MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on the debate on the amendment to this Bill. Many of my fellow colleagues have spoken and presented their views before me and what I want to say may have already been touched upon. Nevertheless, I need to air my views to get the weight of the matter off my chest.

We are an Asian society and our social mores and cultural norms differ from those of the West. When it comes to the topic of caring for our elders, it becomes even more apparent, perhaps less distinct now, because we are moving more towards the West in this aspect.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, while looking at this issue, I am careful not to be judgemental in how each society chooses to live their lives. I remember that my American friends were amused when I told them that it is not uncommon in Asian societies to continue to live with one's parents after the American equivalent of the senior high school. Many continue to live under their parents' roof

Column: 1760

even after National Service and in the armed forces and right through university until they can afford to purchase their own homes.

In the West, it is not inconceivable for young adults to set up their own homes and live their life even while they are working through university. Perhaps it may be a matter of geography but, largely, the children and their parents live separately and very separate lives. In fact, this is expected of many of the young western adults.

In Asian societies, however, this is inconceivable. The concept and idea of filial piety in Asian societies, steeped in Confucianist values, had its roots in history. We grew up instilled with the values of the duty to look after our parents when they grow old, especially since we owe them what we have through their struggles, which was very well articulated by hon. Member Mr Viswa earlier. If not for anything, it is only fair that we look after our parents when they are old.

What I am concerned is that the caring of our parents should even be debated. But as our fellow colleagues before me have alluded to, the treatment that our elders received or rather, in the context of the Bill, not received, should be debated. We have come to that – rather sad state, I would say. But what troubles me, as a son of Singapore, as an MP, as a trustee for the next generation, is that one's duty of care towards his parents and one's duty to his country are inextricably tied together. What then does this say of Singapore's sons and daughters? If they neglect their duties to their parents, so is it right that there is a law that compel negligent children to care for those who had cared for them as they grew up?

When we first introduced National Service, we needed the Singapore Armed

Column: 1761

Forces Act to compel people to serve and protect our nation. This was back in the early 1970's when we were still in the early years of nation building and we had largely a migrant stock that made up Singapore. But over time, however, the need for our youths to do National Service to serve the country is no longer in doubt – it is now a given. And, hopefully, over time, as we instil once again the need to care for our elderly parents, the Maintenance of Parents Act may be nothing and may possibly be repealed.

I look forward to that day in Singapore, and perhaps it would be one step closer to a gracious society. However, Mdm Deputy Speaker, until then, the validity of the social contract of "when we were young our parents looked after us and when they are old we repay them back" seems to be not very valid now. Abandoning parents when they get old and sickly is no longer the odd exception we hear of and then shake our heads with a heavy sigh; rather, I think it is getting to be a little sporadic.

As an Asian society and a more globalised workforce, I am afraid we may see more of such cases. I think we need a serious examination of how we teach or transmit values to the next generation. Parents cannot abdicate their responsibility of teaching values to their children only to the schools. Well, that is another debate altogether.

Some very good programmes and initiatives were shared with us by hon. Member Ms Denise Phua earlier on. I am seeing more and more elderly parents seeking help after being persuaded, cajoled and finally duped into selling their flats. The elder folks are seeing me for help to apply for rental housing. Their $20,000 flats that they bought 30 years ago have appreciated to some $350,000 and the children see this as seed money

Column: 1762

to their first 5-room flat or a condominium. It is fine. It is even progress for the next generation, as some of our old folks say yi tai pi tai hao – If not for them ejecting their parents from their plans and rationalising that their parents want to live alone and that they can live their own lives. In private conversations with fellow Members, I came to the sad conclusion that this is a phenomenon common not just to Clementi, it is happening in many places in Singapore as well. It is bad enough for the children with means neglecting their ageing parents, it is outright atrocious for them to take advantage of their parents and of their retirement nest egg.

I am especially glad to note that the inclusion of the amendment to the Act to allow the Tribunal or the Commissioner to deliberate on all applications and reject any frivolous ones. When this amendment was tabled and publicised in the media, it generated a lot of concerns in some quarters, especially the children who had been abandoned by absentee parents, children who had been estranged from their absentee father – perhaps he had philandered, was negligent or irresponsible in his ways that they feel they owe such parents nothing. Hence, it is understandable that they are concerned that their irresponsible parent is using the law to force them to look after their parents. One young person actually used the word "extort". These children understandably would feel aggrieved, unjust and would resist if they were compelled by the law to provide for this kind of a father. This amendment thankfully, however, provides a safety valve against any indiscriminate action to force the children to provide for their parents.

The amendment also allows the Tribunal and Commissioner to evaluate the means and capabilities of each individual children to share the providence of maintaining their elderly parents, thus making it fair and equitable. The fact that

Column: 1763

there are concerns of the children fearing that the amendment may discriminate against them suggests that more can be done in the area of publicising this Act.

I would suggest and urge the Ministry to conduct more public education for the purposes of educating the public on the necessity and supporting the intention of the Act. This would put to rest any concern and generate more support to the intent of this law.

The full weight of the law must be brought to bear on children who have abandoned or neglected parents who have not failed them. Having said this, blood is thicker than water. Applying the law on issues that involve a lot of emotion is a terribly tricky issue. Would the application of the law lead to strengthening of family values and filial piety? I have my doubts. After applying the law to ensure naughty children look after their parents, it is difficult to have a good, normal parent-child relationship. The work of the Tribunal is not enviable and requires tremendous amount of wisdom and deft, some of which Mr Viswa had alluded to earlier too.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I suggest to keep perhaps a lid on the publicity of the details of cases when the law is applied. Matters like these would make front page in tabloids. This "privacy promise", if I were to put it, would encourage more parents with no means of livelihood to come forward. No parent would want to embarrass their children and in the process wash dirty laundry of their family in public. If suffering parents do not come forward and file a complaint against negligent children, this law would be nothing more than just another useless legislation. For the Asian mind, we would rather bear with the family faults than to bring them out in the open. No Asian family would like to publicise family embarrassment because doing so would

Column: 1764

damage an already fragile familial relationship. I do recognise that without the publicity of such errant behaviour, the deterrent effect of the law would be blunted, but a delicate balance nevertheless needs to be struck.

Finally, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment as it provides a safety net to all the helpless, abandoned and neglected citizens by their ungrateful children. I congratulate the Workgroup for drafting the amendment, providing it with the power to take away from irresponsible parents the use of the Act and force their children to provide for them. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the good work of all my fellow Members of Parliament who had participated in drafting of this amendment, especially Mr Seah Kian Peng.

6.29 pm

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): ( In Mandarin ):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am a member of the Workgroup. I am glad to take this opportunity to state my support for this amendment.

We have heard so many different views and opinions. Altogether, there are 16 members, including myself, who support this Bill. It does not matter that NMP Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan has an opposing view. At least, she provided another perspective. She lets us know various people's misunderstanding and unhappiness regarding this amendment Bill and the Act.

The purpose of this amendment Bill is not for the helpless or deserted parents to go to the Tribunal to measure how much they have invested in raising their children, either financially or emotionally, and try to get the investment back from

*Cols. 1829-1834.

Column: 1765

their children. If this is the case, we cannot support it.

Indeed, there are no such provisions in the Act. The Act only provides that when a parent files an application, he must make it clear how much are his basic living expenses. The Tribunal will judge, based on the income and assets of the children and after deducting the children's own and their family's living expenses, whether there is money left to give to the parents as maintenance. If not, the Tribunal will not force the children to maintain their parents. Instead, the community support network will be tapped to help the parents.

I cannot agree with Assoc. Prof. Straughan's argument that people cannot choose their parents; therefore, they cannot be asked to provide for their parents even if they are financially able. Hence, legislating parents' maintenance is wrong. I feel that even if this legislation is wrong, most Singaporeans would wish that we would rather be wrong than letting those people who have deserted their parents off the hook. If these people walk away free, then where is the justice?

I do not think we should feel ashamed of having this legislation and feel embarrassed in front of other countries. They might ask, "Why does Singapore, a country with a living standard close to that of the First World, need to have such a law?" We are not afraid to admit that there are unfilial people among us. We should not close one eye and pretend that all our people are filial and will automatically fulfil their duty as children. What should really make us feel ashamed is hiding behind the reality and pretending that there are no unfilial incidences. We are cowards if we cannot stand up for these deserted parents and simply cover up the facts. If we can pass laws to deal with school bullies and road bullies, why

Column: 1766

can we not take bold steps to deal with those ungrateful children who cheated their parents of their "blood and sweat money" with sweet talk and then just disappeared? If we allow this to happen, then, I ask again, where is the justice?

Those parents who do not need the protection of the law should not stop others from seeking help. Generally, by the time applicants start to seek help from their children, they are already in a dire situation. So, they are truly in need of their children's support. Even if they are able to receive community support, they still hope to get in touch with their "lost" children to mend their broken relationship.

As several of my MP colleagues have said, we are not asking the children to simply grin and bear. Instead, what we call for is an open heart and forgiveness, and love and care for one's parents when they are old. It will be too late to lament that "parents are not longer around when you want to provide for them (子欲养而亲不在)".

The Maintenance of Parents Act is not a contract that requires the children to sign an agreement with the parents, promising to maintain them when they are old. We do not need contracts like this. Providing for one's parents should be human nature, a feeling that one should naturally possess. We should build the bond between parents and children starting from an early age. We should educate our young to be filial and respect their parents.

Old people have self-respect and self-esteem too. Only when they are totally helpless do they ask for money from their children. The majority of the cases handled by the Tribunal are like this. Therefore, we do not have to worry that unscrupulous parents would use the Act to blackmail their children.

If someone decides to remain single, or a couple decides not to have children,

Column: 1767

then that is their own decision. We should not blame the Act for it if they make that decision. Even if these people are highly educated, it would be a waste of time if we try to reason with them why they blame a simple Act for their own choice of life.

As a divorce lawyer, I often advise my clients, very sincerely, that they should not let a broken marriage damage the image of a parent in the children's heart. The disputes between adults should not affect the children. One should not use his or her unhappiness in the marriage to influence the children or turn them against the spouse. When I advise divorced women to seek maintenance from their ex-spouses, I always tell them solemnly that, even though their ex-spouses have neglected to pay maintenance fees, they should not let their children use this as an excuse for not providing for the ex-spouse in the future. Of course, the children have the right not to provide in this case. But people change all the time. There could be many reasons why the ex-spouse defaulted on the maintenance. Filial piety should not change because of all these.

I am glad that among the cases that I have handled, there were many where the children did not refuse to provide for the parents even though they were deserted when they were young. They are still filial to their parents because, as they say, they will not be brought into this world without their parents, nor can they have a childhood or be educated without the parents' care.

I mention all these examples to reiterate solemnly one more time that children should try to understand their parents, to forgive the wrongdoings that the parents had inflicted on them and resolve their disputes amicably. If they have to go the Tribunal, they should not hesitate to go through mediation and counselling. I hope they can let go of their grievances.

Column: 1768

With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I declare my strong support for this Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I respond to Ms Ellen Lee's point?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: You may clarify something about your speech.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: I will clarify through you, Madam.

I certainly did not equate the rights of children as a counter-measure to the responsibility of filial piety. Let me categorically say that I support, endorse and embrace the ideology and the value of filial piety as an NMP, as a daughter, as a mother and as a Singaporean. There is no question about that. I also do not dismiss the fact that from the many MPs, their accounts from the ground, that there are aged parents who are suffering and going through very difficult times because their children have not been stepping up to their responsibilities. And I have never intended to trivialise those concerns and facts.

So, my point, essentially, given that we have aged Singaporean parents who are going through such difficulty, was simply to highlight that the process of adjudicating what children should be responsible for and what parents deserve, is very painful and difficult, and, therefore, not an easy matter. I do not think the Bill addresses that. Therefore, my proposal is that perhaps we should not let a Bill like this stand in the way of the State putting in place and investing in facilities to allow for graceful ageing, so that when an aged Singaporean comes to an MP, and say –

Mdm Deputy Speaker: You have to wrap up your clarification fairly soon.

Column: 1769

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: – "I need help", then the State can help him instead of dragging his children and family into adjudication to decide who is responsible for what.

6.46 pm

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, the MPA has been a law which has been implemented by my Ministry for about 15 years. I think we should start with recognising what has changed over these 15 years. We have all affirmed the primacy of the family as an institution, as a key pillar of our society. But we also need to recognise that the family is under considerable strain.

The traditional family form is changing and, together with that, the norms and the values around the family. Today, the average family size is 3.5. In 1990, it was 4.2. In the year 2000 it was 3.7 and I expect this reduction in household size to continue in the years ahead. With globalisation, we also know that more and more of us are working, living or studying abroad and we have got other worrying trends – low birth rates, later marriages, higher divorces, complex-blended families. So, all this means that we cannot take the family as an institution for granted. Therefore, let me also then address some of Assoc. Prof. Straughan's points. I think she knows me well enough to know that I respect her views but because I respect her views, I will have to answer them and to answer them robustly.

The crux of her speech was that filial piety is an ideology, a value, something abstract, something so close to our heart and something that defies encapsulation by legislation. Furthermore, she went on to say that because children did not ask to be born, therefore there is no way we can construct a contractual agreement between parents and children. Then there was a slightly more dangerous twist in that argument. Her third point was that

Column: 1770

actually all these problems can be solved by the Government doing more – promoting the institution of family, having more family education, providing safety nets for older people. I will have to address these three points because these are three central points in her speech and I think these are issues which some other people outside this Chamber are also worried about.

The vast majority of Singaporeans understand what it means to love one woman, to be committed and monogamous. For all of us who have had children, the moment we held our first child in our arms, we understood what it is like to give unconditional love. And for the vast majority of Singaporeans, we also know, even if we do not get abstract about it, what filial piety is all about. But we have laws like the Women's Charter, the Children and Young Persons Act, both of which are due for amendment. In fact, I introduced the amendment Bills yesterday. Today, we are debating the Maintenance of Parents Act.

The fact that the majority of us should not have to use the Women's Charter, the Children and Young Persons Act or the Maintenance of Parents Act does not in itself mean that there is no need for legislation which reflects the accepted values of the majority of Singaporeans. It is, in a sense, an echo of what we stand for as a society and I think we should not make any apology for having such laws. In fact, if we check the literature, we are not unique in the world. China has had some laws and, in fact, Mr Sam Tan has told us that these are thousands of years old. There are similar laws in India and, I understand, also in Canada and in Israel. So we are not unique. Whilst it is difficult to encapsulate the entire meaning of family relations within the law, there is still a need, nevertheless, for us to have some laws which set some boundaries, especially for the minority of us who may egregiously offend, transcend or break

Column: 1771

boundaries which the rest of us do not want to break. That is the first point.

Secondly, and more importantly, I want to state for the record that the Government's responsibility is to help the vulnerable and the genuinely needy in our society. But let me also state that we have constructed our social safety net on the pillars of self-reliance, family responsibility, community support and Government as the final safety net. Let me state categorically, therefore, that this piece of legislation is not some back route for the Government to abdicate its responsibility to look after the needy and the vulnerable in our society – not at all.

Let me also go on to state that this term "reciprocity of care", which Mr Seah introduced and was also in some of the other speeches. Before we get carried away with it, we had better go back to the original legislation. So I have checked very carefully. First of all, I could not find the term "reciprocity of care" in the original Act nor in the Bill. So, I decided to read again the Bill carefully and see what this Bill is really about. This Bill really provides for basic amenities and basic physical needs, including but not limited to shelter, food and clothing for a person domiciled and resident in Singapore who is of or above 60 years of age. We are not talking here about quantifying how well your parenting contributions were to the child and then as Assoc. Prof. Straughan said, "Take out the files and see all the bills and, therefore, the child will have to support the parents this way". In fact, when I went on to check the records of the decisions of the Tribunal and see exactly how much money had been awarded – did you know, between 40% and 50% of those awards, in fact, are less than the Public Assistance that we deliver to people.

So, I am stating all this because I do not want Members to get themselves into a fluster to say that we are really going to

Column: 1772

compute each and every act of parenting and compute an equivalent that the child is going to repay. We are just providing here a very basic boundary which reminds everyone that we have an obligation to our parents. In fact, in its operation, it provides a very basic level of support to the parents. Frankly, by the time parents have reached this stage and have to come to us for help, they are already in a very miserable state and they are miserable not just because of the physical deprivation but because of the poverty of relationships which has resulted in that situation.

Having said that, I support the amendments that Mr Seah is raising because I think they achieve a couple of things. First, we really do not want this Act to be used too often. Even if people have recourse to it, we want to avoid legal action. And that is why I supported the fact that he was really pushing for conciliation. Even the amendments which would give more investigative power to the Commissioner and the Tribunal by being able to access Government databases so that we can contact the missing child or missing children. We can also verify their levels of income and check whether their accounts that they are sharing with the Tribunal and with their parents are accurate or not. All that is really to deter people from playing games with their parents and using their parents as pawns or as bargaining chips. In fact, very often, I think about a quarter of all applications to the Tribunal do not come from the parents. It comes from other children of the parents. And often what you are dealing with is an intrafamilial dispute on the relative apportionment of responsibility and care among siblings. Our attempt to deter people from playing games and also the amendments to push people towards conciliation in the first instance, and then if an agreement was reached at conciliation to have it then endorsed by the Tribunal and have that as an consent order. All these things are attempts to

Column: 1773

reduce the pain in what is already fundamentally a painful process. So I totally support the thrust of the Member's amendments in that respect.

I would also agree with those Members who said that we need to continue with public education and I would agree with Assoc. Prof. Straughan that we need to do our best no matter how tough things are to keep supporting the institution of family, to make it fashionable to have a family, to be committed to a family, to discharge your responsibilities and to remind everyone that no matter how successful you are – financially or career-wise – if you have not provided for your parents, you really have not achieved success. And honouring your parents in your life does mean that that care must be expressed in a very real way. And this law, therefore, simply provides for a modicum, a minimum expression of what should for the majority of us be an automatic reflex but in life and in this Chamber we know that some automatic reflexes cannot be counted upon abashedly and so sometimes the law has to step in. I will give the assurance to Members of this House that my Ministry will implement this law carefully, sensitively and rationally so that we do not make problems worse.

On that note, I support this motion.

6.58 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your interest and patience in this Bill, and for the 18 other Members who have spoken.

I welcome, in particular, the one Member who opposed the Bill because it is opposing winds which help us rise. In the course of this debate, most objections have been dealt with and in these closing

Column: 1774

remarks, I hope to explain why my belief on what we are doing remains unshaken.

I believe in this law but as I have said in the beginning, I hope that this law will be used infrequently and perhaps in the longer run, it will become irrelevant. This can only happen if there are sufficient resources, good policies and a set of common values in place to ensure that elderly parents have a good network of care.

First, let me thank my Workgroup comprising Ms Denise Phua, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Ms Ellen Lee, Mr Sam Tan, Mrs Mildred Tan, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Laurence Wee, Mr Wee Siew Kim and Mr Viswa Sadasivan. All of them have played an important and crucial part in putting together this piece of legislation. They have also shared their perspectives in this amendment Bill. In their own ways, they have addressed and clarified the various points made by the other nine Members who have spoken today – Mr Hri Kumar, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Seng Han Thong, Dr Lam Pin Min, Mr Arthur Fong, Mdm Cynthia Phua, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Baey Yam Keng. As I said, save for one Member, all those who have spoken supported the amendment Bill.

As regards the points raised by Members, most of these have been quite conclusively dealt with

by my other Workgroup members, so I will just cover those which, in my opinion, remain outstanding.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo was concerned about the costs associated with the additional resources needed by the Tribunal and, in particular, the Commissioner in light of our proposal. I assure her that this factor was considered by our Workgroup, in particular, by Mrs Mildred Tan who has ensured that our secretariat keeps her well supplied with figures, numbers and tables.

Column: 1775

Having engaged the various stakeholders in this space, we are convinced that investing in this aspect will have several benefits downstream. Yes, some additional manpower will be needed for case monitoring and for conciliation work and I am glad that the Minister in his address has committed to doing so. In addition, the streamlining of administrative processes at both the Tribunal and Commissioner's offices will also lead to more efficient use of resources on the whole.

On the effectiveness to ensure minimal defaults on maintenance applications, I note that there are measures to incorporate this in the proposed provisions to the Women's Charter Act which we will consider and debate in the next sitting. The Minister has alluded to this in his address as well. Such concerns are valid and should be looked at.

On malicious parents and moral hazards raised by Mdm Ho Geok Choo, I had covered these points in my opening speech. We recognise this and have made it possible for such frivolous cases and vexatious applications to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

Beyond the amendments we proposed, there are some areas where we do not want to hardcode or to be too prescriptive. I like and support Mr Zainudin Nordin's call for children to consider taking up health insurance for their parents if they can afford it. This is sound advice.

As to Mrs Mildred Tan's suggestion to consider an opt-out deduction scheme for children for part of their monies to go into their parents' CPF accounts, my own feel is that there needs to be some private space in the child-parent relationship. As mentioned, we do not want to be overly prescriptive in approach.

Column: 1776

Moving on to Mr Hri Kumar's concern about the process and the conciliation and mediation. First, I want to assure him that we are advocating a two-stage process – first to the Commissioner for conciliation before a Tribunal hearing. Yes, conciliation is a must and necessary first step. If it comes to a full Tribunal hearing, we would have satisfied ourselves that conciliation has more or less failed. This referral to the Commissioner for conciliation does not add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy nor will it mean that legitimate claims will be put on a backburner. The intent is to provide the right venue for conciliation before families prematurely end up at a Tribunal hearing, which is closer to a Court.

Mr Hri Kumar also asked if information of each party obtained from agencies would be disclosed in the course of the proceedings. We do not anticipate the Tribunal to require information from government agencies in all cases. The main purpose of obtaining information is not to vary the maintenance sum according to a child's earning capacity but primarily to determine if the child's nature of employment allows the ability to pay for a parent's "basic needs". Hence, we do not anticipate questions of unfairness to arise.

Dr Lam Pin Min expressed concern on the possibility of a backlog of cases should conciliation be made compulsory as the process appears to have lengthened. As I mentioned, what the Workgroup had in mind was for smooth coordination between the Commissioner and Tribunal's offices, including a hassle free and quick way of communicating between the two. I have been given to understand, in fact, that the two sides are already exploring how to streamline processes. I am also glad that MCYS is prepared to resource the Commissioner's office accordingly such that there will not be a pile-up of cases waiting to be conciliated.

Column: 1777

Applicants whose cases were dismissed preliminarily by either the Tribunal President or Deputy President can appeal to the full Tribunal. Dr Lam was concerned about whether this is fair since the hearing would be presided by the same group of members. We have provided a condition that the member who dismissed the application shall not sit in the quorum hearing the appeal.

Mr Arthur Fong raised concerns about publicity. I assure him that the Tribunal hearings are all heard in private. Publicity, if any, of any case will all be redacted to precisely address the concerns the Member has raised.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan raised quite a few points which many of my Workgroup members, namely Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Sin Boon Ann, Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Ellen Lee have subsequently addressed. So I will not repeat them. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has also stated and the Government's stance on this, which I support.

Let me now quickly deal with a point of history – an old argument that was first addressed some 15 years ago but one which has been brought up again by Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan – that is, is it ever possible to match an amount of money to aparent's love? The answer of course is no. Is it desirable to replace family ties with State intervention? The answer again, no. Do functional families ever need this law? For the third time, and quite obviously, no. But today's motion depends, not on a yes answer to any of these questions, but merely our recognition of this: does Singapore, as a society, recognise that families fail? The answer is yes. Do we think that we ought to help these families? Yes again. Is money the best way to do this, no matter how imperfect a substitute for love, no matter how poorly matched the needs, no

Column: 1778

matter how arduous the process of mediation? Again, yes.

Today, I thank you for being here. Today, we are here as Members of Parliament, NMPs and NCMPs. We can help not just by philosophising an academic argument but by lending our weight to real and present policies, by tapping on a national infrastructure, by putting resources both in areas where the family has failed and to strengthen family ties. Let us agree on this and move on.

Let me now move on to address a few other empirical points which have been brought up by some Members. First, the issue of undeserving parents which was brought up by Dr Lam Pin Min and Mr Baey Yam Keng. There is fear that "undeserving parents" will try and fleece their children, and get money from them. Yes, I did ask MCYS, what proportion of cases seen by the Commissioner and Tribunal is related to undeserving parents. The facts are these: on average, about 12% of total applications are dismissed by the Tribunal. Of these, the most common reason for dismissal was that there was no reciprocity in the parent-child relationship. The Commissioner brokers a mutual agreement between both parties. Circumstances of parents and children and their merits to the case are also considered in the conciliation process. There are also instances where children have agreed to support their parents even though parents may be "undeserving". This is an example of the positive externalities that I hope will emanate from this policy – that settlement can be amicable and that children forgive and care for their parents. On the strength of this approach, we see that about 70% of cases that come to the Commissioner's Office reach settlement through conciliation. And again, about 70% of cases that reach the Tribunal's office are settled through compulsory mediation. If unsuccessful, the cases will be heard by the Tribunal.

Column: 1779

Finally, and here I come to my main point, something which the Minister also mentioned – based on the past 14 years, the average quantum awarded is $300 a month. This is less than what recipients on Public Assistance get. And these parents who get the money from their children do not get free healthcare unlike Public Assistance recipients, a point which my colleague Ms Denise Phua made.

What this shows me is this – the Maintenance of Parents Act really is and has always been about basic needs. This is not an attempt to copy the maintenance of spouses or wives in the sense that we are not after providing a certain sort of lifestyle. What we are after is basic maintenance,merely survival. It sounds very harsh when I say this, but this is as far as we are prepared to go in terms of legislation. Second, this is not a law for lobbying the cause of parents. There is a line which we consciously did not cross. This is not a law for advocacy. We do not "push" the case for parents. In a sense, parents who do not want to claim from their children will not be "pushed" to do so. This is apparent in our treatment of defaulters. We rely on the truthful reporting of parents about non-payments. What the amendments do is to make it less onerous to claim from the children, assuming that the parents do want to make this claim. The amendments are meant, in short, to show that the law has force. When a order has been given, we need to make sure that there is responsibility to enforce the duty. At the same time, we have left some things fuzzy. Under the current law, if parties do not turn up, no action is taken against them. So, the officers spend time on long conversations over the phone. If we were to be cold-blooded about it, we could have strong arm methods of enforcing payments and collecting them. But this would be the family version of "going nuclear". We have decided not to

Column: 1780

take a hard line on this, so we have gone a little way. We have improved the process but we have, quite deliberately, left it imperfect. But having said that, absence from such meetings will be taken into account by the Tribunal when the case is heard before it. So we worked on compulsory conciliation. At the moment, there is no consequence if any party does not attend the mediation session. But we do not want to press the "force" button. The thinking was that it would be somewhat paradoxical if you force someone to reconcile. But the paradox dissolves if we see this as a first and critical step towards the mediation rather than the adjudication process. This signals our commitment to the process. In the end, we compromised. Meaning, we accept that there will be some absentees and we do not punish them directly. But still, one cannot choose to ignore the mediation process with impunity as this will count in the decision of the Tribunal.

Sir, I take on board the criticism that these amendments still regulate with what some would contend as a light hand. But I do not think that we want to make it heavier. Rather, I echo the view put forward by several MPs including Mrs Mildred Tan and Mr Sam Tan, that the community rather than the Government, should lead the national dialogue on family.

Finally, on behalf of the Workgroup, I want to thank the Minister for his support and endorsement of our proposals. We are all in this together and it is my strong conviction that with these amendments, all the stakeholders in this space will be the better for it. Certainly, the parties that come before this Act and by that I refer to both the elderly parents and the adult children where they are deserving, they will all be better served.

Sir, I like to end by thanking all the Members who have spoken in support of

Column: 1781

the Bill and for many others who have not spoken but expressed their support to me and to my Workgroup members informally. In the course of today's debate, many Members have shared personal and touching stories which showed the need for this amendment Bill. At the same time, it also illustrated the complexity that comes with matters affecting family relationships. Indeed, this is a Bill that touches everyone in one way or another. This is because all of us are either a son or daughter and many of us are parents as well. I hope that we can all learn to love, to care and to forgive our parents for their shortcomings and past wrongs as we hope our children would do unto us. That will be the hallmark of a truly resilient family and one which we in Singapore would be proud to have as a priority. If there is such a ranking in the world, let us strive to be number one on the list.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you and I beg to move. [ Applause ]

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Seah Kian Peng].

Bill considered in Committee.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

New section 20A

The principal Act is amended by inserting, immediately after section 20, the following section:

Column: 1782

"Protection from personal liability 20A. No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the President or any deputy President or member of the Tribunal, or the Commissioner, for anything which is done with reasonable care and in good faith in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions or duties under this Act.". – [Mr Seah Kian Peng].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Madam, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time".

Madam, this provision is specifically for the Tribunal members who are neither civil servants nor career officers, and the Commissioner. I am proposing for this new provision not because the President or members of the Tribunal or the Commissioner had asked for it. But there had been cases of verbal abuse and accusations made against the Tribunal members and Commissioner by parties who feel they have been aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision or the Commissioner's recommendations.

The President and members of the Tribunal are, for all intents and purposes, performing public service for which they are only paid a token remuneration. Moreover, they are performing a quasi judical statutory function for which they should be able to carry out fairly and impartially without fear of being sued in their personal capacities. For this reason, the provision in the Bill provides protection for the Tribunal members and the Commissioner from personal liability when discharging their duties in good faith.

With the provision, it will also ensure the continued recruitment of quality senior persons for the various positions. This provision is not something new. Similar provisions can be found in other legislations, for example, the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act,

Column: 1783

the Community Mediation Centres Act and the Films Act. In fact, the Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan yesterday introduced a similar provision in the Charities (Amendment) Bill to provide protection for charity board members. The reason for such a provision to be included in this Act is no less different but as compelling.

Madam Chair, I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Column: 1784

The Chairman: The new clause will be inserted immediately after clause 11.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.