MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL

Debate resumed.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that I am very glad that this Maintenance of Parents Bill has received widespread attention among Singaporeans. It has been debated extensively, in private and in public, and today in this House. It is only through such frank discussions and debates that we can try to build a consensus on an issue that governs the very basic social relationship - that between a parent and a child. The Feedback Unit recently conducted a straw poll among 100 people to obtain their feedback on this Bill. The sample was fairly represented in terms of race and age. 67% supported the Bill. All those interviewed, regardless of their stand on the Bill, agreed that it was the responsibility of the children to support their parents when they are old. This shows that people are still rational.

In deciding whether or not to support this Bill, we have to be very clear of the objective. First, let me touch on an area of growing concern for Singapore and which is fundamental to an understanding of the Bill. This is the reality of an ageing population which is inevitable. With improvements in nutrition, a healthy lifestyle, good health care, the life expectancy of the population is now longer. Not only do the elderly live longer, but their numbers will also grow.

Our society has great respect for the elderly because of their wisdom and experience. In private, this respect manifests itself in filial piety. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that I believe that filial piety is still strong among Singaporeans and as supported by figures from two recent surveys.

The first survey, commissioned by the Singapore Press Holdings, reveals that 82% of working adults give money to their parents, and 81% will ask their parents to live with them if their parents are sick and had no one to look after them. 86% of the elderly parents interviewed say that they receive monthly allowances from their children.

The second survey was carried out by NTUC on unionised female workers. The findings confirm the premium placed on a 3-tier family living together. Firstly, because it reinforces family values and, secondly, it is less costly. 86% of the married respondents give money to their parents and/or parents-in-law.

As you can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, filial piety is alive and well. Why is the Bill necessary then?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us first of all look at what the Bill aims to do. Some Singaporeans do not support this Bill because they feel that we should not, and indeed cannot, enforce filial piety by law. They feel that filial piety is a natural human emotion. They are also afraid that this Bill will induce our young to think that maintaining parents is a legal requirement, not a moral obligation. I sympathise with these reservations. Filial piety is an intangible emotion. I believe that filial piety is a moral obligation. It is part of the broader spirit of mutual help and support within a family.

I share the general view that to strengthen the family unit and strong family relations, there should be more emphasis on moral education and good social behaviour. We have to inculcate the correct social and family values among our young at home, in school, and through the mass media. This is why we have identified and promoted the five core family values. This is why my colleagues in this House are extremely concerned about the kinds of programmes that are televised over SBC and the values they spread. This is also why, time and again, we have emphasized the importance of devoting more resources and curriculum time to teaching moral education in our schools.

Hence, if the survey results which I have mentioned earlier show that most Singaporeans believe in filial piety, why then must we introduce this Bill? Mr Speaker, Sir, unfortunately our society is not a perfect one. There will always be irresponsible and unfilial children who abandon their aged parents. This law will provide a means as a last resort for these abandoned parents to seek assistance. Let me give some examples. At my meet-the-people session, some elderly people have complained that their children refused to care for them. I referred the case to the Ministry of Community Development but the children refused to attend the counselling session provided. A nun from a home for the aged told me that there are those in the home whose children are high wage earners but who never visited their aged parents. Some have even stopped paying their dues to the home. What should we do in such cases? Should the homes for the aged themselves be forced to finance these cases or should the taxpayers bear the burden? It is at this uncaring minority that this Bill is targeted, not at the filial majority. Some of us worry that, because of the law, children will only take care of their parents because they are legally obliged to do so but not out of genuine care and affection. I disagree with this view.

For example, we all know that there are provisions in the Women's Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act that bind parents to maintain their children legally. Although these laws have existed for quite some time, the majority of parents take care of their children because they love them, not because it is a legal requirement.

Similarly, most children will take care of their parents whom they love and respect. This Bill will not undermine the loving relationship most children have with their parents. In most families, parents care for and bring up their children. Grown-up children reciprocate and care for their parents when their parents grow old and are financially less secure. This behaviour is the cornerstone of our Asian family values.

We have to separate the debate on how to strengthen family relationship from the true merits of this Bill. It is true that the Bill is not meant to strengthen the family unit which can only be done through schools and social and family education. This Bill, like the majority of our laws, exists as a deterrent, for example, the Penal Code and other laws. We are not offended by the existence of such laws because we know we are not going to break them. But the Penal Code and other laws are there to deter undesirable and anti-social behaviour. Likewise, we should not be unduly alarmed by the proposed Bill because it will not affect most of us. Also, to be fair to the children, the proposed Bill does not protect irresponsible parents.

I can understand when a law concerns the individual relationship it is always a sensitive issue. In fact, some countries like Taiwan, Canada, France and Israel have this kind of laws for quite some time. Let me cite you the example of Israel. Since 1959, there has been in existence in Israel a law that binds a person to maintain his family. This does not mean just his children, but his parents, grandparents and his siblings as well. But does this mean that the Israelis lack strong family values? No. The family unit in Israel is very strong. In fact, Israel's socio-cultural and religious values converge to strengthen family relationships and values. Having these values in the law does not mean the Israelis lack them. Instead, the law emphasises the importance of these values by enshrining them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what exactly does the Bill aim to do? In my view, this Bill merely seeks to give some protection to any parent who is abandoned by his children. This Bill gives such a parent the last resort to appeal to the court of law to claim a reasonable amount of maintenance from his children. Besides providing this safety net for the aged, the Bill also serves as a deterrent to children who are persistently unfilial. The proposed Bill does not protect irresponsible parents who did not take care of their children in the past. Clause 5(3) of the proposed Bill states that if the parent has previously abandoned, abused or neglected his child or children, the court may dismiss his application for maintenance or reduce the quantum of maintenance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support the Maintenance of Parents Bill. However, we need to make some refinements to it.

In the Asian context, some parents may be reluctant to sue their children in court because they are embarrassed to wash dirty linen in public. In view of this, I would like to suggest that for these parents, an alternate route be provided. I would propose that a Commissioner be appointed who can take up these cases on behalf of the parents. This Commissioner, who will play an important role in assisting these parents, should be strongly supported by a secretariat. Such a Commissioner should have the power to act when approached by aggrieved parents, and the Commissioner should also have the power to act when he has knowledge of any deserving case. In both situations, the Commissioner will have the opportunity to adopt a softer approach such as counselling parent and child to resolve the problem, or reach settlement out of court. The case should be taken to court only if the child remains stubborn despite all efforts to find an amicable settlement. Thus, legal proceedings should only be a last resort.

These amendments take into consideration the sensitivities of the parties involved, and make the Bill more acceptable to the public in general.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to concede that the abandoned aged is more in number today. But we are faced with the reality of an aging population. Let us have the foresight and courage to enact a law that deters acts of gross filial impiety because it goes against the very core of the values on which the family unit stands.

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): Mr Speaker, Sir, law should be enacted only when there is absolute necessity. You will recall at the last Budget debate, the Minister for Education, in answer to a call to introduce compulsory education, justified the non-legislation on the ground that the percentage of dropouts in school was very low. Therefore, there is really no necessity for a law to enforce compulsory education.

The first attempt at legislation for provision for the maintenance of parents was made in 1984 by the Committee on the Problems of the Aged. Four years later, in 1988, the Advisory Council again put up recommendations for the introduction of this provision. On both occasions, the Government did not accept this recommendation on the simple ground that from statistics, the number of parents being abandoned by their children was very negligible.

Therefore, when we consider introducing this new Bill, what should be the criterion? Should we follow the criterion, as adopted by the Government on the two previous occasions, that there are insufficient cases of this nature for the Bill to be introduced? We have no statistics to say that there is in fact an increase in the number of parents abandoned by their children. In fact, from newspaper report, of the 1,500 old folks in the voluntary welfare organisations, there was not a single case of parents being abandoned by their children. In fact, the Director of the Counselling and Care Centre, who has been a welfare worker for the last 22 years, said that he could not recall a single case of parents being abandoned by their children.

It therefore behoves the mover of this Bill and its supporters to justify the need for this Bill. More so when you are trying to legislate morality, family values and traditional Asian values. Even if there is a slight increase in the number of parents being abandoned by their children, I am saying that now is not the time for such a Bill. We should wait until an opportune time when considering all these things, bearing in mind the various measures, which the Government has introduced of late, have partially addressed this issue, that is, the extension of the retirement age to 60 with effect from 1st July last year, and in seven to ten years' time, the retirement age will be extended to 67 years old; the widening of the CPF net to cover all self-employed; and the increase in the Minimum Sum to $80,000.

I am sure the House will recall that at the last Budget debate, the Minister for Labour mentioned the fact that the increase in the Minimum Sum is actually meant to cope with the aging problem and to make provision for the aged in their retirement. And I also feel that, most importantly, it is the duty of a government to look after the minority of destitutes. This minority have done their share for society. They have contributed to this country. They pay taxes, dues, and the GST. I feel that there should be no shirking of responsibility to care for this small minority which comes with the mandate to govern.

In my view, as there are no statistics to show that there is an increase, and we still have ample time, no effort should be let up to inculcate and imbue in our younger generation the traditional values and filial piety. I would suggest that this Bill is a very bad and sad reflection on our society which emphasises and prides on Asian values, filial piety and Confucianism. I would suggest that we wait until such time when there is a serious necessity for this Bill.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem of the aged has been occupying the minds of the people and the political leadership for a long time. In July 1984, this House debated the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged. The problem is still with us, and has become even more pronounced. Currently, in Singapore, eight working persons support one aged person. By the year 2010, there will be four working persons to one aged person. And by the year 2020, there will be three working persons to one aged person. By 2030, one-quarter of the population will be aged 60 and above, compared to only 9% today. That is the scale of the problem. The Government has taken the necessary steps to address the potential social and financial burden on the State, in light of the increased life expectancy and potential shortage of manpower in the workforce, so as to sustain the economy in the future years ahead. The amendment to the Central Provident Fund Act this afternoon and the enactment of the Retirement Age Act last year are examples of legislation that have been set in place to address this problem.

While the Government has done its part to ensure that the aged do not become a social and financial burden to the State, the problem may perhaps be best addressed by tackling it at its root � the smallest building block of society - the family unit. This private Member's Bill in the name of Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon has generated considerable public interest. While everyone in this House would possibly agree that addressing this problem at the family level is the right thing to do, we would, however, be divided in the approach and the form in which the problem can be addressed. Sir, the real issue is: to legislate or not to legislate - that is the question.

Sir, I am a member of the National Youth Council (NYC) and I represent the Council to present the views of the youths in Singapore on this Bill. This Bill, if passed, would make the greatest impact on the youths and their future relationship with their parents. It is therefore important to take heed of the views of the youths in this matter.

In July 1993, at the National Youth Seminar, officiated by the Prime Minister, two out of the four workshops focused on the theme "Looking after Aged Parents". These two workshops submitted their recommendations to the National Youth Council. After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, I chaired two NYC round table panel discussions to discuss this matter. The first panel consisted largely of youths and administrators of Homes for the Aged. The second panel comprised representatives from youth organisations, senior administrators of ethnic-based self-help organisations, senior citizens, and representatives from the Institute of Policy Studies and the legal profession.

Both round table groups discussed extensively the approach in addressing the problem of caring for aged parents, ie, to legislate or not to legislate. There was an almost unanimous agreement by both panels and the NYC Seminar's recommendation, that legislation may not be the most appropriate vehicle in finding a solution to this problem. In the same breath, the group also agreed that if there was no other better solution, then legislation could be used as a last resort and as a necessary evil for the errant or recalcitrant few, as Assoc. Prof. Woon put it.

The groups, and in particular all the representatives from the different ethnic-based self-help groups, were opposed to legislation primarily because they felt that if the children were hauled before the court, it would further weaken their family ties. It would also add embarrassment to the family. In our Asian society "face" is very important. Going to the court would be embarrassing not only to the children but also to the parents. A young participant in the discussion spoke for all youths when he said that "legislation might have an adverse effect in that the young would, in the long term, view looking after parents as a legally enforceable requirement rather than as their responsibility as children." What is required is to inculcate and imbue filial piety, love and concern for the parents. Schools must emphasise to students family values and filial piety. Filial piety must come from the heart, and it cannot be a subject of legislation. While the children have a moral obligation to look after their parents, their parents also must ensure that they also plan for their old age.

Another suggestion which emerged and is worthwhile considering is that more family support groups with greater clout be formed to help the neglected parents. This support group can act as a channel to help parents who are in need of help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the general consensus of the two groups was that legislation was not necessary at this stage. But if the House comes to the decision that legislation is necessary, then we have to look at how best this matter can be resolved by legislation. If legislation is a necessary evil, we must recognise that it will have salutary effects. The panel members felt that the present judicial set up may not be the best forum to adjudicate the matter. The general conclusion was that this matter should not end up in the court. We should, perhaps, set up a new tribunal which could act as a consultative, conciliatory and mediatory body to resolve the problem.

The round-table discussion members were in agreement with the proposal contained in the letter to the Forum Page, Straits Times, 1st June 1994. The writer of the letter had suggested the setting up of a Community Court. The panel felt that legislation should not create antagonism and ill-will between parents and children. If the matter were to go to court, the end result would be confrontation between the parents and children. Therefore, the second panel recommends that a three-tier system be set up to resolve the issue between the parents and children.

First, the aggrieved parents could go to a conciliatory unit set up by the Ministry of Community Development. The aggrieved parent could go and see the unit and if the children have failed to maintain, the unit could then counsel the children and try to persuade them to reconsider their position.

If this fails, then the matter could go to the Community Court where again the Court Registrar could summon the parties to the privacy of his chambers and try to work out a solution. And if this fails, then the matter should go to the Community Tribunal which should be made up of a lawyer and, perhaps, two community leaders or Justice of Peace.

The three could meet the aggrieved parent together with his children and then come to a decision. The decision of this tribunal should carry the same authority as that of District Courts. The hearing should be held in the chambers and it should not be opened to the public or to the press. Like the Small Claims Tribunal, it should not be opened to lawyers to make representations on behalf of their clients. Aggrieved parties can be helped by the Registry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have inherited the British legal system which is an adversarial system. Litigants have to attack each other's testimony in order to win the case. We are an Asian society. We could learn from the Japanese legal system which encourages mediation and arbitration. We should adopt the Japanese approach in Singapore especially in family disputes. Family dispute should be resolved in private rather than in public. We should try the conciliatory approach to resolve family disputes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot run away from the problem of the aged. Ten years have gone by since the problem was first discussed. We cannot wait for another ten years. There are some signs that our elders are not getting the support and care which they deserve. All of us have enjoyed the love and care of our parents, and we must not forget them in their old age. One should not forget that we too will be old one day.

In this, both parents and children must play their role positively. The parent could help in planning for their old age by setting aside a sum of money. Similarly, the children must also set aside a reasonable sum of money for their own future as well as taking care of their parents.

With all due respect to Prof. Walter Woon, who was a fellow Rafflesian and who was my former lecturer in Company Law during my undergraduate Engineering Course, I must add some critical comments on the adequacy of the provisions of the Bill. Many legal experts and myself have observed that the Bill is far too broad and has many loopholes. It is so wide open that not only a double-decker bus can pass through but a super jumbo-jet can whiz past and still have enough space to make a U-turn.

Let me elaborate. For example, clause 11(b) and (c) allows the parent to authorise a third party to apply for maintenance, on his behalf. This is a dangerous precedent as it is open to unscrupulous persons to take advantage of the gullibility of old people. While the maintenance would be paid to the parent, it would be possible to 'scout' for old people with well-off children and encourage them to apply in return for a fee or percentage, like brokering of houses. This is particularly so for lump sum maintenance. Another problem that the Bill does not address is who would administer the money sent to parents staying in old age homes and how would it be possible for children to track if all the money given by them actually goes to the parents.

In addition, clause 5(3) and (4) may need to be deleted as it would further complicate matters.

Sir, in conclusion, the youths of Singapore have made known their views on the proposed Bill and are of the opinion that legislation may not be necessary at this stage. But if it must be done now to protect parents of the errant few, then a conciliatory approach of a three-tiered Tribunal rather than an adversarial court approach is recommended.

Personally, I reluctantly support the Bill as it is a necessary evil for the errant or recalcitrant few. I am of the strong opinion that the Bill must be re-written as it is too simplistic in its present form. I therefore propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, where the Bill would benefit from public participation.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Providing for adequate maintenance of parents appears to be a natural duty of children. I support the principle behind the Bill. But the Bill in its present form is a Pandora's box. The guiding principle is to maintain the family unit and strengthen the tenuous links in the family where there is discord between parents and the children. Court measures should only be a last resort as it is likely to drive a wedge into family ties which are already fragile. The end result is that the parents may be maintained materially through the court but they would have lost something more important, the emotional bonding between parents and children.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.08 pm

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): The Bill should prevent frivolous suits. There is a danger that parents may use the threat of the Bill to get more maintenance from their children. The mere threat of a court hearing may be sufficient to force the children to bend to the demands of their parents which may not be reasonable. The definition of "child" in the Bill includes an illegitimate, adopted and step-child. The likelihood of weak bonding or even neglect of the child is greater in such instances. Only when the parents have taken adequate care of the children should there be adequate justification for parents to clamour for maintenance by their children. Although the Bill seeks to address this in clause 5(3), children who have been abandoned, neglected or abused may not automatically have the case dismissed, but may still be forced to provide for maintenance of their parents although the quantum may be reduced.

Young adults have voiced their concerns that this is not a fair measure. They cannot see the rationale for having to maintain parents who have not treated them as their children. They will also have to recount their traumatic and painful childhood experiences of being abandoned, neglected or abused publicly in the court, a step which they will not relish. The Bill should address these concerns.

The Member for Yuhua had proposed to amend the Bill to include the appointment of a Commissioner for the maintenance of parents who may make an application on behalf of an applicant whether or not the applicant is able to do so. There is some merit to this amendment. In the hospitals, there are instances of aged parents who are left in the hospitals for long periods while children push the responsibility of looking after their parents to each other. Of course, there are situations where there is only one child who is working and supporting his family and hence may have difficulty adjusting to the social difficulties of looking after the aged sick. These families should be helped and the court is not the right place to resolve the problem. However, there are families with many children and none want to take up their responsibility of providing for their sick aged parent. In this instance, the appointment of a Commissioner who can then make an application on behalf of the aged parent will be an unpleasant but viable option.

However, unlike the Member for Yuhua, I do not see the Commissioner as someone who is a champion of neglected parents, championing the rights of the parents even if they have no wish to raise the matter in court. In the recent survey by the Straits Times, it was not surprising that 87% of those aged 50 years and above stated that they would not take their children to court if their children did not support them financially. If a Commissioner was to be appointed, the Commissioner in acting on behalf of the parents should not commit the case to court, if the parents are not willing as the case may be weak with the parents unwilling to allege failure of maintenance and it may sow further discord within the family. In the Asian context, one must never underestimate the importance of preserving the dignity or face of the family.

To prevent frivolous cases from being brought to court and wasting valuable time in court, there should be safeguard measures.

(1) The Bill should give broad criteria on what is considered inadequate maintenance to screen out unwarranted cases.

(2) Every case should be thoroughly and carefully investigated by a social worker appointed by the Ministry of Community Development.

(3) Deserving cases should then be raised to the attention of the Commissioner who will make an application on behalf of an applicant only if the applicant consents to the action. In the event the applicant is unable to make a decision because of physical disabilities, the Commissioner can proceed with the application on his behalf. In these deserving cases, the Commissioner can arrange for the applicant to be legally represented without the need to incur high legal fees. Otherwise, the high legal fees will by itself deter those deserving from applying and hence the exercise becomes self-defeating.

(4) Parents who have abandoned, neglected or abused their children should not be entitled to any maintenance cost from these children.

(5) In a situation where the circumstances having been carefully investigated by the social worker and reviewed by the Commissioner and it is deemed that there are no merits to proceed with an application, the individual can still proceed to take up a civil suit at his own expense as an individual and the Commissioner is not bound to assist him in the application in any way.

An amendment to the Bill to take into account these considerations will: (1) allay the fear of frivolous cases; (2) prevent undeserving parents from getting maintenance; and (3) provide an avenue for deserving parents to make an application via the Commissioner without incurring high legal costs.

As this is an important and emotional issue with wide-ranging views, I would strongly recommend that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration. 4.15 pm

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Sir, there has been a fair amount of public reaction to this Maintenance of Parents Bill. I have heard many comments, both for and against the Bill. I can categorise the reactions into two groups, those that are reacting from the heart and those from the head. To put it in another way, whether the reactions are emotional ones, ie, from the heart, or rational ones, ie, from the head. Allow me to assess this Bill from these two angles.

Coming straight from our hearts, the spontaneous emotional response of many people and I to this Bill is negative. Singapore is essentially an Asian cultural society. As Asians, it has been ingrained into us the importance of filial piety and the importance of the family. These values have been indoctrinated in our minds. There are eight virtues in Chinese teachings. These are which means patriotism, filial piety, mercy, love, courtesy, justice, integrity and shame. These are things we must understand and respect. Hence, Chinese teachings stress the importance of filial piety and family values. I believe the same applies to the teachings of the other Asian cultures of the Indians and the Malays.

I believe the emotional response of all filial sons and daughters to this Bill is that it is shocking and unthinkable. Most will feel that it is only natural that our parents who have devoted their life, love and money to bring up their children, that they should then in turn support their parents in their old age. As many have said, this bondage between the parents and children is emotional. This bondage should not be legislated.

On the other hand, many feel that the emotional response from parents is also similarly negative. Many responsible parents see it as their natural duty to bring up their children and to educate them. The children did not ask to be born, and there is no contract at birth to say that the children must be taken care of by their parents, and that they in turn must take care of their parents when their parents grow old. Hence, the parents will view this as their personal failing if they have not properly educated their children, and that in failing to do so, their children do not wish to reciprocate and take care of them during their old age. From the parents' point of view, there should not be a need to legislate this requirement. Many consider it as an affront to their personal parenting ability to require the Government to step in and impose an order on their children to maintain them.

Putting aside all the emotional hang-ups that we may have in this Bill, let us ask ourselves rationally: should it be done? What are the rational considerations for having this Bill?

The basic premise is that if the parents have brought up their children properly, then in turn the children should be responsible for maintaining their parents in their old age. Taken narrowly in the context of the family, this is a private family affair that should be settled and resolved within the family. How, who should do it, how much and when, are matters that should be settled within the family. Why is there a need for the State to get involved?

In the event of differences and disagreements, is it not better for family members to sort things out among themselves or seek mediation from friends and relatives? To have to resort to going to court seems to be a very alien idea for us Asians. This litigious approach is more a Western rather than an Eastern cultural concept.

Moreover, we have to ask ourselves whether this problem of children neglecting their parents is becoming prevalent in Singapore. Are there many abandoned old parents in the streets? Are the old folks' homes bursting at the seams with rejected, uncared for parents? If this is so, it will then become a national problem. Only then will I feel that it is justifiable for the State to step in. The problem becomes a matter for the Government to tackle and a financial and social burden for the State to bear. At that stage, then there is in fact a rational need for such a Bill that requires maintenance of parents by children. If this is not the status, why is there a need for this Bill now? I feel that sad will be the day when there are many Singaporean children neglecting their parents to the extent that it becomes a national problem. Sad will be the day when parents need to or liberally resort to going to court to get their children to support them. Even then, the main effect of the maintenance of parents law is to solve and shift the financial burden of maintaining large numbers of poor aged parents from the State back to their unfilial children.

The Government would still have to solve the root causes which rest in, I believe, poor education of the children and the degeneration of social values. Fortunately, this is not the case in Singapore at present.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the conclusion of my evaluation is that I am not inclined to support the Bill in its present form. I do not feel that it is necessary to have parents resorting to going to court to sue their children to support them. Moreover, the instances of children neglecting their parents are not so prevalent at the present time, such that it becomes a matter for the State to interfere and to resolve. If we ever degenerate to that state of affairs, then we should first look at the root causes of why is there this social degeneration of our family values. Education and societal factors will have to be re-assessed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today's debate on the Maintenance of Parents Bill is really a debate on whether we are for or against Asian values. For over two decades, the Government has been promoting Asian values. The Government tells us that the family is the building block of the nation and that family unity is of paramount importance. It is also Asian practice that disputes in the family should be resolved by discussion and a consensual decision arrived at, and that it is quite shameful to let others know that there is a family dispute. I think most families would prefer disputes to be resolved amicably in private rather than in the open. Where disputes cannot be resolved by the immediate family members, they would normally seek the assistance of other members of the family such as the grandparents of the children or brothers and sisters of the parents and also seek the clan association to help them resolve the problem in the family. The general rule is that whatever happens, the family would try as best as it can not to bring the family dispute in the open and make it public, for it is considered very shameful to do so.

In Singapore society today, there is still a sense of shame. There are certain things we still do not like to make public, and one of the things is a dispute in the family. If this Maintenance of Parents Bill becomes law and is used in the courts, the sense of shame that we now have in our society shall surely be eroded.

The Japanese society is very stable and I believe one of the reasons for that stability is the sense of shame. Most Japanese dare not go out of line or do anything wrong, because there is that sense of shame. They dare not face their relatives, their neighbours or their friends if they did anything wrong.

We have read in Singapore about an engineer who committed suicide whilst building our Singapore Airport because his company lost money. He felt that he had let his employers down. We have also read that after World War II, many Japanese soldiers were left behind in the jungles in the Philippines. They dared not surrender because if they did, they felt that they would let their family down. It would be very shameful for their family. And I believe more so that no Japanese children would dare not to support their parents. That is the sense of shame. So if we can achieve that Japanese value, I believe we have really gone a great distance in building a cohesive society.

As regards this Bill, there are two possibilities. One scenario is that the sense of shame in Singapore is still very strong and parents are too shameful to go to the courts to force their children to pay for their maintenance. That was the case in Israel. Israel, as has already been mentioned, has a similar law enacted in 1959, whereby under the Israeli family law, parents and even grandparents who are neglected can claim maintenance from the children and grandchildren in the courts. However, to the good name of Israel, that law has hardly been used at all. It shows that the children over there care for their parents. And if you ask any lawyer in Israel to cite a case when that law was last used, he would probably find it very difficult to find one such case for you. If that is the scenario and it could be transported into Singapore's case, then we really do not need such a law.

On the other hand, there could be a different situation. Once the Maintenance of Parents Bill is made into law, due to examples of a few, others may follow them and flood the courts to claim maintenance from their children. If that happens, then the sense of shame in Singapore would definitely have been lost. There is no more privacy of the family. Everything comes out in the open. People no longer feel shameful for parents to claim maintenance from their children. Once that is done, perhaps other family disputes will also go to court, because they have lost their sense of shame, instead of seeking avenues to resolve such family disputes first. Soon, the issue relating to this Bill is just not a matter of dollars and cents. If the Government feels that it could save itself some money, perhaps it is wise to save the money elsewhere. At the moment, I read that the Ministry of Community Development is spending something like $9 million on the care for the aged. This sum, by Singapore Government's standard, is minuscule. It is not even a drop in the ocean. I should say, in fact, it is a very small fraction of a drop in the ocean.

When the Maintenance of Parents Bill is enacted as law, the Government surely will have to build around it an infrastructure to administer the law. There would be a host of people involved, not only in the courts but also social workers, counsellors and enforcement officers. I think it would be a better proposition that, instead of putting this Bill through, the Government should spend the money that would have been used if the Maintenance of Parents Bill is made into law to educate Singaporeans on Asian values. It is like strengthening one's body to build up resistance against diseases rather than trying to cure the disease itself.

I am glad that the Bill hopefully will be assigned to a Select Committee where it can be further examined. If this Bill should become law, in my view, it would do more damage than good. Because we are an Asian society where our family ties are still strong. The whole Asian society is built up on a strong fabric of family ties. If we are to succeed as a cohesive society in the long term, then we should do everything to preserve that fabric, and not to tear it apart. The Bill that is before us is an attempt to tear that fabric apart, and not to preserve it. I therefore cannot support the Bill that is before the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): ( In Malay): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to give my views on the issue of maintenance of parents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were to ask a Malay how relevant the Bill might be to him, his answer would probably be that it is not really relevant to a Malay. A Malay, one who subscribes to the values of the Malays and practises the Islamic way of life, should not need this law to live and feel secure that he would be looked after in his old age. This is a valid observation generally, because currently we can see that the Malay community, which has managed to preserve its values and way of life, guided by its religious beliefs, looks upon the maintenance of parents as an important responsibility. It is an important duty in adult life. Thus we see today that very few Malay parents or old folks are neglected by their children. The main reason, as I have explained earlier, is their strong belief in their values.

I gave this reply once to someone who asked me how is it that among the Malays, the old folks are well looked after. The simple answer is that a Malay Muslim who neglects his own parents, or worse, denies them his loyalty is promised hell after his death. It is a firm and clear injunction. A Malay Muslim who seeks a better after-life will make sure that he looks after his parents.

In fact, in daily life, a young Malay is not supposed to be rude to his parents. Never mind being unfilial - just to be rude is a serious offence. These values have been passed down from generation to generation and inculcated from young.

Malay parents have a clear responsibility to raise their children well. It is a responsibility not only from the Malay point of view, but from the Islamic point of view as well: to give them food, shelter and education. Some continue to be responsible to the extent of finding life partners for their children, holding their wedding ceremony and later even looking after their grandchildren. When a child grows up, he will be explained what his responsibilities are to his parents and how he should carry the same responsibility when he has his own children. This tradition has brought strength to Malay community life and we truly hope that these values will be preserved.

Mr Deputy Speaker, another source of unhappiness among Singaporeans, including the Malays, about this Bill is how a noble act that has been a way of life is now turning into a legal solution. Many feel that the needs of the aged are not just financial needs but also love, respect, concern, etc. However, I agree that with changing times and new values, there will be in the Malay community, as in other communities, some people who will shirk this responsibility and will need a bit of push before they will do it.

Even today there are in the Malay community, although small in number, adult children who refuse to give their parents financial support. But, as in the past, we have within the community a system where relatives will come forward to counsel, or neighbours who might know of the situation will put pressure on the children concerned. Still, in the context of today's life, with fewer three-generation families and new challenges, a higher cost of living, I think the number of people who might neglect their parents, including in the Malay community, would probably increase in the future. Granted, no law, this Bill included, can guarantee that a child would voluntarily, under no pressure, come forward to maintain his parents. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel the Bill should receive our attention and support, so that at least parents would have a place to turn to should they find themselves in difficulties, if ever they need to claim their right from the children on whom they had showered love and money to raise, feed and educate.

In fact, I am confident that Asian children, whether they be Chinese, Indians or Malay, would find themselves under great pressure if they were brought to court to face a claim for maintenance from their parents. I think most of us, being Asians, would try to avoid such a situation. And because there is a law to enable parents to do so, I think many will realise that it is better to provide this basic need for their parents rather than be brought to such an embarrassing situation. Indeed, I think many parents, in spite of difficulties that compel them to go to court, would feel reluctant to do so. I know some would rather live in a state of deprivation than shame their family and descendants. Nevertheless, we should allow them the means to do so and at least in the extreme cases they should be able to find a way out of their problems. And the way out for them is to go back to their own children.

So I would support the Bill and I support that it be referred to a Select Committee so that we can gather more views from the public. In this way, we can refine it and implement it in the best way possible in the interests of our future generations.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Bill was first introduced in this House, there has been extensive debate, both in the media, and on the ground. I kept a running count of this afternoon's debate. Eight speakers spoke - three against, one reluctant yes, four yes, but wanted some refinements.

This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has engaged the passion of Singaporeans, which is not a bad thing. The broad verdict, as I read about it, is that the majority of Singaporeans, especially young working adults, are in favour of the Bill, with a significant minority of older Singaporeans opposing the Bill because they fear that it would erode and demean existing family values and family ties.

But one thing is sure, even for those who do not support the Bill, as it stands, they are not saying an outright no. As Mr Leong Horn Kee has put it, their hearts feel that this may not be the right time. Therefore, if we can somehow win over the hearts of those who demurred, this Bill has a chance of getting popular support. I think it deserves clarification. It deserves to be committed to a Select Committee and it deserves to get ultimately popular support, if not overwhelming majority support.

But let us listen to why some of these people are saying no. First, these people are saying that filial piety cannot be legislated. This Bill is not a solution to a moral problem. If legislation is needed, then our education system has failed and it is better, they say, to go back to basics now instead of using the hammer of the law. Many Asian parents, Singaporean parents, are resigned to a traditional Asian way. They say, "If my children are unfilial, then what is the point of bringing them to court. I will live the shame. I will camp outside the Town Council office, maybe pressure my MP." But my response to this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that filial piety certainly cannot be legislated. But this Bill does not even attempt to do that. What it attempts to do is to solve a practical problem of maintenance for the very few abandoned parents. The Government, as I understand, aims to foster filial piety, not through legislation, but by a multi-pronged approach which includes conducting moral education in schools, hosting public seminars, especially during this International Year of the Family, promoting family values through good local SBC programmes in the media - I think SBC should step up its effort - giving tax incentives to support parents via the parents relief scheme, the CPF Top-up scheme, encouraging children to insure their parents under Medisave, and even recently, to re-prioritise the balloting of flats to allow children and parents to live together.

So all these measures, taken as a whole, in toto, might help to foster filial piety. The Bill does not attempt to legislate filial piety. But we must recognise that even while these educational programmes, these public programmes, are on-going, there is a limit to what we can do. It cannot for a start create a utopian society, which some of my colleagues appear to want us to do. Whatever we do, whatever this Government does, however it does it, however much money it pours into it, there will be abandoned parents. Hence, I think we need a multi-pronged approach - education, tax reliefs, public seminars, and also legislation, because legislation can serve as a last line of defence.

I think Walter Woon here is right. Children who are filial need not fear the Bill, nor parents who are the beneficiary of their children's love need fear the Bill. If the Bill is passed into law, the Maintenance of Parents Act will not in any way dissolve at the drop of a hat existing filial relationships. And, of course, here we are on safe territory. We are not entering virgin territory with this Bill. There are precedents in Asia, America, Europe, to assure us that we are entering safe territory.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the sanctity of filial piety will not be violated if this Bill becomes law. There are really two solutions to this very real problem of abandoned parents. The first solution is that the State picks up the maintenance cost. The second one is that the children pick up the maintenance cost.

Not surprisingly, many Singaporeans want the Government to take the first option, which is the Government should pick up the welfare bill, maintain the abandoned parents, pay for them, send them to the old age homes, send them to the voluntary organisations. But what does it mean for us? It means that the negligent few are passing the buck to the responsible majority. So this Bill also serves as an educational exercise that we cannot allow a negligent few from hoisting the problem onto the majority of us who are responsible, who are loving children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think individuals must take personal responsibility and the community cannot share in their negligence.

Mr Ling How Doong is a strong advocate of using State funds to take care of abandoned parents. He said rhetorically, "These people pay taxes, Sir. Now they are old, take care of them." But Mr Ling will also be aware that the people we need to help most are the people who may not be paying taxes. With GST on, many of the poorer income people have dropped off the tax net. These are the people with little savings. These are the ones that need the protection of the law.

Secondly, this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me. When you pay taxes, you are receiving the benefits of the environment, receiving the benefits of the State. So you are actually using up your services. As you are paying taxes, you are using up services. By the time you retire, theoretically, the State should withhold its benefits. But, of course, no government should do that, and this is just to remind advocates of this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me for life. I think it does not hold water.

Sir, the second group of people, who are afraid to say yes at this point, say, "Well, there is no serious problem now. So what's the fuss? Why create a problem? Don't fix the problem when none exists." And this is particularly prevalent among older Singaporeans.

My answer to that is that the Bill does not attempt to solve the problem now. The Bill hopes to address the problem which might not even arise in the future. And if it does, just bury bury the Act somewhere, if it is passed. But, Sir, going by the trends of the West and the East, we cannot take things for granted. And I share Mr Maidin's concern that the problem might become worse in the far future. Most aged parents in Singapore today are maintained by their children. In a way, these are lucky parents because even though they have small CPF savings, they have many children. All you need is one child or two children to support them, and they are okay.

But, Sir, in 20 to 30 years' time, say, in the year 2020, a convenient number to choose, when a large percentage of our people would have become aged, then the problem of abandonment will become serious. Because families would have become smaller, the financial burden of the few who help maintain parents would be great. The temptation to opt out must be very real. But some tell me that even then the problem of abandonment is not serious because in the year 2020, we will have lots of CPF. The Labour Minister has put in place various laws to ensure that we top up our CPF, we raise the Minimum Sum. I think these will still not be enough. In any case, the people we need to help most presently are not sufficiently covered by CPF. Many of these are lower-income self-employed who do not pay much into CPF anyway.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I met a group of young feedback contributors last Thursday, 21st July, I asked them about this Bill and whether they would be keen to maintain their parents when their parents become old. By show of hands, 16 of the young working adults agreed that they will support the Bill, they like the Bill. In fact, they think that they will be the beneficiaries. In the meantime, they do not mind supporting their parents. Five were against and five were not sure, because they want to see some refinements before they make their verdict. And I am encouraged by the young working Singaporeans for their positive attitude.

The problem does not lie with the young working adults. The problem right now, the concern, the worries, lie with a group of elderly Singaporeans. They echo the view and they say that we are an Asian society, so do not mimic the ways of the West, do not try to legislate filial piety, do not try to legislate love. But there are many precedents in Asia - Taiwan is an example quoted both by Mdm Foo and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon.

Taiwan is an Asian country - a Confucian society where the ways of the sage, the old, is honoured in both rituals and practice. They have a teachers' day, a Confucius day, where all the students pay homage to Confucius, and then they recite all the familiar teachings of Confucius. Yet Taiwan has already legislated an equivalent of the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Israel has long had a law - the Family (Maintenance) Law - to make sure that children maintain parents under certain conditions. For Members' information, Israel is an Asian country, although situated in the turbulent Middle East. And I personally know of a few cultures which are more passionate about family values than the Jews. Because of the fresh memories of pogroms, the persecution in Europe, and around the world Jewish families are very close together, they cherish family values perhaps more than any other culture today. And yet they have an equivalent of this Maintenance of Parents Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so if the argument from the heart is that the law will dilute family values and replace a filial relationship with a legal one, then the experiences of Israel and Taiwan will confirm this fear to be totally exaggerated and misplaced. There are, as Mr Chiam confirmed, very, very few cases of Israelis and Taiwanese being brought to court. So this Bill, if passed into law, is really non-intimidating.

Their collective experiences in administering their laws also suggest that a litigious culture will not be nurtured. And most of all, the experiences of these two countries - Taiwan and Israel, both in Asia - dispel the fear that family values will not be sacrificed on the cross of legislation.

And there are more precedents, Mr Deputy Speaker. According to the laws governing Muslims in Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria and the United Arab Republic, children are obliged, under law, to support their needy parents. In India, even children in straitened circumstances, must maintain their abandoned parents. And all these are ancient societies with established traditions of filial piety. In other words, I am saying the Asian voices have said yes to a modern law.

Clearly, Sir, those unsure of the deleterious effects of this Bill can rest assured that no harm can be done, much good will flow in.

But I agree with those who have shown some concern about various provisions in the Bill and, for these reasons, I recommend that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee so that it will receive wider representations from the public.

There is one refinement which I hope the Select Committee will consider, and that is something which I share with Mdm Foo, that it would be convenient, sometimes necessary, to help abandoned parents to seek redress under this law. And I propose that some authority, perhaps by a Commissioner of the Maintenance of Parents, be appointed to bring charges against children. The Commissioner can act on his or her own or can act when he or she is alerted by MPs or community leaders, or act on behalf of institutions caring for abandoned parents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I beg your indulgence to let me speak tomorrow, because there is not much time left.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have got three more minutes. You can speak today.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to take on some of the issues raised by Members and begin my speech tomorrow.

When I listened to Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, I was a bit disappointed because he did not place much value on this traditional belief that we hold so dear of looking after our parents, and he did not seem to think that it is that important now. There is little faith in this age-old tradition. But I have still very strong faith and I feel that looking after our parents, and maintaining them financially, is also a very important aspect.

He mentioned that 5% of the aged, that is, 15,000, will be a problem next time. But I think he has got his arithmetic wrong. I do not think it is 5%, because he fails to realise that of this 5%, a fair number will have their own CPF and also there are the Top-up and Minimum Sum schemes. So I think that 5% can be trimmed to even a smaller figure, maybe about 1% or so.

I am surprised that there is disagreement between what Mr Sinnakaruppan and Mr Koo Tsai Kee have said. Mr Koo Tsai Kee said that when a group of young people were asked about the Bill only 16 voted for the legislation; 5 were against, and 5 were not sure. I think it is too small a figure for him to come to this House and tell us that this is representative. I think the sample size provided by Mr Sinnakaruppan is more representative.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 5.00 pm.

Debate to be resumed, what day, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon?

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.