boarding school in Malaysia. The elder son, A, went to boarding school in August 2013 and he was joined by his brother, B in September 2014.

47　　　　　A related and general theme that featured across the submissions made on behalf of the defendant was the lucrative career she had given up to become a homemaker, and it was this sacrifice of her career that allowed the plaintiff to achieve his current financial success.^{[note: 19]}　It was also specifically highlighted that her assistance to the plaintiff during the early years of the marriage, when the plaintiff was a student, was a factor that the court should consider under s 112(2)(g) of the Act in favour of the defendant.^{[note: 20]}

56　　　　　Having assessed the evidence and submissions of the parties, I was satisfied that the defendant did contribute to the household and welfare of the children especially since the plaintiff was travelling (40-45% of the time) and that she stopped working so as to focus on the family. I also found that she was able to highlight clear examples of her indirect contributions as the caregiver of the children. In this regard, her participation in the school-related activities of the children was noted.