MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend Mr Seah Kian Peng for taking this initiative and the MPA group for strengthening the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill (MPA).

Although this Bill is not meant to legislate filial piety or to place a price upon filial piety, it allows the Government to emphasise that filial piety, underpinned by Asian moral values, is still relevant to a modern society like ours. Our parents cared for us and brought us up, and it is only our duty to look after their well-being when they are no longer independent.

Sir, currently, the Tribunal and Commissioner have very limited powers in terms of accessing data and information about the adult children. This significantly hinders the operation of the MPA. Clause 8 inserts a new section 14A to empower the Tribunal or the Commissioner to obtain information, records, documents or articles from officers of the necessary authorities. Sir, this is a positive step towards enhancing the operation of the MPA in serving its original purpose as the Tribunal and Commissioner are now able to better assess the ability of the parent and his children to maintain him.

Sir, I am all for the spirit of the MPA, but I would like to seek clarifications on certain proposed amendments in the Bill.

Column: 1695

Sir, the Bill seeks to emphasise that the financial ability of children will be a huge factor in considering the monthly maintenance payment to the parent. I am concerned about the increase in manpower and resources that this will bring. I understand from the Workgroup’s consultation paper that offices will be adequately resourced to ensure prompt payments by children. Sir, clause 9 allows information to be had by the Tribunal. Could I seek clarification on how this will work such that there will not be a drastic increase in the amount of manpower and resources required in pressing for prompt payments? How would these costs be defrayed?

Sir, I understand that the usual practice is a monthly maintenance payment rather than a lump sum. Considering the financial background of children, it is a fair thing to do, but I am afraid that this might result in an abuse of the system by children. Every now and then, after the settlement process has ended, those who want to shirk responsibility may try to worm their way out by citing a lack of financial ability to make the maintenance payments. How do we ensure that there is no such disruption and what recourse is available for the claimants? How do we enforce the monthly payments in an expeditious way?

Sir, as much as this Bill is meant to preserve family ties, there could be a possible breakdown of the relationship between the parent and the child or the children when such maintenance applications are made. We cannot eradicate the possibility of violence or ill will on both sides. Are there further measures to ensure the safety of parents who have made such maintenance applications? Would there be a close monitoring of such cases and intervention in the form of counselling for the affected parties?

Column: 1696

Sir, I would like to check whether the Workgroup would have figures on parents who were abused by their children following the application for maintenance. These further measures are necessary to promote the legislative intent of the Bill such that parents are not afraid to make such maintenance applications when necessary.

Once again, I would like to commend the Workgroup for putting together this Bill. I agree that a settlement procedure is the best way to reconcile a parent and his adult children through this "many-helping-hands" approach. Family issues are sensitive and this Bill aptly recognises that.

With that, I support the Bill.

4.04 pm

Mr Seng Han Thong (Yio Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The Chinese say, "It is better to serve our parents a glass of water when they are around than offer them ham when they are dead." This shows that the best practice of filial piety is love from the heart rather than offerings after they depart.

The Chinese character for filial piety "孝" sees the elderly "老" being carried by the son "子". It means that children should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining their parents. It is exactly in this spirit that the Act was enacted years back and it is also due to this spirit that I support the amendment.

The amendment will give the Family Tribunal more power and make the law more effective. However, this will not make the children more filial. The Act will be more effective because it empowers the Tribunal to obtain information to locate the children's whereabouts. Children paying up under the order of the

*Cols. 1807-1808.

Column: 1697

Tribunal is simply fulfilling his duty but he is not going to be more filial. Filial piety cannot depend on legislation.

It is worth mentioning that this amendment is in line with our Asian society's traditional value. First, the amendment recommends pre-filing conciliation before formally going to the Tribunal. This is in line with the common belief that "one does not wash one's dirty linen in public". Traditionally, we believe that even a righteous official cannot solve his own family disputes ( 清官难理家务事). Family disputes are best to be discussed and solved among the family members themselves.

Second, when formulating the law, we take into consideration the underlying principle of reciprocity. If parents fail in their responsibility in bringing up their children, they may not have the right to request for maintenance from the children. Some may argue that despite this, children should still take responsibility in caring their parents as they have brought them up.

The Chinese say that every family has its own problems (家家有本难念的经). Therefore, it requires the mediator at the Tribunal to have a listening ear. We urge the Tribunal to listen to the views of both parties and find out what is the specific problem. Some children are indeed financially unable to pay, not that they do not want to. If the children cannot provide for the parents for financial reasons, then the responsibility to take care of these old people falls on a sound social safety net, including CDCs, various charities and welfare organisations.

The amendment will ensure that aged parents will be taken care of by the family members, especially their children. We also know that legislation cannot bring about filial piety. Filial piety should start

Column: 1698

from the family and community education. From the many family-based activities organised by our community, we are reassured that our community embraces the spirit that one cares for the aged in the community in the same way as one cares for his own aged family members ( 老吾老以及人之老).

Sir, I support the amendment.

4.07 pm

Mrs Mildred Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am privileged to have been part of a group of my fellow MPs to have worked on such an issue as the elderly and how this can be tackled sensibly and, yet at the bottom of it all, dollars and cents only matter when they are properly matched to values such as compassion, care for the elderly, respect and reciprocity.

First, the law already enforces an obligation on children to pay for their parents' living needs. These current amendments merely render the existing law more concretely. It already assumes that society feels that this sort of duty is not just a moral one, but also one that is enforceable. Having already made it into a law, it is only sensible to me to make the law as easy to implement as possible, which is the essence of the amendments today.

I must say that in this regard, I come to the side of the parents – once a ruling has been made to obtain financial assistance from the children, the duty of care has been established and the children ought to pay up. If we allow them to walk away and dodge payments, we are forced to spend money and time chasing them down as if we were ah longs or illegal moneylenders – a situation no one wants and most certainly parents, too, have their pride and self-esteem. And parents who have looked after their children well and

Column: 1699

their children have now the financial ability to care for them should be responsible. If they do not take on this responsibility, we do whatever is needed to empower public officials to help.

Second, these amendments are necessary but they are not sufficient. Part of the justification of this law lies in the fact that children should look after and pay for their parents because their parents paid for their upbringing. No. But we are not speaking of any business investments here. There can be no audit that will give us a clear idea of the flow of feelings and emotions, of love denied, or affection withheld, or incompetent care, or egregious disregard for the elderly. I can say with authority that in a business transaction, it is wrong for anyone to enrich himself from the company coffers by inflating his expense claims or by hiding these actions from his directors. But who am I to say that a child should honour his parents by giving them respect and dignity? Who am I to say that money paid out should be returned when the paying out was unconditional? Yet, the difference with corporate responsibility is not so different. The reason we accept the norms of corporate governance – that it is good to be accountable, to be transparent, to curb unfettered discretion – is, at the end, a moral one. We agree that this is the "good and right" thing to do. So, too, we need to make sure there is such a code or value for the family about what is "good and right".

In a way, the MPA is only at the tail end of the work. The MPA is merely a way of codifying one principle of this code – that the first port of call for parents should be their children. They should not go immediately to the State. This only works, however, if the children and the parents themselves agree to abide by and work according to this code. When I say "code", I do not mean laws such as the MPA, I mean the principles that underlie it.

Column: 1700

The United Nations agrees that governments should deal with the elderly according to the following principles – independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. The UN calls these principles "Principles for Older Person" and were adopted by the general assembly in 1991. There are many countries who hope to solidify these principles into laws of their land. For example, in India, they have the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007; in China, the principle of the People's Republic of China on the protection and rights and interests of the elderly 1996; and America, the Older Americans Act (section 721) which prevents elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.

While these may differ from MPA in its application, they all try and capture the values which we feel older people, that is, our parents, ought to have. Law, however, is a poor vehicle for values. If we want to make sure that these principles are learnt and accepted, we ought to look elsewhere. One easy answer would be to say that parents should teach these values and schools can help us reinforce them.

On public engagement and national conversations: being a respected older person and the responsibility of being part of a family – I do think that some form of public engagement needs to take place about the roles of children and parents, the sort of family that each member wants to build and each understands the expectations of the future.

In our Asian context, I think that most parents think of their children as their children for life and give little thought to the possibility that one day they might need their children for both financial and emotional assistance. My colleague, Mr Seah Kian Peng, has spoken about the policy memos written by the Lee Kuan

Column: 1701

Yew School of Public Policy students which I read with much interest. One of them had a quote from a Roman philosopher Cicero who said that "old age will only be respected if it fights for itself, maintains its rights, avoids dependence on anyone, and asserts control over its own to the last breath." I do not think he was talking about the MPA, but I do think what he said has great force today. He was, I think, making the point about someone who says, "Here I am, I have planned for my life, provided for myself and I am master of my life." The question before us today is when we are old, can we be masterful and independent – a respected responsible older person that Cicero talks about?

If we agree that being a good son or daughter means providing for parents, if we agree that being a good parent means not neglecting our children, then should we move from discussing the principles to making this a reality and into policies we make and how we can implement this and weave it into the fabric of society?

I would ask the House to consider something more concrete and practical. Have a series of pro-family statements that will lead to action, but born out of national dialogue and public engagement. One example could be a statement like: We should give $x (be it $5 or $20 or whatever amount you determine) of our income to our parents when we first start work, and this could be cumulated over time. Today, there is a CPF Top-up Scheme for parents, but I would like to suggest an opt-out system where when a person begins work, a certain pre-determined base is automatically deducted from his or her CPF account and credited to the parents’ CPF account (be it father or mother or both). This account can be called the Parents' Savings Account and can only be drawn down by parents on a monthly basis after they reach the age of

Column: 1702

55 or 62. This amount can also be used as part of the parents' Medisave, MediShield or living expenses. And like charities, their contributions can be, perhaps, given tax deduction and, better yet, double tax deduction. Obviously if the parent is not deserving, or for any reasons best known to the individuals, they can also choose not to contribute to the Parents Savings Account and therefore opt out.

Having discussed this extensively before I came to the House, I realise that there are many pros and cons with this suggestion, including the definition of "parents". Would it include stepparents, adopted parents, foster parents and things like that? But I felt that it was a proposition worth considering. And based on the survey that Mr Seah mentioned earlier on, where 90% of the 4,000 young people surveyed believed and felt that they would care and support their parents, I felt that it was a worthwhile proposition. With an ageing population, we should consider this now when we are young rather than address the needs when we are old or when relationships break down and we have to rely on the MPA.

Sir, let me end with an enduring image that has stayed in my mind while working on the amendments. As part of the process of drafting the legislation, Members of the Committee sat in on the work of the Tribunal.

This case stayed in my mind. It was about a widow in her 80s. She has five living children. One daughter, divorced, had been the main caregiver to her mother for many years. She recently remarried and now lives with her husband in Malaysia. The applicant has multiple medical conditions – kidney failure, heart problems, diabetic, hypertension and she needs daily dialysis. With her daughter’s departure, the widow was then passed to the care of her eldest son.

Column: 1703

In one year, this son exhausted all his savings and her medical bills were mounting. His mother needs regular dialysis and he carries her down from his flat and brings her for dialysis treatment and, oftentimes, this has resulted in him being late for work. He now wants his other siblings to share the load. What struck me was not just his call to share the financial responsibility but for them to visit her. I was moved by his story but I soon learnt that each of the other three siblings who were present had his or her own story to tell regarding his or her financial situation.

The Tribunal then ordered a payment of $25 from each of them. My first reaction was about the amount disbursed. But as I reflected upon it, it was a wise decision – it was not just about money, it was about healing within this family. I think the daughters now feel that they are able to contribute within their means and they may begin to visit their mum, as they were concerned about the financial responsibility if they had any contact with her. But even with this amount, the other son said it was difficult for him as he had just lost his job. And when asked how he was looking after his family, he replied, "My father-in-law."

The external intervention provided by MPA was an objective resolution to how much one should pay for a mother who needs a lifetime of care. The widow will still need help from Government agencies and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). I believe this lady will be given ComCare assistance. Her medical bills will be subsidised. Yet, the principle still holds, even if it is a thin $25 thread, people have a duty to care for their parents.

Family ties and social conditions are complex and complicated. One cannot go in with any assumptions at all. Do not be quick to anger, to judge or moralise. Who

Column: 1704

knows why the man lost his job, could not find another or why he could not visit his mother? Who knows what happened between a mother and her daughters?

I think more than ever that a good outcome is not just about getting payment for the parent but also getting some form of family life back to the people who find themselves in difficulty, not just the financial aspects but the relationships within – the healing process for this family has begun. The Workgroup's conciliation-first approach is still the essence at the Tribunal. This, to me, is the meaning and importance of MPA.

Sir, I thank you for your patience and I support the Bill.

4.20 pm

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

Let me first commend the hon. Member for Marine Parade and his Committee Members for the work they have put into this Bill and for tackling probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent times in Singapore.

The Bill does not seek to do away with or undermine the principles which underpinned the original Act. But in seeking to improve its administration and operation, it reinforces the policy behind the Act. The controversies of this legislation have been fully debated and will continue to rage on. I cannot add to the arguments made by both sides. I am heartened to learn about the results of the survey done by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy about what our youths intend to do when they grow up and to look after their parents. But what will they do when the rubber hits the road? It may be that as our society evolves, the policies and the laws we have to maintain

Column: 1705

our elderly will have to be radically changed. But I do not believe that time has come.

One thing we can agree on is that despite the increase in the number of applications, the absolute numbers remain small. What that means is also debatable. But it is clear that taking your own flesh and blood to Court or the Tribunal is still a bridge too far for many. I do not think that is entirely a bad thing. But if parents or siblings do take that step, we should make the ordeal as quick, efficient and as fair as possible. I would like to have added "painless", but I think that is a bit difficult. I therefore support the measures to streamline the process and to enable the Tribunal to have access to as much information as possible so that they can reach a just decision.

In this regard, I have a few points I hope the hon. Member will clarify.

First, a new applicant must refer his claim to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner may refer him to any relevant Government agencies for assistance. Two points arise: First, while I understand the rationale for this step, is there not a real risk that the resolution of the application will be delayed? For example, if the applicant is referred to, say, the CDC for assistance, time will be taken to investigate the claim. The end result may be that the agency may refuse assistance because the applicant has got working children who can support him, which brings him back to square one. Second, and I think more fundamentally, by sending the applicant to a Government agency first, are we not sending a message about who bears the primary responsibility for maintaining one’s parents? I understood from the hon. Member's speech that the first line of care should remain with the family.

Column: 1706

My second point of clarification is this: section 5(6) of the current Act directs the Tribunal to refer the parties to a conciliation officer before hearing an application. The Bill now brings that step forward by directing that all new applications be referred to the Commissioner, who may then refer the parties for conciliation. I support the conciliation-first approach. However, is there a need to refer the matter to a different officer for conciliation? That adds another layer and will delay matters. Can the Tribunal not attempt conciliation before deciding on the application? After all, the facts relevant for conciliation will likely be the same facts for the final determination of the application. This approach is not unprecedented. Our Court judges often help parties to explore settlement before trial and only proceed to hear the case when it is clear that settlement is not possible. Litigating parties have often found this extremely helpful. Having the Tribunal facilitate conciliation will therefore streamline and expedite the process. And the final order made can expressly reflect the fact that it was reached by settlement instead of by compulsory order. The parties will also likely treat the conciliation efforts of the Tribunal more seriously as opposed to the efforts of a counsellor.

My third clarification is this. The Bill gives the Tribunal or the Commissioner extensive powers to obtain information from Government agencies or statutory bodies. This is a powerful tool, which some other agencies do not have. I have one query. Is the Tribunal permitted to disclose the information it obtained in the course of the proceedings, such that it will be revealed to all the parties appearing before the Tribunal? There is no expressed reference in the Bill to this.

If the Tribunal cannot disclose the information, then it may be unfair to the parties as they will not have the opportunity to know the information the

Column: 1707

Tribunal is relying on to make its determination or to respond to that information. I hope the Member can clarify whether the Tribunal can disclose that information.

4:25 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Working Committee led by fellow MP Mr Seah Kian Peng on the amendment Bill.

I rise in support of the Bill. I am of the view that this Bill would address some of the concerns as we grapple with issues that arise from an ageing and fast-changing society. There are many challenges that a family unit has to contend with today. Whatever stresses that we face in our lives, the most "sacred relationship" is between parents and children. This love relationship is also the main reason for the many appeals that we have from our residents – appealing for schools, asking for additional resources for tuition fees, housing. And all these appeals are for the children.

After visiting the Tribunal in Lengkok Bahru and witnessing four cases, I asked myself – what went wrong? Families who failed to imbue good traditional values when their children were young? Or, in some cases, have parents themselves failed in their obligations to care for their family? With many families having both parents working, did we, as parents, plant the biblical mustard seeds deep enough in good earth to set them to grow? In the long term, we must tackle this planting of seeds as one of the root causes of the problems we are facing today, that is, if the seeds are not planted deep enough, the children will grow up with a different set of values, and filial piety and respect for their elders are gone with the wind.

While today’s Bill may give some clearing of the bottleneck in the problems that are confronting some families in the

Column: 1708

maintenance of their parents, I would like to urge the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to do more to assist working parents to act responsibly as parents, give our children a good upbringing and imbue in them with strong and sound family values.

Now that we have the passage of this Bill, I am pleased that the amendment provides an opportunity for the parents and children to meet under the aegis of a pre-tribunal mediation. This is a far better platform as a first step in bringing the parents and the children together to discuss and work out an amicable solution in the presence of a trained counsellor than it is for the parties to go before a more formal legal setting. The environment is more conducive to work out a compromise than in a formal legal setting. This mediation may induce the children to be more forthcoming to meet and hear out their parents’ claims. Although there is no mention of the number of mediation sessions, I would like to urge the Tribunal to allow the sessions to go on as long as there is progress towards a good outcome.

I am extremely pleased to note that there are provisions for the conciliation officer. Many a time, family members have reached a stage where they are unable to talk to each other. With the gentle probing of a trained counsellor, issues can be put into perspective. Tempers and angry words across tables can be minimised. The power of listening can be emphasised.

I also note that the Bill addresses the question of "medical costs" as another factor to be looked into in deciding whether a parent’s income and financial resources are sufficient to maintain him or her. This is very important as, more often than not, in the context of an ageing population, medical costs is one of the key components in a claim. This is

Column: 1709

especially so for routine medical costs, such as for high blood pressure, diabetic medication and also occasional hospitalisation medical costs. And all these medical costs are common and come with ageing.

Ironic though it may seem, but it is a reality that many parents do not know where to contact their adult children who have moved out or have set up their own families. Some only have their mobile phone numbers. To me, this is sometimes a tell-tale sign of the strength of the bond between the parents and the children. Many are not sure of their children’s whereabouts, let alone what or where they are working, or even their marital status. It is a sad scenario but it is a reality in today’s society.

As we know, the telephone companies are not obliged to disclose the address of the owners of the telephone numbers. So, for the parents to serve a legal notice on their children is in itself a great challenge. Although the Tribunal is now able to get the information from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), the information, however, may not be updated by the children. If information of current telephone and hand phone numbers can be obtained from the telephone companies, this will assist the Family Court better. Let us monitor the effectiveness of this amendment and, if necessary, we would ask for a review of the Act again.

I support the amendment Bill.

4.30 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I must say I have been privileged to be a part of the Workgroup. The purpose of my speech this afternoon is to elucidate some of the broad principles that been brought to bear in making these amendments and,

Column: 1710

hopefully, will provide a guide for the subsequent application of the Maintenance of the Parents Act.

Sir, the aim of these amendments is to improve the operation of the Act. It is not to implement a radical shift in policy or approach.

It has been more than 15 years since the Act was passed in 1994. Since then, we have been able to observe its provisions in operation and realised that improvements can be made to it. These include improving the application and hearing processes provided for by the Act, increasing the emphasis on non-litigious methods of resolution, and ensuring a proper balance amongst the interests of the various stakeholders involved.

The original Act provides for applicants to apply to the Tribunal for maintenance. This created confusion for some applicants as to who precisely to contact. We have now clarified matters by setting out clearly in the amendments that the Commissioner should be the first person to approach. We have given the Commissioner enhanced powers to handle this role, which I will touch on later.

However, repeated applications must be treated differently. Where such applications have merit, the Workgroup raised concerns that a compulsory review of each application by the Commissioner could add unnecessary length to the process. Where such applications are frivolous or vexatious, the application should not be allowed to use up the limited resources of the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

Hence, we have drafted the amendments to provide that repeated applications need not be reviewed by the Commissioner. Instead, an applicant can proceed directly to the Tribunal. If his application is frivolous or vexatious – for

Column: 1711

example, if it has been heard and dismissed by the Tribunal before – the President or a deputy President of the Tribunal may dismiss it as such. To safeguard against human error or misjudgement, an aggrieved applicant may appeal to the Tribunal to have his case heard, or if he is unsuccessful before the Tribunal, to go to the High Court.

I have observed cases where parents abuse the Act to express their frustration with or even harass their children. Allowing a frivolous or vexatious claim to be dismissed at an early stage will protect the children's interests. For example, it will protect them from having to take time off from work to appear before the Tribunal each time a claim, however baseless, is made. Parents should also be aware that the Act provides for costs to be awarded at the Tribunal's discretion. If they repeatedly submit frivolous or vexatious applications, the Tribunal may award costs against them. The Act is not meant to be abused.

The Tribunal will also now include up to four deputy Presidents, who may each take the place of the President for a Tribunal hearing. This means that the Tribunal can now meet and hear applications more often, so that the waiting time for applications to be heard will be shorter. But this does not mean that standards will be lowered – all deputy Presidents will have to meet the same minimum requirements and qualifications as the President, that is, they will all have to possess the qualifications required for a District Judge.

The relationships and the needs of a parent and his children are very personal and the Act must tread sensitively. As far as possible, a litigious method of resolving family disputes, such as through a hearing – which is akin to an open battle between the parties – should be avoided in favour of more co-operative methods, which are

Column: 1712

more supportive of family ties. The amendments support and emphasise this.

We have increased the powers of the Commissioner, who will now review each case and refer the parties for mediation or to appropriate agencies before each case proceeds to the Tribunal. This is an addition to the Tribunal’s existing obligations to refer a case for mediation before hearing it. The hon. Member in his earlier speech has wondered whether or not by requiring the Commissioner to mediate all applications before it, and also subsequently to require the Tribunal to refer a case or a matter before a conciliation officer would delay the relief for the parents. I believe in the administration of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is to try and mediate. The underlying principle is to mediate the differences between the parties and to the extent that the parents are in need, I believe, there are sufficient safeguards to provide a temporary relief for the parents. I do not think that in the interim while they work out the issues under conciliation, these parents need to be without support or without needs. I am sure that in the administering the Act, with the support of the community, there will be sufficient provisions that can be extended to the needy parents in the interim and in the hope that the mediation and conciliation will help resolve differences without parties having to go to the full length of the application under the Maintenance of Parents Act.

The idea of the Maintenance of Parents Act is to encourage people to attend the mediation and to work things out together. The Commissioner now has powers to require them to appear for mediation. The failure to appear can be taken by the Tribunal into consideration at the hearing itself. Meditation is essentially the key in addressing the differences between the parties before the Tribunal at the hearing.

Column: 1713

The amendments will also allow consent orders to be made. Consent orders set down in writing any agreement reached between the parent and his children after mediation. The President or a deputy President can give a consent order the same effect as a Maintenance Order made by the Tribunal. This means that they will be enforceable in the same manner. Because it represents an agreement between the parties, they cannot be appealed against to the High Court unless fraud, duress, threat or misrepresentation is alleged. It is envisioned that this will encourage the parties to work together to come to an agreement even before a Tribunal hearing as such agreements are now enforceable.

The provisions for the enforcement of Maintenance Orders under the Act tap on the provisions for the enforcement of Maintenance Orders under the Women’s Charter. They will, therefore, dovetail with and be enhanced by the proposed changes to the Women's Charter as previously announced by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), once these changes take effect.

However, some needy parents are unable to identify or locate their children in the first place. Even if they can be located, the children may hide details of their financial situation. Parents, too, may not be above this. Hence, the amendments empower the Commissioner and the Tribunal to obtain information from various Government agencies to locate the children, or supplement or verify information provided by the parties, to better ensure just results.

This will, of course, raise some concerns about privacy. Nonetheless, I believe that these amendments address concerns about information-gathering powers by being structures to be very narrow in scope. For example, the

Column: 1714

information obtained can only be used for the specified purposes and is to be kept confidential strictly.

The idea here is that to empower the Commissioner or the Tribunal to get information to ensure the veracity of information provided so as to help them in the mediation process. The point was raised earlier as to whether or not by keeping these information to themselves and not extending these to the parties in the dispute would be fair. We will have to bear in mind that this is not a litigious process, but really an effort to conciliate and verify the information given. If the children or the parents concerned are aware that the powers are extended to the Tribunal and the Commissioner to verify the information through their extensive powers to gather information with the various Government agencies, it should prevail upon them to be truthful when making submissions before the Tribunal or the Commission. So it would have a very fairly salutary effect on the parties before the Commissioner or the Tribunal.

I would like to conclude, Sir, that the Act does not aim to legislate love or filial piety. Instead, it aims to enforce social obligations expected of a financially capable child to look after his parents. These are social obligations that would be unfair to abandon to the care of society at large.

The Act is, therefore, a safety net for needy parents and our goal in drafting these amendments are to patch the holes in this safety net. However, in the long run, our goal as a society should be to increase family cohesiveness, so that as few people as possible will need to use it eventually.

4.39 pm

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of adult children in Singapore

Column: 1715

appreciate the love and hard work their parents have put in for them and, in turn, provide them with comfort and care during their twilight years. Unfortunately, there is a small but growing trend of neglect or abuse of the elderly by their children. The increasing number of maintenance applications over the last five years is certainly a cause for concern.

A number of senior citizens have come to seek help during my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). Some requested for financial assistance. Others asked to be put in a home. Most of them have more than two children; some with well-paying jobs. When we discuss the possibility of referring them to the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal, it is clear that most parents would rather starve than sue their children in Court. Instead of severing the emotional bonds with their children or whatever little that is remaining, they would rather forgo the money. Thus, it is with some ambivalence with which I regard today’s Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.

On one hand, we should respect the wishes of the elderly. On the other hand, if we do not recover the money from the children, the financial responsibility to support them will be transferred elsewhere, to other siblings, charity groups or taxpayers. This is clearly unfair.

The amendment Bill will empower the Commissioner to require all parties to attend conciliation sessions. This will allow all parties to have candid discussions and iron out issues with the assistance and guidance of mediators. Under the current Act, these sessions are voluntary and often respondent parties do not turn up for the necessary discussion, leaving the applicants no choice but to go for litigation. These conciliation sessions will go some way in achieving our objective of financial recovery while minimising the negative effects upon the

Column: 1716

already weak ties between parents and children.

Some may argue that the State and charities can afford to pay for the care of abandoned elderly in view of the small number of such cases. However, this is clearly unfair to our donors and taxpayers and constitutes poor utilisation of much-needed funds. We must also bear in mind our rapidly ageing population, dwindling number of children per family, and what this means if the trend of leaving to the State to care for the elderly is allowed to grow unchecked.

Thus, I support the amendment of section 14 which will give the Commissioner the power to access data from Government agencies to locate a missing respondent and recover their means to pay. Similarly, this power will enable the Commissioner to check if the claims of children who say that they are unable to pay are indeed true. I wonder if we can go further to protect the elderly. In addition to securing financial support for them, how about better stewardship?

Allow me to share an example from my MPS. An old lady had a joint account with one of her children, a daughter, into which a total monthly contribution of $1,000 from her six children is deposited. But this daughter only gives her $10 a day and she, alone, decides on how the money is spent. The old lady has been living alone but now wants to move into a nursing home because she is getting weaker after an illness. But this daughter refused to release the money from the bank account for her mother to pay for the nursing home, despite the repeated requests from her siblings.

This case highlights an area we should look into. What do we have in place to ensure that the guardian or custodian acts in the interest of the elderly? How do we prevent financial abuse which often involves the misuse of power of attorney where usually a trusted relative given the

Column: 1717

right to make financial decisions on behalf of an elderly person? We hear stories of how some children and relatives take advantage of the elderly and cheat them, especially those suffering from dementia. Do we have any monitoring system and safeguards in place? Do we have any data or ongoing studies on this?

Another sad MPS case was an old man whose children gave him money every month but did not care for him. He has dementia and is being neglected. We also read recently about a case in the Lianhe Zaobao where his son hardly visits his parents due to pressure from his wife and in-laws, though he does deposit a few hundred dollars into their bank accounts.

I hope the society does not become one which measures filial piety and responsibility in just financial terms and children would assume that love, care, concern or even attention is no longer necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Last week, I went to a talk on Di Zi Gui (Standards for Being a Good Student and Child). Originally, the organisers were expecting 250 people but, in the end, 500 people showed up and many had to stand to listen. Parents today are very concerned when raising their children. They want to give the best to the next generation. Parents usually do this without the thought of getting any return, regardless of whether the child is "good" or "bad". In the parents' heart, a child is always a child.

Di Zi Gui states that parents love me since I am young, and it is natural for me to be filial to them. If I am not good to my own parents now, my children would not

Column: 1718

be good to me when I become old. On the other hand, if parents do not love me or even hate me, yet I am still filial to them, then this is real virtue. Legendary Emperor Shun's parents were not good to him, but he still obliged to their will. He did not even mind that his stepmother plotted to murder him. His filial piety eventually moved his parents. This story tells us that even if we are not on good terms with our parents, we still try to change them. Filial piety from the bottom of the heart will definitely touch the parents. We should give the same love that our parents have showered on us.

The amendment Bill emphasises that the law will not force children to provide for parents who did not fulfil their responsibilities as parents. This is to be fair. What I would like to know is the definition of parents' responsibility. Is it gauged by time, money or love? If we asked ourselves: are we obedient all the time? There must be moments that we caused sadness and worries to our parents. How many parents are willing to sever ties with their child and leave him to perish? Unless the parent has abandoned his child from birth, any parent would have held, fed and loved his child. The situation might have changed due to gambling, drinking, divorce or remarrying. Do we really have the heart to leave our parents to perish when they are old and sick? Is it fair to ask the Government and taxpayers to pay for his living expenses? We show pity to a stranger, even a little dog or cat, so how can we be so cruel towards our own parents?

The amendment Bill will enable the law to deal with a handful of unfilial children more effectively. At the same time, I hope it does not change people's value of filial piety into a transaction . It is correct to repay kindness but not everything has to be equal and fair. Raising children is a parent's basic nature that demands no return. By the same token, children supporting parents is also

*Cols. 1809-1810.

Column: 1719

an unshirkable responsibility. It is not something we should bargain with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

4.48 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong): ( In Mandarin ):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Workgroup on Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill headed by Marine Parade GRC MP, Mr Seah Kian Peng. The Bill is not new. Fifteen years ago, it was put forward in Parliament and had caused much debate among the public. The key debating point then was that filial piety was a personal behaviour, a private matter, and should not be commented by others nor interfered with by the Government. However, as we pass the Bill this time and make it into law, the discussion will come to an end. We will have a piece of legislature that regulates the relationship between parents and their children.

During the Budget debate this March, Mr Seah suggested amending the Maintenance of Parents Act. The debate was re-ignited with a lot of coverage by the media. Recently, I attended a community event and heard some comments. Some people insisted that filial piety is a private matter and should not be interfered with by outsiders. One man quoted Confucian ideology to support his argument. He said that the Analects talked about the importance of filial piety on many occasions, but it did not mention that the State had to enforce it by law. He also pointed out that he could not remember any other country that has legislation on filial piety, except Singapore.

The Analects of Confucius is a classic of Confucianism, compiled by the

Column: 1720

disciples of Confucius. It reflected Confucius' thoughts comprehensively. Confucius was born in the Spring-Autumn Warring-States period. This year is his 2,561st birthday. Although the Analects did not mention that the State should enforce filial piety by law, it did not object doing this either. I checked some Chinese historical documents and, indeed, found records of enforcing filial piety by law. For example, there is a story in the Biography of the Lord of Hengshan. The original words were, "Prince Shuang was executed for whistle-blowing on his father – the king – and his body was displayed at the marketplace". Prince Shuang's behaviour was considered unfilial. Han Dynasty began in 202 BC, not too far from Confucius' time. We can guess that before this incident, there must be some kind of legislation on this. The law was based on what the society believed as the acceptable behaviour. I deduce that the time of legislation on filial piety should not be far from Confucius' time.

The Book of Filial Piety, said to be written by Confucius, also carried a line which states, "among the 3,000 crimes of the five categories, not being filial is the most severe". The Book was written in 241 BC. We can reasonably deduce that there was such legislation at that time already.

Perhaps Confucius himself did not join in the debate of legislating filial piety, but some of his disciples must have been involved in the legislation process. Confucian scholars thereafter were not against this either. Hence, filial piety is the core of Chinese culture and ancient Chinese laws also stipulated that people must be filial to their parents.

From Sui, Tang to Qing Dynasty, legislations from different historical periods all stipulated what behavior was considered unfilial and how it should be punished. For example, in the Laws of

*Cols. 1811-1818.

Column: 1721

Tang, it was stated: "The protocol says that when children are looking after their parents, they should make their parents happy and not go against their will. They must provide them with food. If they have the ability but refuse to provide for their parents or grandparents, they can sue them and they will be considered guilty." What was the punishment then? According to the Book, if children did not maintain their parents, they would be jailed for two years. Compared to Singapore's current law, the ancient Chinese laws were far stricter.

The reason I mentioned all these ancient Chinese laws is that I want to emphasise that Singapore is not the only country that promotes filial piety, nor is it the first. As early as 2,000 years ago, China already had legislation on filial piety. Besides China, India also has similar legislations. Filial piety is the core value of oriental culture – this is undisputable. In the West, filial piety is also an important value. According to my knowledge, both the US and Canada have laws on filial piety. This shows that filial piety is a universal value and is supported by both ancient civilisations and modern societies. Governments even pass laws to enforce it. However, today we see many incidents of children not providing for their parents. I believe many MPs would have seen this during their Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).

In my constituency, 37% of the residents are over 50 years old. Every week, I see several poor old residents who come to ask for monetary or food aid. I always ask them carefully about the situation in their home, for example, whether their children are looking after them. Some old folks said angrily that, when children get married and have their own family, they forget their parents. Some would say that the children themselves are not doing well financially

Column: 1722

and have too heavy a burden from their own family, and therefore they cannot look after their parents. Looking into their eyes, I see a mix of anger, frustration and deep sadness.

You will understand how they feel if you can see from their point of view. We work hard to raise our children, educate them and help them set up a family. When we are old and cannot work anymore, we hope our children can provide for us. To our disappointment, they now tell us they do not have enough money and cannot even look after themselves. We can only accept the reality and worry about the future. However, if the children are doing well and yet still refuse to maintain their parents, we feel angry and sad. When all the savings are gone, parents have to go to welfare or Government organisations for help. Our heart is filled with sadness when we see this happening. This is how I feel when I see old people asking for help.

The moon waxes and wanes. Around us, there are both good and evil people. There are unfilial children in this world and there are also irresponsible parents. When we ask children to be filial, we must acknowledge that children have the choice of not providing when it comes to irresponsible parents.

For the past six months, members of the Workgroup had worked tirelessly on the amendment of the Maintenance of Parents Act. We went to the Family Tribunal to observe dispute cases to gain a deeper understanding. We noticed that, in some cases, the children were indeed able but unwilling to provide. In some other cases, it was obvious that it was the parents who were being difficult. From the way they talked and behaved, we could see that they probably did not look after their children well when they were young. Now they are old, they want to use the Act to get the children to

Column: 1723

provide for them. Worse still, some parents even use the Tribunal to harass their children. One parent made over 20 applications. When the Tribunal called for court attendance, the parent simply would not attend, but the children, being the party being sued, have to attend. Obviously, the purpose of this parent is not to get maintenance but to torture the children using the current system. This is not an acceptable behaviour. This kind of parents do not deserve to be respected and maintained. They also waste precious resources of the Tribunal and public money. When drafting the amendment, we suggested that the President or Deputy President of the Tribunal be given the authority to dismiss such frivolous applications to ensure fairness to both parties.

Under the current law, when dispute arises between the parents and children, the only way is to go to the Tribunal. In the amendment Bill, we suggested that both parties go through a conciliation process first to solve their dispute peacefully. This will avoid going to the Tribunal and the complete break-up of their relationship. Solving disputes by mediation is the main spirit of the amendment, based on the oriental value that a peaceful family will prosper.

While emphasising the value of family and making sure old people are taken care of, we must also explore how to promote filial piety. Currently, we emphasise the importance of seniors and parents; we have Respect the Aged Week and we celebrate Father's Day and Mother's Day. All these activities are to promote respect for the aged and they have so far made a positive impact.

However, what is missing is an occasion to celebrate filial piety for parents and grandparents. Hence, I propose to set up a Filial Piety Award to showcase those who are filial to their parents and grandparents. Although this is

Column: 1724

a personal behaviour and a fundamental ethic that need not be praised by other people, it is nevertheless a good deed that should be encouraged and emulated. Awarding the behaviour openly will yield twice the result with half the effort.

Ancient people wrote the "24 Filial Piety Stories" based on model behaviours to show generations of people how to be filial. One thousand six hundred years ago, famous Jin calligrapher Wang Xizhi wrote in Lan Ting Xu that the way we looked at the past was how the future would look at us today. Arising from this spirit, it is important that we do something that can be seen as good examples by our descendants. Promoting, awarding and passing on the value of filial piety are such example-setting efforts.

However, I feel that the Filial Piety Award should be initiated and promoted by non-Government organisations, so that it becomes an award that people truly value. If it is driven by the Government, people will see it as an official campaign and will lack enthusiasm and motivation. I hence appeal to civil and cultural organisations, such as NTU Confucius Society and Confucius College, to come forward to establish an annual Filial Piety Award to recognise those filial Singaporeans and to spread their stories as good examples.

Singapore rose from a Third World country to the First World within 30 years through building the economy. Next, I hope we can further improve our ethics through moral education. When its economy and ethics are progressing at the same speed, Singapore will have a brighter future!

Mr Speaker and colleagues, what we have said today may not be remembered, but what we have done today will change people's life and their world.

I sincerely hope that Members can support this amendment, to help those old

Column: 1725

folks who have been deserted by their children and have nobody to depend on to live a life with dignity, and to make them feel that there is justice in the world!

5.03 pm

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA), which was introduced almost 15 years ago in 1996, provides elderly Singapore residents, who are unable to adequately maintain themselves, with a legal channel to seek maintenance from their financially capable children.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): We are all aware of the purpose of the Bill. We are here today to debate on the effectiveness and hopefully agree on the refinement that we need. Allow me, Madam, to cite some examples of cases that I have seen.

I find it harrowing to see aged parents in their 70s living alone; some separated, others divorced. But, in most cases, they have children. In one of the cases, the gentleman has four children – two sons and two daughters – but he lost contact with all of them. He had to file for maintenance from his children because he could no longer drive a taxi to support himself. He even skipped his treatment for rheumatism because he could not afford it. The Central Singapore Community Development Council (CDC) picked up his case and is providing assistance. Another case also involved an elderly man around 70 years old, he was an ex-construction worker and an ex-taxi driver. He lives alone in a 1-room HDB flat. He was married, I think, on two occasions and he has five children from the marriages. After an exhaustive search, contact was made with his son from his second marriage. The son was ordered by the Court to pay

Column: 1726

$100 maintenance, which he did since January 2009. But that is not enough. The Central Singapore CDC and other agencies intervened and offered various other help to him.

What would have happened to these cases if no one lent a hand? Our Government did not shake its responsibility and we, as MPs, work with various agencies to help. But in doing so, we also have to get the children to come forward and not push the buck to the Government and the NGOs. I dread to think what goes on in the minds of these forgotten parents. What do they have to look forward to in life? Where is the generosity in forgiveness? Do their children have any conscience acting in the way they did? Are their children setting good examples themselves for their own children? Let me say this – unless you can show forgiveness, you will not be able to enjoy peace and happiness in life because any resentment you harbour against your parents will always haunt and disrupt your inner self.

The MPA has been viewed by elderly Singaporeans as a tool for them to seek help and support. It is not a means to legislate filial piety, but serves as a reminder to the children who may have overlooked their responsibility to their parents.

Madam, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Act as it introduces more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the MPA (Amendment) Bill Workgroup, led by Mr Seah Kian Peng, for engaging various stakeholders, reviewing the feedback, identifying areas for improvement and making the recommendations on amendments to the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Column: 1727

With regard to the proposed amendments, I strongly support the proposal for compulsory conciliation between parents and children as the first step. This step reconnects the children and the parents.

Sometimes the children are unable to provide or continue the basic maintenance but, because of pride, the children are unwilling to admit so to their parent. There are also cases where a small misunderstanding has caused the break of ties between parents and children. The facilitated reconnection allows this communication to happen and help both parents and children to understand each other's present situation and, probably, predicament.

It also helps to manage both parents' and children’s expectations. The parents need to know and be assured that the children have not abandoned them and still care for them. If indeed the children are struggling to make ends meet, I do not believe they cannot even visit their parents to provide them with the moral and mental support. Does it cost that much to travel to your parents' home to show that you care? As an elderly person, the emotional reward is just as important, if not more important than the financial reward. If the children are themselves poor and cannot afford to assist their parents financially, we should at least expect them to provide moral and mental support.

Madam, with the rising healthcare expenditure, particularly in an ageing population, the proposal to include medical costs as a category for consideration for "basic needs" is very pragmatic and timely. I have reviewed many real cases that we have encountered at the Central Singapore CDC and noticed that the medical costs range from 10% to 60% of their total expenses. In some of the cases, the elderly had to

Column: 1728

resort to inferior medical treatment or even stop seeking medical treatment when they are short of funds. They would prioritise food and housing over their own health.

In view of this, I would also like to encourage the children to take up health insurance for their parents. The health insurance would assure that your parents would receive adequate medical assistance and pay for the unexpected large medical expenses, or help you out during the periods of financial difficulty.

Currently, we may use the Medisave to pay for premiums of the private Medisave-approved Integrated Shield plans, subject to a withdrawal limit of up to $800 per policy per year. However, I would also like to propose that for this limit to be revised upwards to assist the children. I believe this revision is still aligned with Medisave’s objective to help individuals meet their future personal or immediate medical expenses, especially the parents'.

On the proposal to enable the Commissioner and the Tribunal to obtain personal information from Government agencies or statutory bodies, I must emphasise the confidentiality of this information and the need for judicious protection of such information from being misused or even leaked. I am confident that the availability of this information will help reduce the number of cases where an application for maintenance could not be filed because the parents could not provide adequate details about their children.

Although it is proposed that access is allowed to information specifically needed for investigation and conciliation purposes only, may I suggest that we also allow for access to certain information to help the hospitals to recover the parents' medical bills from their children? The hospitals are,

Column: 1729

unfortunately, spending time to get the children to even sometimes come to the table to discuss or assist in the payment of the bills.

Madam, during the recent National Family Celebrations, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented on the importance of keeping family ties and how the values of love, respect and filial piety keep a strong family together.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind myself and all of us that filial piety is a universal value that all Singaporeans share. Children have the responsibility to respect, unconditionally love and take care of their parents as they age. We must not let the values of filial piety to degenerate to become mere duties and responsibilities, void of feelings and emotions. We must treat parents with gratitude and love, and spend quality time with them. We owe them that and so much more.

Sir, I support the Bill.

5.12 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Madam, I rise in full support of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.

Madam, there are several reasons why I did not hesitate to join the Workgroup behind this Bill, when my fellow parliamentarian, Seah Kian Peng, approached me. My constituency has one of the highest number of elderly residents in Singapore. Some of them need financial help; some simply need other forms of love and attention from their children whom they had raised. The social services sector I am familiar with has also been raising concerns over the growing trend that more elderly are growing old alone even when they have grown children whom they raised. Some of these senior

Column: 1730

citizens are simply left in residential homes – not visited, not supported by their families.

Madam, let me first share what the Bill is not about. One, despite its high visibility, this Bill is not one that will directly impact many Singaporeans. In fact, out of a local population of four million, for instance, only about 200 applications a year have been filed by elderly parents at the Tribunal to secure basic financial support. This Bill targets a very small minority of Singaporeans. Only those who are financially capable but choose not to care for their elderly parents without any valid reason.

Two, this Bill is not about promoting the entitlement of parents and encouraging them to take their adult children to task through acrimonious court battles. It is not first resort – it is a last resort. In fact, the amendments create a larger space for conciliatory settlements before a parent officially files a claim to the Tribunal and measures are added to ensure that frivolous and undeserving applications can be dismissed by the President and the proposed Deputy President of the Tribunal.

Three, this Bill is not about creating an additional source of revenue for elderly Singaporeans to meet the lifestyle that they are used to or the annual holiday that they aspire to.

The truth of the matter is that about two-thirds of maintenance payments granted by the Tribunal in the past were less than $360 – the typical Public Assistance quantum and covers only "basic needs", such as food, clothing, housing and, now, medical costs.

And, fourthly, this Bill is definitely not an endorsement of the State to abdicate its duty to provide good essential services, such as education, healthcare, security, housing, transport and social

Column: 1731

services for its people. The State must continue to put in place important programmes, such as the CPF LIFE, active ageing programmes, HDB Lease Buyback Scheme, HDB studio apartments, ComCare and the like, to ensure a stronger infrastructure and safety net for our ageing population. The State must not shirk from its duty of including and providing for those who genuinely need a leg up in society, especially in essential services.

What is this Bill about? Madam, this Bill is about Singaporeans reiterating our commitment to values we deem important – important enough to hardcode into legislation. It is about acknowledging that as a civilisation, there is a sacred relationship between parents and children, which is evident even amongst animals – that parents are expected to raise and look after their children and that children have the moral duty to care for their aged parents and not regard them as "appendices" or "after-thoughts" once they are old or disable. This Bill is about strengthening the moral fibre of our society and reminding young and old again of our traditional values, which we cherish against the national backdrops of Internet broadbands and flashy casinos.

This Bill is about specifying the floor or the minimum standards on how families can be the first line of care and support – the minimum standard being meeting our parents’ basic living needs. No one is forced to commit themselves to higher standards such as forgiving their parents 77 times as what the Church would advise and what my colleagues, for example, Mdm Halimah, Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Zainudin, now have suggested in public, to forgive. This Bill is about the minimum standard expected of and consequences an adult child will face if he disregards the call to feed and clothe his own parents when he is in a financial position to do so.

Column: 1732

Madam, I hear of a minority of Singaporeans who object to the principal Act and to this Bill and who claim that issues like providing for one’s parents are personal choices and filial piety cannot be reduced to simply financials. "Leave the families alone," they say, "and things will sort out themselves. If children would not take care of their parents even if they can afford to, let the State foot the bill." Madam, it is likely that proponents of this school did not realise that it is them, as taxpayers or other charities or donors, who will be subsidising these adult children who would not pay for their parents. Proponents of this school of thought are unlikely to have the opportunity also to serve on the ground and witness the hardships and issues that the different stakeholders in this matter are facing.

Mr Ang, one of my elderly residents, came to my Meet-the-People Session for financial assistance more than once. As my volunteers helped him to complete his ComCare and CDC application forms, we found that he had two able adult children, which will then, of course, dilute his priority to access help. When asked why he would not seek help first from his children, as there are other people who are in greater need on the ComCare list than he, Mr Ang said he did not want to disturb his daughter. His daughter is married and he felt should not be responsible for him. He then shared that his son who had been supporting him had recently not done so and refused to now pick up his phone calls.

Another resident, Mdm Lim, collects scrap boxes, a karang-guni woman and sells them for a living. She comes regularly for food rations and financial assistance from me and my grassroots. Her son, a professional executive, sees her occasionally but refuses to commit to any basic monthly support for Mdm Lim. He also refused to pick up our phone calls when we needed to find out more

Column: 1733

background on the case. Now, people like both Mr Ang and Mdm Lim, who are living on their own and had no other way to locate their children except through the mobile phone to which their children choose not to respond, would definitely benefit from this Bill.

Nursing homes, too, welcome the changes to improve the administration and operation of the principal Act. They especially appreciate the provision for access to records from prescribed authorities to locate the missing adult children, and also the compulsory conciliatory sessions before taking legal action against the children. Staff from the homes have been highlighting their deep concerns of how elderly clients are ignored by their families and left to the sole care of the nursing home staff. Some children, whether they are in Singapore or overseas, even perform the "disappearing act" and abandon their elderly parents at the nursing homes, leaving the charities which operate the homes to not just care for but also raise funds to pay for the parents' stay.

Next, Family Service Centres (FSC). The heads also welcome the proposed amendments. They shared about elderly Singaporeans who do not know what to do or where to seek help when they are in deep financial problems. The Family Service Centres welcome the opportunity to lead their elderly clients for conciliation, instead of going to the court room in the first instance. The FSCs, too, look forward to the streamlining of the administrative processes so they can easily refer these clients for help.

The proposed amendments in the Bill are welcomed by some children as well. Frivolous or vexatious applications by parents without a case are now subject to dismissal at the Tribunal level. The principle of reciprocity will also assure

Column: 1734

children, who are unable to or unwilling to maintain their parents for good reasons, of a platform to air their perspectives before being summoned to court.

Next, more than legislation. Madam, up to last evening, I was still hearing lamentations by nursing home and Family Service Centre staff on the dilution of family as an institution in modern Singapore. More than legislation, I urge the relevant Government Ministries to consider the following suggestions even after this Bill is passed so that families can work in partnership with the State and help agencies to reduce the risk of elderly Singaporeans being neglected or abandoned. These are my suggestions:

(1) Equip parents, especially fathers, through schools and social service agencies to get more involved with their children before it is too late to bond with them. Three local studies from 1999 to 2006 have confirmed that fathers were relatively uninvolved with their children. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) has an excellent "Fathers@School" programme in support of the DadsforLife world-wide movement. The Ministry, in addition to its slew of family life programmes, should look at developing a "Parents for Life" series that target both young and old to equip them with knowledge and skills on parenting. This can include the principles behind the Maintenance of Parents Act. Instead of reaching out primarily to the English-speaking, these programmes should find more effective ways as well to reach the heartlanders in different languages.

(2) Develop a slew of measures to counter the disturbing trend of children neglecting or abandoning their elderly parents at nursing homes. Many service providers face many difficulties with families in discharging clients whose conditions have stabilised and can be discharged for care at home. These

Column: 1735

service providers are also helpless when children decide to visit only at their own convenience, if at all. MCYS, Ministry of Health and the homes should brainstorm on how measures, such as financial and fiscal incentives or even tweaking or fine-tuning admission regulations, to encourage more to care for their elderly in their own homes and not abandon them there.

(3) Let us continue to invest in up-skilling Singaporeans in planning for their retirement, and especially in raising awareness of important schemes, such as the CPF LIFE which provides members with a monthly income for as long as they live. This will minimise the risk of being left in a financial lurch in old age. Even if our adult children are open to supporting us, let us not forget that they, too, are ageing and they, too, will be in need of financial support as well.

(4) Let me repeat my call to tighten the Many-Helping-Hands network so that there is stronger case management and resolution amongst all the help agencies to follow through identified cases. The process leading to the Amendment Bill, as our Workgroup experienced, has surfaced the usual obstacles to delivering effective and more seamless social services in our country – too many schemes, uncoordinated case management leading to agencies tripping over one another as they try to help their clients. We found that many Family Service Centres, homes, voluntary welfare organisations and even the elderly themselves, were unclear on what the principal Maintenance of Parents Act entails. This calls for an ongoing communication strategy to help the Many-Helping-Hands make sense of the numerous legislations and programmes and help schemes for our elderly and needy.

(5) Finally, let us not forget to resource the offices of the Tribunal and Commissioner and Family Service Centres sufficiently to meet the upcoming increase

Column: 1736

in compulsory conciliation sessions as proposed by the Bill. This includes the need to forecast the demand and supply of trained social workers or counsellors.

In conclusion, Madam, although this is a Bill that currently impacts less than 200 cases each year, it is a significant legislation because it embodies our courage as a country to commit to and operationalise values that are important – commitment enough to call for consequences if one does not abide by them.

Madam, I have attended many weddings in the last two months. As I listened to the wedding vows by the young couples as they start their marriages and later families, I cannot help but look forward to the day when families are also able to come together to take and commit to a similar vow – "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do the family part."

Madam, I urge Members of the House to join me in supporting this significant Bill.

5.26 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min: ( In Mandarin ):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Singapore is essentially an Asian society. The way we act, behave and organise ourselves is very much dictated by our history and culture. We are also an immigrant society and thus the history and culture of our forefathers' motherland exert tremendous influence on our own beliefs.

Unlike our western counterparts, it is common for adults, even as old as 30 to 40 years old, to be living with their parents. In Asian society, the moral duty to look after our parents after they have grown old is expected of all children. In the west, the reverse is true – children are

*Cols. 1819-1822.

Column: 1737

expected to move out and start their own life the moment they enter adulthood and they are not expected to look after their parents after they have moved out. It would be most unheard of for the parents to take their children to court to force their children to look after them.

This is where we, Asians, differ from the west. Having said that, although most Asians would look after their elderly parents, the situation has changed a lot in the modern era. More and more elderly parents are being abandoned at nursing homes. Worse still, some elder folks are being abandoned by their children to fend for themselves. It is imperative for the Government to step in and ensure that parents are not being abandoned and that children do not shirk from their responsibilities.

Ensuring children to live up to their responsibilities for their parents via legislation is tantamount to walking uphill on a slippery slope. Throughout China's 2,000 years of history, there was no record of forced parents' maintenance through the courts. In the Chinese folklore of Justice Bao （包清天） versus the Scholar Chen Shi Mei (陈世美状元), the issue was not over his failure to look after his parents. He was condemned for the intended murder of his wife because he wanted to be a Princess Consort. Abandoning his wife and children carried a bigger sin in the eye of the ancient Chinese law. Although leaving his parents behind was a moral sin, it was not a crime. This was because traditional Chinese wisdom recognised that even a righteous official could not solve his own family dispute (清官难判家务事)！

Secondly, using legislation to ensure parental maintenance suggests litigation. While the legal system can settle disputes fairly, it is nonetheless adversarial. Between parents and children, there is too

Column: 1738

much at stake and too many differences to settle through the legal system. Taking the matter to court would not help improve parent-child relationship, it might even deepen discord, disharmony and hatred.

Hence, the Maintenance of Parents Bill needs to recognise this fact. When settling years of hatred and bad blood between parent and child, the carrot is preferred over the stick. Mediation, persuasion and negotiation (not necessarily in this order) should take precedence over the use of the law. It is not helpful for the children to maintain their parents financially under the court order yet ignore the emotional needs of their parents.

The ideal outcome would be for everyone to know his or her role in society and then there will not be any need for this law. Notwithstanding the imperfections in the society right now, the trend of parental neglect should be stopped at its roots. We should inculcate in our school children the notion of filial piety and also educate parents to fulfil their parental duties and avoid being "absentee-parents". If the parent, either father or mother, has been visibly absent during the formative years of the child, it would be hard for the children to accept the responsibility of looking after the "absentee-parent" when he or she grows old. If responsibility is enforced via legislation, a lot of bitterness would be created instead.

**** How to prove the neglect of parental duty is another controversial issue. The child forced to provide maintenance for his parents may say that his parents were "absentee-parents". The latter may counter by saying that he was absent because of the need to work hard to support the family. It is difficult to judge who is right and who is wrong.

Often we see needy people who refuse help because of pride, for example,

Column: 1739

some of the old people who collect garbage on the street. We also see destitute parents, abandoned by their high-paying and well-educated children, who would rather suffer in silence than go to the Tribunal, for fear of making their children lose face. In such situations, do we respect their wishes or do we do the right thing and take the unfilial children to task? Does the Bill provide for whistle-blowing on irresponsible children?

In addition, I would also like to raise some concerns about specific amendments to the Bill:

(a) Section 3 (subsection (7)) states that an applicant who is aggrieved by any decision under subsection (6) can appeal within 14 days. May I ask who chairs and sits in the Appeal Committee and how do we ensure that the appeal would be impartially considered since the decision to dismiss the application in the first place is made by the President or the Deputy President of the Tribunal?

(b) Clause 2 amends section 3 to require a person who is making a claim for the first time to refer his claim to the Commissioner for review before making a formal application for maintenance order. I would like to clarify how many cases do we have per year and how long is the process from notice of application to case completion? Will this new amendment create a backlog of cases?

In conclusion, the Bill should be supported, for it gives protection to helpless old citizens with no financial means and who are deserted by their children. However, special emphasis also needs to be paid to ensure fairness to children as well. It is not fair that children are hauled to the Tribunal the moment a parent files a complaint without thorough investigation into whether they themselves have been responsible parents. The financial situation of the children should also be taken into consideration. The Bill

Column: 1740

is sparked with good intent but fraught with many slippery points that can cause deep-rooted resentment if not handled carefully.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on that note, I support the Bill.

5.34 pm

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this Bill.

The amendments detailed in this Bill aim to improve the administration and operation of the Maintenance of Parents Act. Before I comment on the Bill proper, I would like to thank the Workgroup led by Mr Seah Kian Peng for the hard work they put in soliciting feedback from the various stakeholders. However, at the end of the day, I feel that the proposed processes may but only serve to add layers of administrative labour that does not and will not address the inherent flaws in the original Act. Mdm Deputy Speaker, if I may now speak on my concerns on the Bill proper.

The intent of the original Act was to provide a safety net for the vulnerable elderly parents to seek assistance from their children when they are unable to secure means to provide for themselves. This expectation, that children should take care of their aged parents, is based on the notion of reciprocity, for parents were the caregivers when their children were dependent minors. Herein lies the serious contradiction. I believe we cannot treat the parent-child exchange as a contractual agreement.

When consenting adults marry, they enter into a legal contract with the State and with each other. When parents choose to have children, we, too, enter a contractual agreement with the State to exercise responsible guardianship for our

Column: 1741

vulnerable dependent minors. However, from the child’s perspective, there was no active decision taken. Children did not choose to be born into their respective families. So how can we then hold them legally responsible for their parents?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as an individual, I fully embrace and subscribe to the ideology of filial piety. Just as our parents had loved us unconditionally and cared for us when we were not yet able to fend for ourselves, we must, in turn, love our parents and care for them when they are vulnerable as they age.

But this is a moral stance and not a legal one. My main contention with the Maintenance of Parents Act, which this Bill aims to amend, is its attempt to translate a moral obligation to a legal requirement. As a family sociologist, I would argue that the central and indispensable role that the family plays in our society is upheld by the unique nature of family relations. Family relations are not governed by a rational choice paradigm where notions of reciprocity can be quantified into neat mathematical models. We choose to invest in family. But we also enter this commitment with the keen appreciation that we may not be able to control the outcome. In fact, one might even argue that if we embrace a rational choice perspective, few would end up choosing to invest in family. Rather, family exchanges are characterised by altruistic motivations. Often times, the rewards of our investment in family are intrinsic in nature.

Notions of love and filial piety are abstract constructs that are extremely difficult to measure. This Bill proposes that we enhance an intermediary layer of administration to determine how much parents had invested in growing their children, and to translate that investment into a quantifiable amount to advise

Column: 1742

recommendations on the portion of maintenance each child is responsible for.

While I appreciate the merits of the proposal for mandatory mediations, nonetheless, it does not address the contradictions inherit in the original Act. Should public servants paid by State funds be engaged in adjudicating private matters of the family, arbitrating who was a good parent and how much love or filial piety the child has to return? More importantly, who is qualified to execute such a lofty task – to determine how much money a parent’s love is worth?

Personally, I think if that is the key performance indicator (KPI) of the Officers of the Tribunal, then they are doomed to fail. The original Act and this amendment Bill is not about legislating filial piety. Rather, today’s debate is about the role of the State in policing the family. Do we want our families to be governed so closely by the State, such that investments in growing children must be carefully accounted for and documented so that when need be, the files can be pulled out to legitimise charges on our children?

As a mother, I will not want my children to see my love for them overshadowed by a discourse on reciprocity of care. In our contemporary society, parents can choose if they want children and, to a certain extent, how many children they can afford to raise. It is a conscientious choice that adults make. As parents, when we put the best we have into child rearing, we pray that we will raise our children well, and they will become responsible adults and filial children. However, as responsible parents, we must also plan for our retirement and live within our means to prepare sufficiently for our golden years.

The Maintenance of Parents Act which this Bill aims to amend hopes to alleviate the financial strain on the State as our

Column: 1743

population ages. Therefore, the Bill facilitates vulnerable elderly to hold their children financially responsible for eldercare. I think this Bill only serves to trivialise family relations. Can we quantify how much investment the parent had put into each child? A more serious concern that arises from this discourse of reciprocity: that a parent who did not invest sufficiently in child rearing does not deserve to be cared for by their children. Is this what we want to teach our children? How many of us can safely say that we have lived a life without regrets, making wrong turns and decisions?

So, this contradicts the guiding principles of how a family is run. We continue to be here for our family regardless of how they might reciprocate. Simply because we are family, and that is what family is all about. Therefore, a functional family will never have to resort to invoking this Bill. So I would argue that to ensure that we can continue to rely on the family as a social safety net, rather than make amendments to an Act that is based on inherently flawed arguments, we should put in place sound social policies that will enable us to strengthen families and allow Singaporeans to age gracefully.

First, we must continue to work at repositioning the family to the centre of our society and to ensure that Singaporeans are able to enjoy a healthy work-family life balance to give them sufficient time to nurture family relations.

Second, looking at our population profile, we must anticipate that Singaporeans are living longer, and more will be ageing alone. Therefore, we must put in place affordable insurance schemes that will allow younger Singaporeans to prepare responsibly for a financially independent retirement.

Third, as Singaporeans live longer, we must institutionalise re-employment for

Column: 1744

retired workers for those who are able to and need to continue working.

Finally, rather than depend solely on the family as social support for the elderly, we must prepare an infrastructure that can support the vulnerable aged who may not have children they can turn to.

Population trends advise that the proportion of singles is set to grow. For those who do marry, a vast majority will have small families. As Singaporeans marry later, and start their families later, by the time they reach retirement, their adult children may just be starting to build their careers and grow their families. It will be a tremendous crunch on these sandwiched families to have to manage childcare responsibilities as well as eldercare responsibilities. The pressure will be acute for those from one-child families, and who themselves marry spouses who are also the only child.

All in, these trends alert us to the inevitable – that as Singapore ages, we will find more elderly Singaporeans who will need the State’s help in their golden years. To prepare for this, we must ensure that we have in place an infrastructure that is elder-friendly. I am not asking for more handouts, or that we should reverse our stance towards promotion of self-sufficiency.

Rather, I am proposing that we apportion more resources towards building an infrastructure that supports gracious ageing: affordable healthcare facilities for eldercare needs, affordable housing options for older Singaporeans that are situated within communities which provide amenities and support older residents needs, and to have in place a support system which ensures that no elderly Singaporean will need to go without nutritious meals each day.

The hallmark of a great nation is one where her citizens, after tolling a life time, can age gracefully without fears or worries.

Column: 1745

The very existence of the Maintenance of Parents Act is a barrier that may have stopped those in need from stepping out for help because they do not want their children to be implicated at needs assessment. I think it is a very sad occasion when a parent decides to invoke the Maintenance of Parents Bill to force support from their children. I cannot imagine the humiliation and pain such a decision will cause to both parties. I can imagine though that it may result in irreconcilable damage, social relations between the parents and child. I hope we can protect aged Singaporeans from having to make this decision and spare them from this torment.

An aged Singaporean should not be totally void of resources before the State steps in to provide for her well-being. What do we do when an aged Singaporean has no children to fall back on? We cannot invoke the Bill. So, do we then say we support the single elderly, but not those with children? Surely not, for that will result in serious ideological contradictions that the State should punish the very people who abided by the prescribed normal family ideology of getting married and raising children.

I did not support the Maintenance of Parents Act, and therefore, I do not support this Amendment Bill. But I want to place on record my appreciation to my hon. colleagues who have tabled this, for it forces us to debate on social issues that are critical for Singapore’s long-term stability. Mr Seah articulated that the Bill serves to reinforce values of our society. I would contend that a better way to set norms is through pro-family policies, for example, like the provision of tax incentives for parent care to encourage children to do the needful and do the rightful.

Column: 1746

5.48 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: ( In Malay ):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Amendment Bill. I was part of the Workgroup that is proposing the amendment to this law.

Some years ago, as a Panel Member in a session of the Parents Maintenance Tribunal, I came across a case of a rather elderly woman who was claiming for maintenance from her only son. Actually, the son did give a monthly allowance to his mother but she wanted a higher amount. However, a few minutes later, after the session began, what we heard was that at that time, she was not concerned about money issues. She actually wanted the court to issue an order so that her son could visit her more often or at least call her over the phone if he was too busy. She lived alone and often felt lonely. This case is actually a story of a mother who wanted and craved the love and concern of her son. But the court did not have the authority to issue such an order other than advising the son to consider his mother's request. Under this Act, the court can take action to issue such an order so that the children provide maintenance to their parents. However, the court cannot issue orders for the children to display love, appreciate and take care of their parents. In other words, the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, some feel that this case showed that family relations are very complicated and should not be brought to court. In fact, some feel that finding resolutions through legal means can further damage family relations, and that by strengthening the law through this amendment, it may further weaken the institution of the family, as mentioned earlier by Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan.

*Cols. 1823-1828.

Column: 1747

These are not new debates since the same issues were voiced out in 1995 when this Bill was passed. I think that if we exist in a world where each of us are guided by noble values and fulfilled our obligations towards our parents, this Bill need not even exist. Unfortunately, in today's world, there are people who cast aside, ignore or are even willing to abandon their parents. We often see such cases during our Meet-the-People Sessions and during our house-to-house visits. At times, our efforts to solve family problems seem futile.

In one case that was heard by the Tribunal, a mother made a claim on her son who was working as a lawyer. The son, who had a salary amounting to thousands of dollars, rejected his mother's claim as his spending included overseas holidays with his wife and eating at expensive restaurants, and yet he was unwilling to help take care of his parents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, should we allow such a son to escape from his responsibility towards his parents? I certainly feel not. And the Tribunal at that time also felt that it should not allow this child – a lawyer with a salary of thousands of dollars – not provide any maintenance to his parents. The Tribunal at that time issued an order for this lawyer to provide maintenance for his parents.

And on the flip side, there were many cases in the Tribunal, where children who are not so well off, fulfil their obligations after being persuaded by the Tribunal. There are those who said that they can afford to give around $50 a month, and others who said that maybe they can afford $20 a month. But whatever amount that they provide, the presence of a Tribunal and a conciliation process provides them with a platform to get together and discuss with the whole family – maybe with their siblings and the courts as well – to think of ways to take care of their parents' basic needs.

Column: 1748

So, Mdm Deputy Speaker, even though the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents, we should, and in fact, must ensure that children fulfil the most basic obligations towards their parents, that is, to pay for their needs. For families without direct support from their children, their relation has obviously been severed. If there was love and respect, they will surely take care of their parents. This Bill will not worsen this situation. So, for those who really understand their obligations, this Bill is not necessary and it would not apply to them. However, this Bill is required for the small minority who totally do not feel any obligation towards their parents. And with the presence of this Bill, I cannot see how it can worsen the situation. In fact, is it not worse if we face a situation where needy parents are forced to get social assistance or assistance from other sources and not from their own children?

Which is more embarrassing – for an aged father or mother to obtain help through the Tribunal or other processes that are provided under this Bill, or for them to go to welfare homes or welfare organisations run by either the Government or self-help groups? I feel that having to obtain help from the latter is more embarrassing to them, as compared to trying to get assistance to claim maintenance from their children, either through the Tribunal or the conciliation process available.

An exemplary child who faithfully carries out his or her obligation towards his or her parents should not worry too much about this Bill. On the contrary, this amendment will make it difficult for the small minority, who completely do not feel responsible for their parents, to escape. The original Act provides an important framework to issue orders for a child to take care of his or her parents, but there are a few weaknesses that can be addressed with this Bill.

Column: 1749

What has not changed here is the principle of reciprocity in the original Act. In other words, the court can still make a decision to reject the parents' claims if they fail to fulfil their obligations towards their children in the first place. They will be barred from using legal means as a way to force their children to take care of them. That would not be fair and parents must realise that if they want their children's support during their old age, they must fulfil their obligation as parents when they raise their children. In fact, this amendment through section 3(6) provides an avenue for the President or Deputy President to dismiss any claim that is found to be frivolous or wasting the court's time. So, it is largely possible that parents who do not qualify will find that their request will be wholly rejected if it is clear that their application is baseless.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments will not change the conciliatory approach of this process. On the contrary, it will enrich the mediation process by giving the Commissioner the power to issue orders so that both parties can resolve their problems peacefully at the application stage under this law. Hence, the approach emphasised is still to get both parents and children to find solutions that can be accepted cordially by both parties with the help of an officer of the court. I feel that the relation between children and parents is complex. At times, on their own, they cannot solve their problems in matters of maintenance. Maybe with the help of the court or through the conciliatory process under this amendment, they can further understand each other's situation. I feel that under this proposed amendment, this Tribunal also has the power to make the agreement reached as a joint decision. This is important in case their relationship is affected or worsened, and the children refuse to fulfil the agreement that was made.

Column: 1750

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill also paves the way for the court to obtain crucial information related to the address or income details of the child. Often, as a Tribunal member, I attended sessions where the child could not be contacted. This is unfair not only to the parents who refer the matter to the court but also to the other children who are contactable as it means that the court can order them to be present and the court order can be applied to them. The other children who remain uncontactable at all will not be held liable as they have never visited their parents who themselves do not know where these children live or work. Presently, due to the lack of information, many parents who qualify for assistance are unable to claim their rights. This shortcoming can now be overcome because the courts have a new avenue to obtain such important information.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I feel that this Bill is timely and much needed since our society is ageing, and more and more parents seek help at the Parents Maintenance Tribunal. But what is also important is for us to emphasise that a strong relationship between children and their parents is something that must be built from the start. As the Malay saying goes, "from a strand of thread a day, eventually you will create the textile", and that should be the way to build family ties.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Sin.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Madam, if you would allow me to ask a point of clarification on the statement made earlier by the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: In her earlier speech, she said that it was a waste of taxpayers'

Column: 1751

resources to ask public servants, who would be using public money, to intervene in a dispute that was private in nature. So I am asking the Nominated Member whether or not she thought that a Family Court, staffed by public officers using public money, is a waste of resources when the Family Court is called upon to intervene in matters of a private nature or administer matters relating to the Women's Charter.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I did not say it was a waste of money. I merely questioned whether it is appropriate for State-funded public officers to be adjudicating what constitutes good parenting and what constitutes filial piety, and how much the parenting investment should be translated into dollars and cents for a maintenance order.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: May I then ask the Nominated Member of Parliament how different is this in a situation where the Family Court is called upon to intervene in a family situation?

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I clarify with him what exactly does the Member mean when he said, "intervention of the Family Court"? Can he give a specific example, like family violence? Is that what he is talking about?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc. Prof. Tay, question to another Member should be directed to the Deputy Speaker and the responses accordingly should be directed through the Deputy Speaker as well. You may like to repeat your question.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Madam, may I ask if the hon. Member can clarify what exactly he meant when he said when the courts intervene in family matters?

Column: 1752

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Sin, perhaps you could make your question clearer so that the Member can respond.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I mean what I said – the courts are often called upon to settle disputes relating to family matters, to decide on rights of custody of children and to intervene in family matters. In this regard, I cannot see how is it that she does not understand what the role of the court is in these matters. And I am just asking her how different is this when compared to a situation in the maintenance of parents.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am not a lawyer, I am a sociologist. I am not sure what happens in the Family Court, but I am very sure that in disputes involving divorce and child custody, those are not easy cases either. However, I think the nature of adjudicating a divorce proceeding is quite different from adjudicating how much a child owes his parents. Because notions of investment in child-rearing and notions of reciprocity in terms of love that the parent gives to a child and what a child should return are far more complex than that.

My point in the debate is simply to raise the concerns about the grey issues that we seem to gloss over in the debate of the Bill of this nature and, that is, when it comes down to the crunch of adjudication, the difficulty we face now really is how do you quantify and measure parental involvement in child-rearing? I do not think it is easy and that is why I raised it as a concern.

6.05 pm

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate. I speak as a member of the Workgroup on the Bill.

Column: 1753

Most of the substantive points on the Bill have been articulated quite ably by the Workgroup Chairman, Mr Seah Kian Peng, and the other members. I would like to reinforce two key arguments: the process as a legitimising factor and remaining faithful to the purpose.

First, the process – how it has been a legitimising factor. When the Maintenance of Parents Bill was tabled 15 years ago by the then NMP Walter Woon, I must admit I asked myself, "Is this necessary? Are we creating an issue when, perhaps, there isn't one? Are we opening up a Pandora's box for Government intervention into the citizen's private space? Would we end up sending the wrong signal to the public?" Much as I was impressed with Prof. Walter Woon's conviction and confidence in tabling the Bill, not just as a backbencher but as an NMP, I was also concerned with what we could possibly unleash.

So, I followed the proceedings then with more than casual interest, and was soon forced to rescind my misgivings. More importantly, I was heartened that the process catalysed what I saw as a reaffirmation of the importance of family values and filial piety – not only in this House but amongst a vast majority of people I met in society. What is paradoxical but true is that the very purpose in the very process of debating on an issue as emotionally charged and therefore controversial such as this, if conducted with honesty, sensitivity and transparency, serves to strengthen a collective reflex in support of the very underlying values. This is because the debate conducted over a period of time, throws up a multitude of aspects and sensibilities of the issue. This, in turn, forces us to acknowledge that:

(1) the issue is multi-dimensional and therefore a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate;

Column: 1754

(2) just because there does not appear to be a problem in general, it does not mean that there are not specific instances where the problem does exist and in a significant way; and

(3) when we address a complex issue such as this, we need to balance private sensibilities with public interest and pragmatism – a puritanical approach can be self-destructive in the longer run.

Common wisdom tells us that it is not organisations that persuade people; it is people who persuade people. So, just as how the debate on the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) serves us well, this time too, the process of developing this Amendment Bill, I feel, has forced us as individuals and as a people to ask inconvenient questions pertaining to filial piety, family values, the role of the State and the ideal approach to adopt. In particular, I found my colleague Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan's arguments, although I may not agree with them, forced me to think about important considerations. I do not think there is a clear black or white, neither should we move towards a litigious mode of arguing this. I think there needs to be mutual respect because individuals have the right to take a position, and I respect my colleague for having the gumption to articulate the point of view even though she is very aware that she is a minority.

As highlighted by Mr Seah Kian Peng in his speech, the various discussions on the issue at multiple levels on several platforms, involving thousands of people that were conducted over the last six months, have put us in good stead. I do believe that we are now a lot clearer about what we want to achieve through the MPA, and what we certainly do not. For example, we want a more conciliatory approach that respects and values the sanctity of family ties and the feelings thereof. Given the multitude of stresses of modern-day life today, there are many

Column: 1755

families out there that I and other Members are aware of, that are going through on a regular basis, disputes and strife, often financial in nature, that are tearing apart the families – the very families we are talking about, here – and many of them are suffering in silence. So, the Workgroup's view is that mediation and the emphasise on mediation can be a welcome relief for these families and the Members. And our hope is that when the families come to mediation – which is now we are proposing to be compulsory – many of these cases would be settled there and the families could actually, if the mediation is conducted well by professionals, have a chance to discuss some of these issues openly and resolve some of them without having the case go to a Tribunal. That is an important point.

So, for the individuals and agencies tasked to protect the interests of parents who have been wantonly neglected, such as the Commissioner, the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal, they need to be adequately armed and empowered. Not only does this help them to do what they are required to do, but it also serves, in my view, as a deterrent where the very existence of the law and a system that has teeth can influence and shape behaviour positively. This is not dissimilar from the speed cameras that we have that we know can actually force us to slow down when we approach them. At the same time, we also know that we do not want the MPA – by its very existence – to artificially stoke demand for its intercession. It must be clear that the MPA, as a legal recourse, must remain the very last resort – that is, when all efforts within the family to seek reconciliation fail. It is to help ensure this that the Workgroup decided against a tough, punitive approach when dealing with recalcitrants. We feel that it would send the wrong signal which, in turn, could discourage families from trying hard enough to work things out through discussion and mediation.

Column: 1756

I hope that what I just shared would help address the concern raised by my colleague, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, that the MPA, to quote her, "trivialises family ties". My view is that the amendments we are proposing serve to hold up family ties and values like filial piety, by increasing the focus on counselling and mediation to help families find solutions without affecting their ties.

Allow me now to move on to the second key argument: remaining faithful to the purpose of the MPA. When it was enacted in 1995, the Maintenance of Parents Act was intended to benefit parents – especially ageing or helpless parents – who were wantonly neglected by their children. These children were in a position to render financial assistance. It was not to become a lever for parents to abuse the system. Fifteen years on, this intent remains unchanged. The spirit behind the amendments we are seeking to introduce here today is to enhance the ability of society, which includes the State, to ensure that parents get the financial assistance they can rightly and reasonably expect from their children. The focus is on genuine cases based on the principles of fairness and justice. While there are legal and statutory provisions in the MPA and the proposed amendments, recourse is essentially through an all hands-on-deck approach. It is my assumption that in the event that the children are seen as clearly not being in a position to assist their parents financially, the State will step in to ensure that the needs of the parents in these cases will be taken care of. The MPA or the amendments thereof should not translate to an abdication by the Government of its responsibilities that have been highlighted by my colleague, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan. I do not believe that is the intention of the MPA nor the amendments that are being proposed. This is also a point that was reiterated by my colleague, Ms Denise Phua.

Column: 1757

Mr Seah Kian Peng captured this aptly by calling it a "beneficiary-centric process" – where the various Government agencies such as the Commissioner's Office and the Tribunal, and other Government agencies will step forward with the relevant information when approached, and work closely with the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and other welfare providers, such as old age homes and nursing homes as well as family members, relatives, friends and even concerned neighbours, to help ensure we do the right thing. The operative word is the "right thing" – which is why the amendment seeks to provide greater access to critical information from many reliable sources, so that the Commissioner and/or the Tribunal can make the right judgement call that is fair – to all parties – and is enforceable.

It is for the same reason that the Commissioner and the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal are given greater latitude and power to make judgement calls – to ensure just and effective outcomes to all. This could mean the power to access critical information, to make conciliation sessions compulsory at the pre-filing stage, or to dismiss cases deemed to be frivolous or vexatious in nature.

Similarly, the Commissioner’s office is encouraged to work closely with the FSCs and other centres to bring to their attention genuine cases of neglect. This is to help ensure that such cases do not fall through the cracks because of a lack of awareness or other reasons. But even in such situations, the case will be processed by the Commissioner’s office only if the parents are comfortable and agreeable. There will be no coercion.

For the implementation and post-implementation stages, the proposed

Column: 1758

amendments seek to ensure a less tedious and less stressful process especially at the application stage. The proposed amendments also seek to ensure close case monitoring afterwards to ensure prompt fulfilment of the Maintenance Order and to take into consideration material changes to the financial circumstances of the children.

Essentially, therefore, all proposed amendments are to enhance not just the Commissioner’s or the Tribunal’s ability, but that of the system as a whole, to ensure that genuine cases get on the radar screens and that parents find recourse in a fair and prompt manner, as far as possible, without affecting family ties.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by reiterating that the process for coming up with this amendment Bill was inclusive and provided clarity of intent, and therefore helped engender a stronger buy-in from the ground. If anything, I believe that the many honest discourses have only served to deepen our collective commitment to filial piety and family values. There is now a tacit acceptance that the MPA does not go against these values. There is no contradiction in my view. It is just one part of the total solution to help ensure that in our society, the needs of the vulnerable are not put on the back-burners. The State, the family, the private sector and the people sector all play a role in helping to ensure this through various means – legal or otherwise.

Even though the Maintenance of Parents Act and the proposed amendments are statutory in nature, in essence, they play a role in reminding each one of us of why we should not neglect our parents – not so much because it is our duty or our obligation, or because the law says so, but because, in a vast majority of cases, our parents have loved and cared for us unconditionally.

Column: 1759

With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.