MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Members may have read in the media the views that have been expressed since the Bill was introduced. Some critics have said that this Bill does nothing to promote filial piety. They are absolutely right. This Bill has got nothing to do with filial piety at all. The law cannot legislate filial piety any more than it can legislate love between husbands and wives or parents and children. The aim of the Bill is to provide a safety net if filial piety fails. It is not meant to be a replacement for filial piety. It is not meant to be the only solution to social problems.

Ideally, all people should be financially independent when they cease to be economically active. But we know this is impossible to achieve in practice. There will always be a certain number of people who do not have enough CPF, who do not have enough savings, who do not have enough investments. And short of outright welfare, these people will have to rely on others to tide them over. Ideally, people with families should get the support they need in their old age from their families, freely given out of love and respect, not compelled by law. But I think, again, that human nature being what it is, there will always be a few who will not live up to their moral responsibilities and who will not support their aged parents unless they are compelled to do so.

The Bill is not aimed at the majority of Singaporeans who know their duty, who know where morals point and who support and love their parents without having to be told. The Bill is aimed at that recalcitrant small minority that cannot be counted on to do what is right, and therefore it will not affect the vast majority of Singaporeans.

The first question is one of principle: should children support their parents? This is not as self-evident as it sounds, because in the past few months, as I have been talking to people and as I have been watching the debate in the media, we find views expressed that children did not ask to be born and therefore owe no duty to their parents. I do not know how widespread this view is, but evidently some people do subscribe to it. If you take the view that children did not ask to be born and therefore owe nothing to their parents, then of course you do not support this Bill at all and we have nothing else to talk about, because we start from different premises. But like me, if you do start from the premise that, yes, children should support their parents, then the next question is: should there be a choice about it?

On Saturday, I was at a forum organised by the Singapore International Foundation. There was a young lady there who said that parents should have a choice about whether they support their children or not and children should have a choice about whether they support their parents. The young lady was educated in a good university - I would not say which one - but she did say that. The view was expressed that some people feel there should be a choice about it.

If you take that view that there should be a choice, the next question is: what happens to those parents whose children choose not to support them? As things presently stand, if a person does not have the means to support himself, there are three things he can do. He can get a job and work till he dies. He can go on public assistance or rely on the charity of strangers. Or he can starve quietly and with dignity and not complain. None of these, I suggest, is acceptable in any civilized society.

Some people have expressed the view that it is not the individual who is responsible for his parents. It should be the State. The State should take this over. The State should pay an allowance. The State should maintain the old. No doubt this is a very seductive thing. But many people tend to forget that the State is not just a metaphysical entity. In the end, the bill comes to each and every one of us who has to pay taxes. So whether we pay directly to our own parents or pay indirectly through higher taxes, eventually we are going to pay.

Is there really a problem? Some people have expressed the view that there isn't a problem, that we do not see a lot of people being neglected by their children. That depends on how you define "problem". I think there is a danger in looking at things from a bald statistical point of view and not looking at the human element behind it.

The Advisory Council on the Aged was set up in 1989 and it reported to the Prime Minister. In its Report, it said that by the year 2000, we should have about 332,000 people over 60. It said in that Report in 1989 that there is an average of six people a year who claim to be rejected by their children. It said in that Report that 95% of those without their own income received contributions from their family. My question is: what about those 5% who do not receive contributions from their family? What about those 5%? What if someone comes to you at your meet-the-people session or goes to the Legal Aid Bureau and says, "I've spent my money educating my son or my daughter. And now they refuse to give me anything. I can't make ends meet." You tell them, "Go away. I am sorry. There's not enough of you. You are not a problem." Is that a response you make to them?

Do such people exist? I do not have a constituency to look after, but I have had people come to me. Just a year or so ago, somebody did write to me, a person who is physically disabled and is living on capital. She has a son who is working but he is not giving her anything. So such people do exist in our society. They exist in any society. To pretend that we have a perfect Confucian society or perfect Christian society or perfect Islamic society or perfect Hindu society is to fool ourselves. Even in states which are more conservative than us, there are laws that enshrine this moral duty. Taiwan, for example, has it in its Civil Code. India has it in its Criminal Procedure Code. Israel has a law. Many countries have these things. These are countries where perhaps people are much more conservative than us about these matters. So I do not think we can pretend that there is no problem or that there will never be a problem.

If you look at the numbers, 332,000 over 60 by the year 2000. If we say that 5% of this number will not get contributions from their families and are expected to live off their own resources, 5% of 332,000 is 15,000 people. Will things get better or will things get worse? Well, if things get better, then obviously we do not need the law. But can we be sure that things will get better and that we can in fact reach out to everyone and make sure that they do comply with their moral obligations? If there were some way to guarantee this, we do not need the law. But I do not think, human nature being what it is, that we can actually guarantee.

How does this particular law work? Let me explain, if I may, what I have done. Since I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Government, I have not tried to create a new system that will commit the Government to greater spending. I have tried to draft the Bill within what can be done without extra expenditure. And I have modelled the provisions on the provisions in the Women's Charter for maintenance of wives and children, because it does not seem to me to be cost effective to try and create an entirely new structure just for this.

Some people have expressed the fear that this kind of law will lead to a sort of share-the-wealth syndrome. The parents may think, "Well, you know, so-and-so got 20% of his child's income. Therefore, I am entitled to 20%." But I think they misunderstand how it works. The key is that if you are unable to maintain yourself adequately, you can apply. You have to be unable to maintain yourself adequately. If you are rich and can maintain yourself, no matter what kind of problem you have between yourself and your children, the law is not there to help you. It is for those who are unable for whatever reason to maintain themselves.

Another point. You go to court, you ask for an order against your children. The court has to be convinced that it is just and equitable that your children maintain you. In other words, not an absolute obligation. The court must be convinced that it is just and equitable. There are some things like, for example, the parent has neglected his child in childhood, abandoned his child, abused his child, which make it inequitable for the child now to maintain the parent. Or the step-parent may ask for maintenance from his step-child. There are some step-parents who are very good step-parents and may deserve to be maintained. But there are others who do not deserve to be maintained. To try and legislate to cover every single eventuality is to make the law rigid. The court is asked to make the decision, to look at the circumstances and to consider what is just.

Next, the court has to balance the means of the applicant against the means of the person from whom maintenance is sought. So there is no lump sum, no fixed percentage. It is a question of balancing. The child against whom maintenance is sought has his own responsibilities - responsibilities to his spouse, responsibilities to his children and he may not be able to afford it. If we fix a lump sum irregardless of means, you might have unjust situations. So it is a balancing process.

The courts do this all the time when they fix maintenance for children, when they fix maintenance for wives. Because when somebody goes to court and says, "I need maintenance for my children", the court has to look at the means of the respondent before it makes an order. If the order is unrealistic, there is provision for variation, as there is in this Bill. And circumstances do change. So there is provision for variation in this Bill as well. It is not like the order is made once and forever and there is no possibility of change. If a person disagrees with the quantum, there is an appeal to a higher court. So there are safeguards there.

The other point that I would like to make is that the maintenance should not be put on just one of the children. It is on all of a person's children. Therefore, there is provision in the Bill to allow a person against whom a maintenance order is sought to join siblings. This may create a bit of controversy and this can be discussed in this House. But, on principle, I do not think it is fair that only one child should bear the burden to the exclusion of others.

Several objections have been raised regarding this Bill. One commentator says it is undignified for a parent to take his children to court. I wonder if it is more undignified for the parent to apply for public assistance when he has children, or to ask for charity when he has children. Which is more undignified?

Some people say that it is bad for our image, that somehow it implies that we have failed as a society. Again, I am not sure that this is a valid criticism. It is because we recognise that there will be some who cannot be trusted that we put in this law. Putting in this law does not mean that the majority of Singaporeans are bad children. It means that we do recognise that there may be some people who cannot be trusted to live up to morality. It says nothing about society as a whole. And if you look at other countries - we are not the first to have such a law - even the United Kingdom had a law from 1601 to 1967 which placed the responsibility for maintenance of parents upon children. For their own reasons, they repealed it in 1967. Their moral climate has changed. Their social climate has changed. But that does not necessarily mean that the society has become worse.

Some people have said that it will weaken the bond between parents and children. I ask hon. Members to think about this very carefully. If you have a good relationship with your parents, will your parents go after you in court for money? If your parents know that you love them, are they going to sue you? It is only in families where the bond has already broken down that there is a possibility of litigation. So having such a law is not going to weaken strong bonds. It is only those situations where there is already some sort of bad feeling between parents and children that you might have a situation where these people would go to court.

Some people have expressed the view that this will lead to more litigation, but I think that is to miss the point of legislation like this. Israel has had such legislation for a long time and their experience shows that very few people actually end up in court. But that does not mean that the legislation is useless. Let me explain. At present, if a son refuses to support his father, there is nothing the father can do about it. The father can go to the Ministry of Community Development or he can go to clan elders and ask them to mediate. But at the end of the day the son knows that, no matter what the mediator does, he cannot do anything to him. He does not have to listen to mediators. He does not even have to let them in at the door. There is nothing the parent can threaten him with. So what do parents do? I suppose they resort to theatrics - camping outside their children's door, living in cardboard boxes. Why? Because there is no other recourse.

If there was a law that allowed a parent to apply for maintenance, do you seriously think that anybody would say: Sue and be damned! Would they do that? The embarrassment of being taken to court, I think, would be sufficient to induce the most recalcitrant person to pay up rather than to suffer the indignity of a public trial. So the fact that the law exists is some assurance that it will not have to be invoked too much. Right now the mediator has no teeth. He cannot do anything. He can plead, he can beg, he can cajole, but he cannot force. If you have such a law, the mediator can go to the recalcitrant son and say, "Look, we do not want to sue you, your parents do not want to sue you, but if you force them, you make them desperate, then the alternative is to go to court." I think there would be very few children who will risk this and say, "Sue and be damned. I do not care." So you should not judge the law on the basis of how few cases. I do not think there will be an outburst of litigation. In fact, I hope very much that there will be no litigation on this law because that will show either that everybody is being cared for by their children or, secondly, there is no need for people to become desperate enough to seek legal recourse. But that does not mean that we do not need the law because you have to give some teeth to the mediators to bargain with the recalcitrants.

Finally, some people said that no one will use it. Some people will say, "Society being what it is like, no one is going to go to court and use this law." People say this like it is self-evident. I do not think it is self-evident. On Saturday, the Straits Times published a poll. 660 people were polled, I believe, and 9% said they might invoke it. 9% out of 660, that is about 60 of them, and 9% spread over 300,000 is 27,000. I do not think the figures are as bad as they look but this is just straight-line projection. But to say that nobody will use it is actually begging the question. We do not know how many people will use it. Hopefully, nobody will use it. But if anybody has to use it, it is there.

Is there a better way to do this? Well, I am fully conscious of my limitations in drafting a law like this. If there is a better way, I will be happy to hear it. I do not propose to put the motion that this Bill be carried today. I propose that it should go before a Select Committee where at least we can have the benefit of the collective wisdom of Parliament on the point.

I am fully conscious that my term ends on 7th September 1994 and I had hoped that the Bill would have been introduced in April. But, as it was, there was no reading in April, hence the rather tight schedule. Please do not misunderstand me. It has to go before a Select Committee because it has raised such public concerns. If I am not reappointed, it does not necessarily mean that the Bill fails because there is no rule that says that the person who introduces the Bill has to be around to take it through the Third Reading. So if I am not around, then anybody else can pick up the baton where it falls and take it over to the finish line. But I think it is essential that it does go before a Select Committee. People should have a fair shot at saying what they feel about this Bill, apart from the newspapers.

Finally, let me ask: what does it cost us to pass this Bill? If the critics are right and everyone in Singapore is going to be looked after by their children without a law forever and ever, what have we lost by passing the Bill? It does not involve society in more litigation. It does not create a new level of bureaucracy. In fact, this kind of law does not affect most people any more than the law that requires parents to maintain their children affect most people. So even if only one person benefits from it, may I say to hon. Members that the effort is worth it. It is worth it just for that one person. If it helps more than one person, then all the better. So I ask hon. Members to think carefully about the principle of the Bill. No doubt, Members may have many suggestions but, hopefully, this Bill will go before a Select Committee where the suggestions can be considered. So if you feel that on principle and on balance that it might do more good for those people who would not otherwise have any recourse, I ask that you vote in favour of the Bill.

Question proposed.