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.