MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25th July, 1994],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, Nominated Member].

Question again proposed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we like it or not, this debate is a debate on filial piety. You can call it by another name - Maintenance of Parents Bill - but you cannot camouflage the true implication of this Bill. Filial piety is now challenged by modern thinking and modern behaviour. I see advocates of this Bill have little faith in our young Singaporeans to carry on this age-old tradition of looking after our parents and this is where we should ask ourselves whether we would like to pass judgement on our young. We should instead stand by our young to gain their confidence and trust and, by examples, demonstrate how we take care of our parents, rather than showing impatience by advocating legislation.

I would prefer to continue to uphold and promote this tradition with the young because this formula has worked through the ages, and each generation benefits. It is true there are cases of abuse. It not only happens these days, but I am sure during our forefathers' time. Are we saying that our forefathers did not go through such challenges? I am sure they did. But they met such challenges with patience and perhaps shame - shame that as parents they failed to inculcate this value well enough in their children. In my medical practice, I have seen cases of abuse, but they are so few compared to the ones who cared.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is this unwritten bond between parents and children, of love, care and trust handed down from generation to generation. This bond cannot be quantified. You cannot put a value and a penalty on this. Legislation will do just these. It is like putting a wedge in the relationship between parents and children. Yes, you may argue that the Bill affects the minority of recalcitrants. But why pass this Bill to embarrass the majority, especially the younger Singaporeans? Let us have more faith and trust in our young Singaporeans. Do not try to impose this on them. Instead, let us pass on this tradition to them so that they can benefit from this and they, in turn, will pass it to their children.

Even if legislation is introduced, let me read to you what the report of the Advisory Council on the Aged, chaired by Prof. Jayakumar, has to say. I refer to page 24 of the 1989 report. First, let me quote the section on legislation, paragraph 4.9.2. I quote:

"Legislation for the financial support of parents is presently not recommended for the following considerations:

projections on the profile of the future aged show that, barring unforeseen circumstances, the majority are likely to own a house and have Central Provident Fund (CPF) and personal savings;

statistics kept by MCD on public assistance applicants who have children show that, for the past 3 years an average of 6 out of 140 applicants claim to be rejected by their children;

the National Survey of Senior Citizens conducted by the then Ministry of Social Affairs in 1983, showed that the majority of senior citizens received financial and material support from their immediate family members and other relatives. 95% of those who did not have their own sources of income were receiving cash contributions from relatives while 71% of those who had their own source of income were also receiving such support."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reasons offered are still valid today. I feel the advocates of this Bill are concerned for the present generation of old who did not have the benefit of a good education and probably have no CPF savings and are dependent on their children. This is indeed a very good intention. The present old are our parents - my parents, your parents. But we have the benefit of learning from them many good values, amongst which is filial piety and caring for the old. Our generation who has had the benefit of their wisdom are now coming to this House to seek approval for a legislation for our children to maintain us. I think we should be ashamed and better think twice about this. Do not be in such a hurry. You have heard Mr Sinnakaruppan yesterday giving us the youths' view. They do not want legislation. They want guidance. We have heard Mdm Foo. She revealed three surveys yesterday to show that most wanted to look after the old. And the Straits Times recently quoted the Minister for Community Development's observation on a HDB's survey last year which showed that the majority of families wanted to live close to grandparents. An NTUC survey confirmed this when 88% of women said it was important to live with their parents or in-laws. And a telephone survey conducted by Lianhe Zaobao last month showed that 96% of Singaporeans felt that Singaporeans should look after aged parents without being told to do so.

These surveys showed that the majority of Singaporeans do care. We cannot come to this House to try and abdicate our parenting role to a piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even if legislation is introduced, what are the difficulties in implementation? Again, I refer you to page 24 of the report of the Advisory Council on the Aged. This time I quote page 24, paragraph 4.10:

"Difficulties in implementation

Even if legislation is introduced, there would be difficulties in implementation. This is because:

filial piety is a sentiment of the heart which cannot be legislated;

legislation could at most compel children to make cash payments which may be complied with grudgingly;

legislation would only affect an errant minority;

there will be practical difficulties in collecting payments from children who choose to evade their responsibilities;

parents may not be prepared to institute proceedings against their own children due to a desire to preserve family harmony and the fear of alienating their children.

The above difficulties are faced by other countries which have introduced legislation.

In Taiwan, only a few cases were brought to the family court as parents and children do not wish to bring shame to the family. In Israel, the law is hardly implemented because traditional Jewish feelings of family kinship are still very strong."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel quite comfortable quoting from Prof. Jayakumar's report because he is a very careful, a very thorough and a very learned man.

So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, legislation is no answer to this.

Now, where do we go from here? To begin with, the Government wants to promote and enhance good family values, amongst which is filial piety, and because we believe in these virtues, a Singapore Family Values Committee was set up recently, and its members represent different ethnic and community groups.

Our Prime Minister announced a $1 million Singapore Family Values Promotion Fund to beef up the committee's tasks. And our Senior Minister of State for Community Development, Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon, went to the streets to help promote this message on bus panels. If he has forgotten, I have got a picture to show him. And this is the message on the bus panel: "Family - where true love and warmth is. Treasure your spouse, love your children, respect your siblings and be filial to your parents."

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are making efforts.

Sir, can I request the advocates of this Bill not to be too hasty about this. This being the International Year of the Family, we should promote family values by working closely with our young Singaporeans to trust them to continue to enhance this pillar of strength in our society - love and care for our parents. Do not undermine this with legislation. Do not tinker with this age-old good social behaviour.

There is no need to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill cannot be supported.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Maintenance of Parents Bill in Parliament has attracted much heated debate from people from all walks of life on the feasibility of such a legislation. This is indeed very encouraging.

The ratio between those who support and those who oppose the legislation is fifty-fifty. Public opinions are divergent. Among the many arguments put forward, most people hold the view that maintenance of parents is a natural duty of the children. Only a small minority of people feel that they are not obliged to maintain their parents. This group of people, I believe, has been influenced by the Western thought of individualism. They argue that the children were given no option to choose their parents in the first place. Therefore, they have the right not to maintain their parents. However, there is only a very small number of people with such thinking.

In the Western society, it is very common for children to call their parents by their names. But in the Oriental society of ours, such an act would be considered highly outrageous and unacceptable.

A famous professor who holds a doctorate degree in Economics recently told me that his son-in-law, an American who was a very respectable person in his profession, called him by his name when they met for the first time, and he was very upset about it. His daughter pulled the young man aside and told him that if he wanted to marry her, he would have to refrain from addressing her father by his name. After the marriage, his son-in-law very reluctantly called him "Papa", and pulled his daughter aside to tell her that he was giving face to her as he did not even address his own father as "Papa".

This is the Western society! In the western society, when a child reaches adulthood at 16 or 18 years old, he would, more often than not, move out and stay on his own. In Australia, the government even has to subsidise these so-called independent self-helpers by giving them A$100 per month each. Those who do not move out will have to pay rent to their parents. This is the Western society. On the contrary, in our society, our parents are always worrying about the welfare of their children. Of late, parents are known to be purchasing residential properties for their children for fear that they may not be able to afford them in future. So, our Society is different from the Western society.

Now, what is the main objective of legislating to provide for the maintenance of parents? Is it to provide for instant cash and material protection for the old folks who are deserted by their children, or to set a standard for human relations in Singapore in the future? Before we discuss the motion before us, we should, first of all, look into the actual situation in Singapore with regard to old people being deserted by their children. I would like to ask the Acting Minister for Community Development whether his Ministry has any statistics on the number of parents who are being deserted by their children, and whether such a situation has worsened. What is the percentage of such cases in terms of the various races in Singapore? Yesterday, we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Maidin, that this is not a problem in the Malay community. Is there a trend of such a problem getting worse among the Indian Community and the Chinese Community in Singapore? Have the educational levels and background of such families anything to do with such a problem? Can we know what is the real cause or reason for the existence of such a problem? Many people feel that we should not wait until the problem has surfaced before we legislate to solve it. What I want to ask is: can legislation really solve the problem?

When the Maintenance of Parents Bill was first introduced, it was translated by the Chinese newspapers as feng yang (meaning to support and wait upon) and not shan yang (meaning to maintain, provide for) the parents. Feng yang implies something coming from the heart, voluntary. Shan yang means just giving some money. Can legislation solve the problem? Apart from legislation, are there no other preventive or remedial ways of resolving this matter? This is like suggesting that in order to prevent a heart attack, a person should immediately go for operation or go on medication. Or should he change his lifestyle, pay more attention to his diet and do some exercise regularly?

We all know that the problems faced by the old people should be considered as a whole. Apart from money and material needs, old people need to have the respect, care and understanding from others. They need companionship to travel through the twilight years of their lives. These non-materialistic needs can be obtained through the manifestation of filial piety of their children. This type of traditional filial piety is the most effective way to prevent the parents from being deserted by their children. This sort of filial piety can be inculcated through education and the enhancement of cohesiveness in the family whereby members of the family can identify themselves with the family, leading to a more harmonious and compassionate society.

Many people, including Members of Parliament, feel that so long as they are filial to their parents, this legislation would have nothing to do with them. This argument is not a wise one, because legislation will give rise to some adverse consequences, some of which may not be foreseeable at this moment. But we can surely foresee that legislation will cause filial piety and legal obligation to be mixed into one. Parents will not be able to tell whether their children are maintaining them out of filial piety or just merely carrying out their duty as required by the law. This will cause the relationship between parents and children to become non-transparent and even hypocritical. It will also cause a fundamental effect on the relationship among siblings in the family. It will provide members of the family with more cause to litigate among one another, resulting in a break-up of affinity among members of the family.

Some irresponsible parents may even make use of this legislation to increase the burden of their children. They may even squander away their own savings because the law will give them protection at their old age. Once this abnormal phenomenon is formed, it will be the misfortune of society and the nation.

On the other hand, this legislation runs contrary to the Government's measure of increasing the CPF Minimum Sum to encourage the people to be more self-reliant. Even when this legislation may have an immediate but superficial effect to help those parents in our society who have been deserted by their children, yet when coming to implementation, how is the Government going to ensure that the children will promptly provide the legal protection to their parents as required by the law?

Will the Government provide the material needs of the old folks, through a department or agency, during the litigation process, and recover the cost from their children after a court order has been made? Can this legislation alleviate the stress the old folks have to endure during the litigation process? Mr Sinnakaruppan mentioned yesterday that some organisations may make use of this legislation to sue on behalf of the parents and reap a profit out of it. What will happen to those who, for some reason, did not marry, widows or widowers who have no children? Who is going to maintain them. Will the law be extended to bring in their nephews and nieces to be liable too?

The Government has promised that no citizen will be denied appropriate medical care just because he is poor and cannot afford it. With rising medical costs, the Government has tried not to provide free medical service to the people any more. Now, with this legislation, the children will have to bear the medical costs of their parents. As far as social welfare is concerned, the Government has urged the various communities to manifest the spirit of self-help. Do all these measures imply that the Government is attempting to stay away from its responsibility to provide social welfare? As the saying goes, "There are hundreds of sorrows in a poor family", will the Government continue to actively lend a helping hand to the less fortunate in our society?

Basically, legislation cannot solve the problem of old people being deserted by their children. Yet, what the old people need is very immediate. This legislation is unable to go into the root of the problem to resolve it, not to mention preventing it.

As Dr Tan mentioned just now, the Government has recently introduced the five core values. The five core values are of great significance. Yet, to attain these objectives is not something which litigation itself can achieve. It requires the concerted effort of the Government, the families and the individuals to establish a good human relation in our society. We are talking about human relations. Only then can we arrive at a society where "everybody respects his elders and extending the respect to other people's old folks as well". Only then will the old people enjoy the basic protection.

Many social problems cannot be solved by litigation, for example, smoking. We all know that smoking is harmful to our health. Then why does the Government not simply ban smoking and ban the sale of cigarettes? On gambling, the Minister has said that the Chinese community or the Oriental people as a whole like to gamble. But, we all know the harm that gambling can bring us. Then why does the Government not simply ban gambling? Give anyone who violates the ban our famous sentence of caning. Give him six strokes of the cane! That will serve the purpose.

I think to solve this problem of old people being deserted by their children, which is only a very small number at the moment, we should adopt some methods which are more healthy. I have two suggestions:

First, set up a Senior Citizens' Fund so that we could give these old people an insurance, a form of protection. So that our people, who do not have a home to return to or any relative to turn to, may make use of this fund. Who is going to contribute to this Senior Citizens' Fund? I think it should be set up by the Government with the private sector. If we can raise $100 million and the Government backs it with another $100 million, then we will have a fund of $200 million. I suggest that each of the 85 Members in this House raises $1 million, and the Ministers raise $2 million each. Then we will be able to raise $100 million.

Second, who is going to manage this Fund? I think we can set up a centre known as "Parents-Children Relations Mediation Centre" or "Counselling Centre". This Centre can serve not only as a manager of the Fund but also function as a counselling centre to exert social pressure on the irresponsible children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Bill.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I agree in principle with the Bill because I think it meets a need in our society. The Bill has aroused a lot of interest and discussion - for and against. The controversy is to be expected, as the subject of the Bill is an emotional one and the scope of the Bill is wide and general.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand, though I do not agree, why some people confuse the Bill with an attempt to legislate on filial piety. If it were so, I would not have supported the Bill because we cannot order or force people to love and respect their parents if they do not want to. What I find it difficult to understand is why some people keep on harping that law has no part at all to play in the relationship between children and parents.

As it has been said, to err is human. A society of human beings must also be expected to make mistakes. Regrettably, human relationship, such as between parents and their children and between husbands and wives, is one area where the State has to intervene to put right human wrongs. Despite the general belief of parental love for children, the State has to make laws to protect children from abuse by their own parents. Similarly, the State has to make laws to require husbands to support their wives and children.

This is precisely what the Bill seeks to do except that it is now the children who may be required to support their parents. I quite agree with those who say that many Singaporeans are already contributing to the financial support of their parents without any law requiring them to do so. I also agree there are parents who have expressly declined support from their children. Having said that, I must add that there are also parents in Singapore who need financial support from their children and are unable to get it because of the present gap in our laws.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is needed not only from the viewpoint of the aggrieved parents but also from the viewpoint of the State. After all, if some children refuse to help their parents who are without any means of support, the State has to pick up the tab in the end. That is why I cannot accept the argument that the support or non-support of parents is the business of their children and nobody else. If the parents continue to live in Singapore without any support from their children, they will become the burden of all Singaporeans who pay taxes in one form or other. To claim that some of these unfortunate parents are housed in charitable homes is to beg the question. Who support these homes?

Some people find the idea of parents having to sue their children for financial support very offensive. I agree it does not make for an inspiring scenario. But what is the alternative that is as practical and equitable? For that matter, the idea of children having to sue their rice-bowl parents, or spouses having to sue their better-off mates, for support is just as offensive to many people.

I do not really think anyone can fault the Bill on the basis of its underlying principle. Only parents or persons in a comparable position who have helped to bring up their children may claim financial support from their children. As for those who think the Bill should cover not only financial support for destitute parents but also social companionship for lonely parents or personal care for sick or disabled parents, I do not think these are problems that are suitable for legislation. What the HDB is doing, ie, making it easier for children to stay near to their parents and even grandparents in public housing estates, is a more realistic and pragmatic approach to the problem. Social companionship or personal care simply cannot be turned on or off like tap water, however much we wish it is so.

Sir, I think it is a good thing that this Bill attracts a lot of attention and generates a lot of discussion. The criticisms, suggestions and queries made by members of the public may not be always on target, but now the public should know that the law, as a method of solving social problems, has its limitations. The Bill does not provide any solution for the problem of parents abandoned by their children who have migrated elsewhere, because Singapore cannot enforce its laws outside its own territory.

Sir, this is precisely why I say I support the Bill only in principle. I do not expect the Bill to give us a clean-cut or sure-fire solution to every problem. But where I expect the Bill to be as sharp as a scalpel, it turns out to be blunter than a toy plastic knife. I am sure the mover of the Bill wants to help parents in need of assistance. But desperate parents seeking guidance from the Bill are referred to a law library or, more likely, a lawyer. If the intention of this Bill is to help discarded parents and not to make lawyers indispensable, the Bill can and should have a few more paragraphs to spell out a step-by-step procedure by which parents may claim the benefit of the Bill.

Sir, the Bill seeks to throw a life-line to parents struggling in heavy seas and then expects them to haul themselves up like commandos from the water. I should have thought that at least a gangway is lowered for them. The parents who are targeted under the Bill are unlikely to be able to afford legal assistance. Legal aid may be more of a hindrance than help. There have been suggestions that the Government sets up a family court. Whether it is called a family court or a filial court or by any other name, the main consideration is that it provides a hassle-free avenue for help under the Bill. I have in mind the kind of machinery that is used in the Small Claims Tribunal and the Industrial Arbitration Court, where the parties are not represented by lawyers and where the legal procedure is very informal.

Moreover, the proposed machinery for settlement of claims should be oriented towards consensus rather than confrontation. It should help to assuage the fear of those who worry about solid pillars of society being legally vandalised in public by irresponsible, recalcitrant and non-contributory claimants. The proposed machinery should have built-in safeguards to filter out groundless claims and publicity-seeking claimants. Considering the subject, I think the Bill should promote voluntary conciliation, mediation and settlement of claims and minimise messy litigation that ends in unpleasant adjudication.

Sir, of course, if such a proposed machinery is considered by the Government, the statement at the end of the Bill regarding the expenditure of public money will have to be modified. I am sure the money will be well spent as, with the greying of Singapore's population, there will be more rather than less aggrieved parents claiming under the Bill with the passage of time.

The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Sir, the Bill before us is really a straightforward one with a specific and limited objective, to provide legal recourse for parents to claim maintenance from their children, nothing more, nothing less. Problem is, many of us proceeded to bestow upon the Bill attributes and aims which were never intended by it in the first place and, in the process, changed the Bill beyond recognition and turned it into a monster which we do not like. Based on what we built it up to be, we proceed to reject the Bill.

Sir, despite repeated clarifications, the Bill is perceived, even in this House, as attempting to legislate various feelings and emotions like filial piety, moral obligation and love between parents and children. This, as I see it, has never been the intent of the Bill. Indeed, we merely fool ourselves if we think that we can dictate feelings, we can dictate attitudes through the passage of laws.

The Bill has also been credited to be able to cause an upheaval, if not an eventual denial, of our Asian values and morality as children merely pay but not love their parents, because they are made to do so by law, as parents count their dollars and cents that they had spent on their children and demand just monetary returns from the latter in their later years.

Sir, the flawed logic in this argument is obvious. The vast majority of Singaporeans will be unaffected by the Bill. Only those who fail to maintain their parents in old age will be. But what I find sinister and cynical is the contention that the Bill is somewhat a Government ploy to abdicate its responsibility of looking after the aged. Those who think so seem to forget that this Bill is not a Government Bill. It is not initiated by Government. Indeed, it is initiated by a Backbencher, and not even a PAP Backbencher at that.

This view, I think, is mischievous for the unjustified pot shot it is taking at the Establishment and for the suggestion that it is Government's job to look after senior citizens whose children do not care to maintain them even when they are able to. Sir, this Government is concerned about the condition and the future of our aged. It has and will continue to look into measures that will increase the chance of our senior citizens to grow old gracefully, healthily and financially independent, for as long as possible. It will also continue to find ways to make the lives of the aged as enriching and fulfilling as possible. The destitute aged need not worry as the Government will do all it can to look after them. We will also assist those whose children, for one reason or another, are unable to care or maintain them. But it is wrong to expect Government to assume the responsibility of children to at least maintain their parents when they are able to do it, out of love, out of moral duty. Government will, in fact, only exacerbate the problem of abandoned parents should it relieve children of this responsibility.

Sir, someone succinctly described our dilemma in dealing with this Bill when he said, "My head tells me this Bill is necessary, but my heart has difficulty in accepting it."

There are obviously emotional barriers to the acceptance of this Bill, not least of which is the high regard most of us have for our families and our parents, such that it appals us to even think that such a law should be passed to force children to maintain their parents. It is an affront to the habits, to the values which most of us hold dear. It challenges what we wish our reality would be.

I wholeheartedly agree with the view that education, upbringing, persuasion and social pressure are more desirable ways of inculcating feelings of love and filial piety for one's parents. And Government will certainly continue to do what it can to facilitate all this. And we will continue to promote family values. It is not as if with the passage of this Bill we just drop all tools and forget what we have to do for the family and for the aged.

But despite all these, Sir, there will be children who neglect their obligation to maintain their parents even though they are well able to do so. Admittedly, the number is small. Will the problem grow? I hope not. But if it does, we will at least have another mechanism to deal with it. But it would certainly be unwise to wait and, to quote an MP who spoke yesterday, until the problem becomes "prevalent" or only when it becomes a "national problem" before we embark on such a legislation. We must remember that the proportion of the elderly in the population continues to increase, and despite what we do, I suspect that the children-do-not-ask-to-be-born syndrome and the one-should-be-able-to-choose-what-one-wants-to-do sentiment are likely to gain more followers in the future. Given these circumstances, there is therefore increased probability that the incidence of parent abandonment could rise in future if we are not careful. We must therefore be prepared. Yes, all this is an indictment of the state of our society. Yes, it means that our society is not perfect. The only consolation is that we are not alone in this predicament. Indeed, our condition is better than many societies when it comes to the value we place on the family and on family relationship.

So I urge Members to think with their head and not with their heart in deciding where we stand vis-a-vis the Bill. I support the Bill. Still, with the interest and the concern generated, I would also support the motion that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee. 2.20 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Sir, this Bill has generated much discussion outside this House. Discussion has not been confined to the intellectuals and the academia, but also took place at most levels of society. In my own constituency, Sir, it was discussed at some length by the grassroots leaders and residents. While some felt that there was a need for this Bill, the majority felt that it was not necessary to have this piece of legislation. Let me summarise their main arguments.

Firstly, Sir, they felt it was very un-Asian for a parent to take his son or daughter to court and to sue for maintenance. This then reduces their relationship to a purely financial level. I might say, Sir, one grassroots leader went to the extent of telling me that if his children failed to look after him, then the fault is entirely his as he had not imbibed the right values to them. In this case, it is better to hang himself than to sue his child for maintenance.

Sir, the second argument against the Bill is that for the moment it is not a serious problem. Our old age homes, as the Acting Minister for Community Development will bear out, are not overflowing with discarded parents. There are cases of parents being neglected, but the numbers do not warrant any legislation.

Thirdly, Sir, as what Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said earlier, it was felt by younger grassroots leaders that the introduction of this Bill shows a lack of faith in the younger generation Singaporeans. It is assumed that the younger generation will act in an irresponsible manner, as far as looking after their aged parents is concerned.

I agree with my grassroots leaders that we do not have an immediate problem on our hands and as such we can do without this Bill. However, to be realistic, it may not be the case in the longer term. This will be a problem, together with a whole host of problems relating to the family. If this Bill is passed by this House, it is my view, Sir, that it is a piecemeal effort to solve problems relating to the family and the aged. This Government is not known for piecemeal efforts. Whether this particular Bill is moved by a Backbencher, or the Government, it will become a law if passed by this House. Sir, legislation is needed, and I do not disagree with the principle of this Bill. But I would strongly urge that the Government reviews all existing policies and legislation relating to the family and the aged. The time is now ripe for such a detailed and in-depth review.

Many calls have been made to the Government to set up a Family Court to specifically deal with family affairs. These include parent/child relationship, husband/wife relationship, juvenile delinquency, wife battering, husband battering, elderly abuse and others. The National Committee on the Family and the Aged strongly recommended that a family court should be set up to deal with family problems and disputes.

Sir, current trends in family cases handled by our courts are indeed disturbing. The rise in the number of divorces, domestic violence, child abuse and maintenance summmons should be a cause for concern for all of us. The causes for the increase in these matters are complex. It could be due to the stress of modern living, western influence on attitudes towards marriage or a general decline in Asian values.

Sir, I believe that our current judicial system is not geared to slow down or reverse this trend. I believe the setting up of a Family Court in the near future can take the concerns of Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's Bill. A family court approach will differ greatly from the current judicial system. It can adopt, I believe, a more conciliatory approach in dealing with actual problems of the family.

However, Sir, this Bill seeks to determine and secure the legal rights of the aged parent. It does nothing to protect the family as a basic unit of society. In my opinion, it is best that we try to find a total solution to the problems involving the family. At best, as I said earlier, this Bill is only a piecemeal effort.

Sir, I am unable to support the Bill in its present form.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate.

I once heard a story about a very poor man and his wife, and he had an aged father and a son. The father was old and useless and he could not contribute to the family. The man was so poor and he felt he could not feed his father any more. So he discussed with his wife and decided to put his father in a basket and, in the tradition of his tribe, he was going to take him up to the mountain and to leave him there to die. Just as he was about to do that, his little son came along and said, "Father, what are you doing with grandfather?" He said, "Well, my son, your grandfather is old and useless and we cannot afford to feed him. I am going to take him up to the mountain and leave him there to die." The little boy said, "Father, can I come along?" "Why do you want to come along, son?" The little boy said, "Father, I want to know where you are leaving grandfather so that when you are old and useless, I will know where to leave you to die." Some say it is retribution. But how we treat our parents our children are around to see and perhaps that is how they will treat us. If we take care of them, I am sure our children will take care of us. There is no guarantee, but it is our responsibility to take care of our parents.

Some have mentioned about the strength of the Jewish people in honouring their father and their mother. When Moses was given the 10 Commandments, according to the Bible, the Fifth Commandment said, "Honour your father and your mother that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God is giving you." They have not forgotten this Commandment, though it was given more than 4,000 years ago to Moses on Mount Sinai. The point is that even though they have such a Commandment, they make sure that it is part of the modern laws of Israel to remind the children of this very, very important responsibility. In their case, it is a God-given Commandment. The Bible also gives wise exhortations and proverbs to listen to your father who gave you life and do not despise your mother when she is old. Filial piety is really paramount and the most important element for strengthening society's moral fibres.

I had problem trying to decide whether to accept or to reject this Bill. But assuming that the Bill is passed, does it do any harm? Some said yes. It shows that our society is decaying. Is it true? The Bill on its own does not show that our society is decaying. But the subsequent usage of it will be a good indication whether our society is indeed heading for trouble and whether our moral fibres have been weakened. If its usage in court, or in a family court, as suggested by some others, becomes very popular, meaning more parents are suing their children for maintenance, then we should be very concerned that we are losing strength in our moral fibre. But what does it mean? To most people, this Bill would not do anything to you or to us if we are already maintaining our parents. But for those who have chosen to neglect their parents, they are served notice that they have to play their role in our society.

Sir, I agree with Mr Chandra Das in one of the points he made, that when a parent has to resort to suing his children for maintenance, he should take a closer look at what he himself has done in bringing up his children. Somewhere along the way he must have made some mistakes in bringing up his children so as to cause them to ignore him or his needs. The chances are that he is partly or wholly to blame for such neglect by his children. But whatever it is, it does not absolve the children from their responsibility to maintain their parents. Once again, the Bible does say, "If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have?"

My concern about this Bill actually is that we already have the CPF providing a safety net for our working parents when they retire. On withdrawing his or her CPF, currently, without this Bill, the parent knows that he has to be very careful and prudent in spending this saving and will not spend it unwisely. However, if the parent knows now that he has well-to-do children and can fall back on them as a second safety net to provide for him should he imprudently waste away his CPF, then the parent might unwisely or rashly invest in some speculative stocks or other things resulting in irrecoverable losses. That is my concern.

I also would like to say that the Bill provides for payment in a lump sum or monthly payment. I do not agree that an applicant should ever be given a lump sum. If the Bill is ever passed, I would like to see that the applicant be given a monthly payment. This is to prevent him from being tempted to spend away a large sum of money or invest it unwisely or to fall prey to some others who are helping him to apply and recover this amount from his children and then taking part of it away from him. I wonder if the timing is right. I believe that our society has not reached a stage actually for this Bill to be really needed. But, as I have said, so what if the Bill is there and is not used. Will it do any harm? I do not think so. I would like to see the Bill sent to a Select Committee and amendments made before I would fully support it.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill introduced by the Nominated MP, Prof. Walter Woon, is intended to provide a solution to the problem of a fast aging population in Singapore. The Bill also seeks to provide a safety net for old people in Singapore if their children do not shoulder the responsibility of maintaining them, so that the parents can take legal action against their children, if necessary. In other words, Prof. Walter Woon is worried that Singapore may follow the fate of the western countries where there are more and more parents who are neglected by their children, and it may eventually become a social problem and a burden to the economy of Singapore. At the same time, Prof. Walter Woon reflects his pessimism and disappointment with the changing values of the western society. I personally appreciate his intention in introducing this Maintenance of Parents Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, looking after the old is the responsibility of the nation, the society and the family. There is no doubt about it. But Prof. Woon's key point in solving the problem of the aged in Singapore is his belief, his own belief - I stress - his own belief that Singapore will become a society totally devoid of traditional values, and hence, a completely westernised society. Can this be true?

Mr Speaker, Sir, from my analysis of Prof. Woon's past speeches, I realise that his knowledge of traditional and cultural values is very superficial. It is not intensive and somewhat lacking. In fact, in certain areas, he seems to have no understanding at all. Therefore, when he introduced this Bill, he did not consider the factors of our traditional and cultural values. As a matter of fact, he drafted this Bill using the western values as his basis.

The oriental society and the western society are different in cultural origins. In many respects, their values also differ greatly. Will it be feasible or will it be appropriate to our nation of traditional cultural values to implement the Maintenance of Parents Bill from the point of view of a western society? Is it feasible? As a responsible government, an in-depth study should be conducted before any decision is made.

We should not follow Taiwan because the Taiwan of today is no longer a society like Singapore which maintains strong traditional values. The present Taiwan is greatly influenced by the west. Its economic reform is going too fast and is following the American footsteps. It is too westernised. Many political leaders of Taiwan are concerned about the problems. They shake their heads in despair and they are beginning to envy Singapore and want to learn from Singapore. Why should our respectable Members of Parliament follow the Taiwan Parliament in legislating this Bill?

According to my understanding, Taiwan has the law to provide for the maintenance of parents and this law is very close to the five core values we are promoting. I do not understand why the much respected Parliament of Singapore should want to learn from Taiwan and pass a legislation which is more open. Even today, the people of Mainland China and Taiwan are of the view that Singapore has done much better in maintaining the traditional values and culture than they do.

We should not learn from India because the present India is not only very populous, but also its economy has not even taken off. India has not considered this kind of a Bill despite its large population which is also rapidly aging, and the burden on its economy is getting greater and greater, heavier and heavier.

On the other hand, Singapore has a much smaller population. Our economy is growing fast. Unlike India, the problem of an aging population has not become a serious threat to our economy yet.

There is also no need for us to learn from Israel either, because Israel is always in a state of preparedness for war. It has got no foreign investment, its economy is not fully developed. As it is always preparing for war, it has a huge expenditure on national defence. National defence takes up a giant share of their national economy. How can it afford to look after its old people? The situation in Singapore is different from that of Israel. We cannot use Israel as a comparison, neither shall we blindly follow Israel. Furthermore, Singapore's population policy has already evolved from "Stop at Two" to a policy of "have more if you can afford it". We have also the Minimum Sum of $80,000 in the CPF account to cater for old age. So these, to a very large extent, will take care of the maintenance of old people and reduce the burden on the national economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very doubtful about the feasibility of this Bill. If the Bill is passed, will this be able to solve the problem of our people, once and for all? With all its oriental traditions and cultural values, how many parents in Singapore would resort to use the law to sue their children? Even if they succeed in suing their children, how will they feel within their hearts? Will this Bill be fair to those non-parents who have been maintaining and looking after the children? Or, will the Bill be abused by a minority group of irresponsible and thick-skinned parents?

Let me give you some examples to show that this Bill is incompatible with the society of Singapore which is steeped in traditional values and I feel that the Bill proposed by Prof. Woon will not solve the problem of the aged. Firstly, as we know, parents do not want to put their children to shame by bringing them to court. We know parents have a heart. They are selfless; most of them are; they are great people, especially those who live in the East. They make sacrifices, save for their children, look after them and bring them up, educate them, love them. As other Members of Parliament have said, "The parents love their children more than they love themselves." There are so many real-life examples that we can see around us. So if you want such parents to sue their children in court to claim maintenance for themselves, it will be very difficult.

Let me quote a Chinese saying from the "San Zi Jing": "To bring up a child without proper guidance is the fault of the father. To slacken in teaching is the fault of the teacher ...". This shows that for parents in an oriental society to take their children to court, it will be like announcing to the world that they have failed in the upbringing of their children. So, they are the ones who are at fault. It amounts to openly admitting their own fault. Therefore, it is most unlikely that they will go to court to sue their own children. If the children have failed to maintain their parents, I think the primary fault lies with the parents, just as in the example mentioned by Mr Chandra Das a while ago.

The oriental society is different from the western society because, in the mind of the oriental people, dirty linen should not be washed in the public. So if the parents are to sue their children in court, I think it is something that is very shameful. In order to save the face of the family, even though the children do not carry out their moral obligations, they will be most reluctant to sue their children in court.

Yesterday morning, I contacted the Taipei Representative Office in Singapore and I was told that although there is a law, there has not been a single case of parents suing their children in Taiwan. This strengthens my argument that people who are steeped in oriental cultures and traditions will not sue their children in court. So, even if the Bill is passed, it will perform practically no function at all, and will lose the meaning of legislation.

On the other hand, the western society does not believe in the doctrines such as: "To bring up a child without proper guidance is the fault of the father" or "Wash not your dirty linen in public". For this reason, when the American student, Michael Fay, was given the sentence of caning by the court recently, his father went on prating that he was going to sue the Singapore Government. He does not realize that when his son committed an offence, the fault lay with him because "bringing up a child without proper guidance is the fault of the father". It was his fault, not the fault of the Singapore Government. So, by right, scandals in the family should not be publicised. Yet, he wanted to publicise his own family scandal, far and wide, to ensure that everyone in the world knows his son was sentenced to caning by the Singapore Government.

As for the provision in the Bill for a third party to sue on behalf of their parents, I think this will make its implementation even more complicated. I do not wish to see the day when Singapore will be like the days of Mao Zedong's cultural revolution with the father suing his children, and the children suing their parents. Everybody is suing everything. The whole country is thrown into a chaotic situation.

Secondly, the narrowness of this Bill is unfair to those non-parents who have been looking after the children. The Bill refers only to natural parents, foster parents and step-parents. What about the child whose mother has passed away early and whose father was irresponsible, resulting in the child having to be looked after and brought up by his uncle or other relatives? In a situation like this, how do we deal with it? In the case of both parents having died young, and the eldest brother and the eldest sister have to look after their younger siblings as though they are their father and mother, why are they not covered in the Bill?

I bring up these examples not to suggest that we should protect these non-parents, but to stress the strong cohesiveness within an oriental family. This is not something which a family in the western society can understand.

Therefore, this Bill will undermine the strength of cohesiveness and mutual-help within our families and lead to the breakdown of this kind of family cohesiveness. People will become more realistic and they will eventually be forced to learn the western ways of life, looking after just their own interest, becoming self-centred, and taking no heed of the welfare and well-being of their nieces, their nephews, and other siblings.

The Bill may also be abused by a small group of irresponsible and "thick-skinned" parents. We cannot deny that there are some parents who give birth to their children but do not bring them up properly, nor educate them properly. Then the children will suffer. They do not enjoy the love and the warmth of the family and from their parents. Worse still, some fathers refused to work for a living even in their younger days, yet managed to have many wives and concubines, produced a good number of children, but did not care about them. The children were left to fend for themselves. Then, when such fathers become old and weak, they will use Walter Woon's Maintenance of Parents Bill as a basis to sue their children in court. Although the court may not rule in favour of such fathers, (I believe no court will rule in favour of such fathers), it will be a traumatic experience for the children, who have already suffered so much in life due to their irresponsible fathers, by adding more insult to injury. Why should we allow this to happen?

Even if the parents succeed in suing the children, the law will not be able to compensate the parents for the kind of sorrow and misery in their heart after the court has awarded the maintenance to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of legislating for maintenance of parents is different from legislation against littering. You can legislate against littering to deter the offenders from repeating the offence. But once you have parents suing their children in court, then the contradiction between parents and children will be even greater. They will become more antagonistic. So when they are already on the flimsy family ties, the litigation will make things worse. So even if the court decides in favour of the parents and the children are forced to pay some form of maintenance to their parents, the chances are that they will pay the money reluctantly and at the same time, hurl some abuses at their parents. "All right, here's your money," and at the same time give them a scolding. So, on the one hand, you have the reluctant giver and, on the other hand, the parents will have to suffer the humiliation of accepting the money paid in contempt. Now, how can this be in keeping with our traditional society? In such circumstances, would it not be better for them to get the limited allowance from the Ministry of Community Development or the other social charitable organisations? With the little money, feed yourself with plain porridge and salted vegetables. It is better off this way!

Now let me talk about the negative effect on the next generation. In a family, when the young children see their own parents paying maintenance money to their grandparents every month at the call of the court order, what kind of impression will they have and what unhealthy education will they receive in the process! This will certainly expedite the move of our Singapore society towards total westernisation, as mentioned by Nominated MP, Mr Robert Chua, just now, and the argument of Prof. Walter Woon will not hold water.

The Bill is against the basic concept and philosophy of the Government's five core values. The traditional family values and outlook in life has a very strong influence on the children of Singapore. The feeling of "blood is thicker than water" can be felt everywhere. The industrialisation of Singapore has not weakened our family ties to the extent of having to rely on legislation to resolve the contradiction between parents and children.

Yesterday, Prof. Walter Woon said that even if only one person benefits from the law, the legislation would be deemed to be a success. If that is true, then we may have to legislate for the benefit of each and every private matter of all the 2.7 million people in Singapore. This is impossible!

Even for the compulsory education of our children, we feel that it is not necessary to go through the trouble of legislation. Then, why are we legislating now just for the sake of a very small minority in our society? The Government has, time and again, stressed that we must enhance the cohesiveness between members of the family so as to enhance our social cohesiveness. The negative effect arising from the introduction of this Bill will run counter to the promotion of the concept of the Government's five core values, making the promotion more difficult.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill introduced by Prof. Walter Woon cannot achieve the desired effects in a traditionally oriental society of Singapore. I would like to urge the Government to consider a number of alternative measures to replace this Bill in order to solve the problem of our aging population.

If, one day, Singapore becomes a westernised society and we are unable to preserve our traditional oriental cultural values, then I would suggest that the Government consider making use of 2% to 4% of the children's CPF savings for the maintenance of their parents in place of Prof. Walter Woon's Maintenance of Parents Bill. At least, this is more in keeping with the conditions of our society. Children should look after their parents and repay their parents for bringing them up. This is particularly so, because they will, one day, become parents too.

There is an old Chinese saying: "The young lamb kneels down when it sucks from its mother's breast, and the crow knows that it has the duty to feed its parents." How can we human beings who are supposed to be civilized not measure up to them!

Therefore, if there is a necessity, I would urge the Government to consider making the children use 2% to 4% of their CPF savings to maintain their parents. From the day a person starts working, he should transfer 1% to 2% of his CPF into his father's account and another 1% to 2% into his mother's account, as monthly maintenance for his parents. If necessary, the parents can withdraw some money from their CPF account for their daily expenses or make monthly withdrawals. If the money is not used, or if there is any amount remaining in the parents' accounts, then upon the death of the parents, then whatever amount remaining of the 2% to 4% contributions from the child will be automatically credited back into the original account of the said child. This method will not affect the family ties of the oriental society of Singapore and the parent-children relationship will not become cold and stale, and held on merely as required by law. This will also avoid putting the parents and their children in an antagonistic position. This is in keeping with the present situation of our society and it will radically resolve the problem of the aging population in Singapore.

As far as I know, at present, most of our children are filial to their parents. Every month, the amount of money they give to their parents far exceeds 2% to 4% of their CPF contribution. Therefore, using 2% to 4% of the CPF contribution of the children to maintain their parents will not increase the burden of the filial children who are already looking after their parents. For example, if the filial son gives his parents $500 every month, then after deducting 2% to 4% of their CPF contribution which amounts to say, $290, they need only to top up $210 in cash. On the other hand, for those children who have not been filial to their parents, their parents will, at least, have the use of the 2% to 4% of their children's CPF contributions amounting to, say, $290, and they can be spared the agony of having to go to court to sue their children for maintenance.

I propose that for children who are earning below $3,000 per month, they should pay 2% � 1% for the mother and 1% for the father. For those earning below $6,000, they pay 3%, and those earning more than $10,000 per month shall pay 4%. So, if the parents have two children and one of them earns $1,500 per month, 2% will be $30 per month; another earns $6,500 per month, then multiply it by 4%, it will be $260. Adding the two together, the parents will have $290. Apart from this, we must not forget that we have the $80,000 CPF Minimum Sum Scheme which we have already implemented. Our retirees will have no problem looking after themselves in their old age. As for those irresponsible parents or other non-parents, they can be dealt with by the Ministry of Community Development on a case by case basis, based on their investigation reports on the individual families.

In short, in my view, there must be love before there is a family. When there is harmony in the family, everything will be well and good. To the old people, apart from being able to sustain a comfortable living, they also need the genuine care and concern from their children. If they do not have even this minimum love and compassion from their children, and have to go to court to get the little meagre maintenance money to cater for their everyday living, then how can the lives of these old people be meaningful at all? Faced with all kinds of problems, spiritually and morally, they will eventually become the most desperate lot of people in our society.

My second proposal is that we should also consider a higher tax incentive for the maintenance of parents. At the moment, the tax relief for maintenance of parents is only $7,000 per year, out of the children's annual income. The actual tax rebate, in real terms, is a meagre $1,000 to $2,000 only. This is not enough. In Singapore today, the income tax relief for maintenance of parents should be further increased so that our people will understand that the Government is not standing by with folded arms as far as the problem of looking after our older citizens is concerned.

Thirdly, as mentioned by a number of speakers before me, we should inculcate in our students, through education, the proper traditional values of the East. In schools, we should actively promote the virtue of filial piety, and sow in the seeds of moral obligations on the part of the children to maintain and look after their parents. On the other hand, we should make use of the mass media, such as newspapers and television, to expose the wrong doings of those unfilial children who refuse to maintain or choose to neglect their parents.

The traditional oriental values are more centred on emotional feelings. As we have been arguing, it is whether we should look at the matter with the heart or with the head. In the oriental society, the heart is used more often than the head. The traditional moral values of the East are more emotional than rational. For children to look after their parents is a principle which is unalterable, something which is fair and reasonable. We should change the thinking of those who believe that it is the heavenly duty for parents to bring up children but who neglect to educate their children on the moral obligations to repay their parents for what they have done for them. The western way of thinking is that since our parents brought us to this world without giving us a choice, it is their obligation to bring us up, and when our turn comes, we will, likewise, have to look after our children. As to whether we should look after our parents in their old age it is another matter altogether. I think that kind of argument is plain individualism and selfishness, which is prevailing in the west.

Finally, the Government has the responsibility to look after the abandoned old citizens. I am very glad to hear from the Acting Minister, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, that the Government will be doing so. As long as it does not adversely affect the economic growth of the country, nor impose too heavily on its financial burden, the Government should shoulder its responsibility to look after the abandoned old people in our society. When the situation develops to a point beyond remedy, it is the responsibility of not only the members of the family, the charitable organisations in society, but also the Government.

No doubt, I agree that "bringing up a child without providing him proper guidance is the fault of the father". Yet, if the Government is only concerned with creating job opportunities and generating wealth for the people, but neglects the role of inculcating in its people the traditional values of the East, resulting in the number of cases of children failing to maintain their parents escalating year after year, affecting the national economy and increasing the burden of the country, then it will be the Government's fault in failing to educate its people.

In any event, the many old people of Singapore had contributed significantly to our present prosperity and success. In the process of our nation building, they worked and toiled for our well-being. Their contributions cannot be denied. As such, looking after them now is the common responsibility of the nation, society and family. It is the duty of the Government and society to resolve the problem of the old people. Only a policy which is capable of fitting into our oriental society can effectively resolve the problem of our aging population.

Using a system based on the western concept to deal with problems in our oriental society is no solution to the problems but will only make us a laughing stock. The paramount leader of China, Mr Deng Xiao Ping, urged the political leaders and people of China to learn from Singapore with the hope that the rapid economic reform of China, which has resulted in a better standard of living for its people, will not erode the traditional oriental values of its people which may well result in a total westernisation of its society. Therefore, when Mr Deng Xiao Ping urged the leaders of China to learn from Singapore, I feel this is something which we, as a small nation, ought to be proud of.

Given time, if the economy of Singapore continues to grow rapidly and in the process bring in more and more adverse influence from the western culture, resulting in our people behaving like the westerners whereby the relationship between parents and children is built on legal responsibility and obligations rather than love and compassion, then it will be the greatest sorrow and satire to Singapore.

At that time, I am sure the leaders of foreign countries will not want to learn from Singapore, for they might as well go and learn direct from the western countries. Then, the term "Learn from Singapore" will become a historical term. This is not something which we would like to see.

I suggest the Government set up a Commission to find a solution relevant to our social environment to resolve the problem of our aged citizens.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.00 pm until 3.30 pm Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm