WITHDRAWAL OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Particulars)

Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs in how many cases has public assistance been terminated or withdrawn since 1st January, 1977; how many of them were the result of investigations which revealed that the recipients had grown-up children or close relatives to whom they could turn for support; whether he is aware that some of these children or relatives refuse to support the recipients; and what measures he proposes to take against these children or relatives after counsel from the Counselling Section of the Social Welfare Department has failed to convince them of their duty to maintain and support the recipients.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the five-year period from 1st January 1977 to 31st December, 1981, 8,839 persons had their public assistance allowance withdrawn. Of this number, 2,035 or 23% had their allowance withdrawn because they had grown-up children or close relatives who could, and were prepared to, support them.

I would like to assure the hon. Member and also this House that public assistance allowance will not be withdrawn if the children or close relatives, though financially in a position to support the recipient, do not in fact do so. The facts of each case are carefully considered by the Public Assistance Review Committee under my Ministry.

Happily, as of now, the number of public assistance recipients who have well-to-do children or close relatives and yet do not receive any support from them, is small. If, in future, there is evidence that growing numbers are abandoning their parents, the Government will consider introducing legislation to confer on needy, aged parents the right to claim maintenance from their children. Members of this House will know that legal provision already exists for minor children to claim maintenance from their parents and for deserted wives to claim maintenance from their husbands. It is to be hoped, Sir, that it will not be necessary to introduce such legislation.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is the hope of the Hon. Minister that legislation may not be necessary, may I know what steps the Government is taking to ensure that such legislation may not be introduced? Does this also mean that the Hon. Minister believes that legislation can promote filial piety? I have my doubts.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first answer the second part of the hon. Member's question, Frankly speaking, Sir, I have my doubts too. I do not think that legislation can promote filial piety. Sir, filial piety is a matter of the heart. It is a two-way process. Both the parents and the adult children have their respective roles to play. But, like all laws, Sir, the proposed legislation, if ever it is introduced, will be aimed at the minority. The primary purpose of the law is, therefore, to codify an obligation which all sections of the community already recognize and which the vast majority of adult children gladly discharge. So this piece of legislation, if ever it is introduced, would therefore act as a deterrent to the errant minority who neglect their needy, aged parents. Therefore, those of us who are already discharging our obligations to our parents have nothing to fear about this legislation, if it is introduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally feel that to counsel anyone on filial piety, after he has reached adulthood, is going to be difficult. I would not say that it is impossible because my Ministry, after repeated attempts and sustained efforts, has been fairly successful in a limited number of cases. Therefore I would rather classify this task as difficult, not impossible.

If we really want to succeed in preserving the integrity of the family and also to avoid the social scourge of children neglecting their needy, aged parents, we have to introduce educational programmes with a view to, firstly, instilling in the minds of the young, respect for the elderly and a sense of life-long duty towards one's parents. Secondly, making young parents aware that their responsibility towards their children does not end with the provision of food, clothing and shelter, and that without their active cooperation it will not be possible to ensure that children will grow up with a deep sense of belonging as a member of the family.

Sir, the second factor is very important because the alienation of children from parents does not only occur in households where parents have failed to discharge their basic responsibility of providing the essentials of life to their children. The weakening of the bonds between parents and children can also come about as a result of the failure on the part of a parent to relate to the children during infancy and, more important, during adolescence. This is exactly what I meant when I said that filial piety is a two-way process.

On the education of the children, I think we all agree that the Ministry of Education's recent move to introduce Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject at Secondary 3 and 4 levels is a step in the right direction, although people in certain quarters feel that this subject should have been introduced at levels lower than Secondary 3. But that is beside the point. I think we all agree that religious knowledge is a very good subject because we all know that the major religions of the world preach filial piety and also compassion for the poor and the handicapped..But I would like to caution here that in implementing this new syllabus, we have to guard ourselves against lending support to evangelistic fervour or to the spreading of religious bigotry.

If I may digress a little, Sir. As a Muslim myself, I feel proud to say that the Muslim society in Singapore, and elsewhere, attaches great importance to filial piety and respect for the aged. How does this come about? The answer is very simple. To a Muslim, to be filial is more than just a moral obligation. It is his religious duty. I cannot help going back into history because yesterday the Member for Anson went back into history, about 20 years ago, when he queried why the public assistance rates prior to 1973 were revised downwards, In the days of old Singapore, Sir, it was quite common to see three or four generations living happily under one roof in a kampong. I am happy to say that this age-old tradition is still being observed, even as more and more Muslims, more and more Malays, live in HDB flats. Adult children who live away from their parents provide regular financial support to the latter. They also hold reunions on festive and religious occasions. The small number of parents who experience unfilial conduct on the pan of their children are usually too ashamed of the fact to even talk about it.

I mention all this, Sir, because I feel that there is something positive, something useful that we can derive from Religious Knowledge in our efforts to inculcate filial piety in our young citizens. Besides the school, the Government, through its Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB), also conducts family life education programmes for newly married couples. My colleague, the Hon. Minister for Health, may want to confirm this. Such programmes are also conducted by private organizations, like the Family Planning Association, the Roman Catholic Church. For the Muslims, such programmes are also being organized by the Adult Religious Students' Association of Singapore (better known as PERDAUS), and the Islamic Theological Association of Singapore (better known as PERTAPIS), for those who are about to be married. We certainly appreciate the efforts of these organizations, and I would like to see more of such activities being organized. With the pooling of these resources in this direction, I am confident that we do not have to introduce any legislation on the maintenance of the needy, aged parents.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on the Hon. Minister mentioned that 2,035 social welfare assistance cases have had their allowances withdrawn because they have grown-up children. First of all, may I ask him what are the criteria used by his Ministry to establish that their children are, in fact, able to support them; and secondly, how many of these cases were subsequently reinstated upon appeal.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Punggol, these 2,035 cases are persons with children and relatives who are able and are willing to support them. There is no question of. appeal. These are cases of public assistance recipients with families, children or relatives who are able and are willing to support them. Therefore, they withdrew from the Public Assistance Scheme.

Dr Augustine Tan: What are the criteria?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: They withdrew. Their families said that they could support them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps it does not arise under this question, but with your permission, may I ask, as a supplementary question, whether the Minister has now got the answer to the question I asked him yesterday?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: I thought he was supposed to come out with figures for me. Anyway, typical of PAP Members of Parliament, I take my job seriously and have come up with the answer. First of all, it is not true to say that the Public Assistance rates were reduced in 1973. I think the Member for Anson was confused between "rates" and the "maximum allowance per household."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did the Government reduce the maximum?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Yes, it was reduced in line with our family planning policy. As a Government which is pragmatic and honest, we are not ashamed to say that there was a reduction. There is nothing to hide. This is in line with the Government's policy on family planning. There are other more stringent measures which we have taken and which we have made known to the public. If the Member for Anson submits a question for oral answer, I will give him all the details to show that he has been confused.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: There is just half a minute more.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister, within this half a minute, tell us by how much it was reduced?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: I would not like to give an answer in half a minute. I would invite the Member for Anson to submit a question for oral answer, and I will give him the full explanation.