MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, a long time ago, far, far away, there was a mythical country whose name is of no importance now. What is important was that this country was like paradise on earth. It was peaceful and prosperous. Its people were hardworking and lived happy, contented lives. There was, however, one strange thing about this country. It had no laws. This was because the people did not need laws to live together in peace and harmony as one community. All problems were resolved through consensus and its communitarian values. Its people accepted this as a way of life and acted accordingly with such values.

The country was the envy of many people from other countries. There was a long list of outsiders who wanted to get in. The country, however, was very selective and strict on its immigrants and kept its borders closely guarded. Then one day, horror of horrors, a hideous thing happened. Somebody was brutally murdered. It was a terrible shock as such an event had never happened before. A great public debate took place on how to resolve the matter. After much debate, somebody suggested legislation to combat this evil, making murder a crime with the most severe punishment: banishment forever from their beautiful country.

Sir, back came a chorus of protests. "No, no, no, we must not have laws. They are against our way of life. They will tear asunder the fabric of our community. We are the beautiful people. We know what is right and we know what is wrong. It is only one case. It is only one murder. We do not need laws to tell us how to behave, how not to behave. These laws will, through time, make us into a society of murderers." The great public debate continued. And even as the people debated, two more murders were discovered.

Sir, I am sorry that I have to stop here because, unfortunately, the rest of the historical records were destroyed. It is not known how the great public debate in this beautiful mythical country ended.

Even so, we have the same self-appointed keepers of public morals here. In opposing this Bill, they are hell bent on making a case that the fabric of our family institution and ties will be ripped apart by this legislation, that the bonds between the majority of Singaporeans and their children are so fragile as to be shredded into a thousand pieces by the mere enactment of a law requiring children to look after their parents. Surely they must know that such legislation is not meant to replace traditional ties of love and filial piety. Surely they must know that people who are bonded by such ties will simply ignore such legislation. Yes, we should continue and we must continue to promote good family values including filial piety. The majority of Singaporeans, I am sure, will live by these values. But what about the minority? What about those poor unfortunate parents who indeed have uncaring, unfilial children. For these people, this legislation will be like manna from heaven. They are now with little means of supporting themselves with unfilial children, perhaps even rich unfilial children, who refuse to support them. There is no question of family ties, no question of love and no question of filial piety. They have no tears left to cry. There is no love left. Let us not even deny them food and shelter. That is what this legislation is all about, not love, not filial piety, but food and shelter.

Sir, a bigger issue in this legislation, as far as I can see, is that of who should take care of the nation's aged - the State or the individual. Over the past several years, the Government has taken steps to allocate more and more responsibility to the individual to take care of himself. In fact, I would say that this legislation is part of that general trend, regardless of whether or not this Bill is moved by a Backbencher. It simply means that the Backbencher, NMP Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, agrees with such Government policies. I too support these policies. They may appear harsh only because we expect the Government to be all things to all people. The Government, however, cannot and should not be so. In the ultimate analysis, it is better for us individuals to be responsible for ourselves, to enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences of our past actions. In the nature of today's world, it is the only way that we together can survive as Singaporeans.

However, having said so, there will always be a small minority who cannot take care of themselves, especially when they grow old. The CPF savings and the Minimum Sum scheme may help to reduce this small minority to a yet even smaller minority. That is all it can do. It cannot eliminate this minority altogether. What happens then to this small minority who cannot take care of themselves? What happens when the authorities are convinced that an applicant needs support, needs maintenance from his children, but none of his children can afford to support him? Should nothing then be done? Should we leave such an aged person to fend for himself as best as he could; like in the animal kingdom or in primitive societies? Sir, I am glad that the Acting Minister for Community Development brought up this issue in his speech earlier.

The hallmark of a civilised society is how it takes care of its weak and aged. I believe that we have in Singapore a very civilised society and that the Government will want to keep it this way. I would therefore like to propose that in addition to what is in the Bill, a maintenance order could also be made against the State if the children do not have the financial resources to help. The State could also be ordered to make up the shortfall should the money from one or more respondents be inadequate.

Sir, one may say that this proposal is a hand-out and runs counter to the principle of placing more and more responsibility on the individual. I do not deny it. I can only say that the principle cannot be taken to extremes. Helping out this minority with hand-outs of minimum sums for subsistence will not in any way violate the principle of getting the people to be more responsible for themselves. The money needed for this proposal will not be much. I think we can afford it. I think we cannot afford not to afford it. Because I am talking about a small minority. I am talking about a very, very small minority, the poorest of the poor, the most unfortunate of the unfortunates who do not even have their children to support them or their children cannot even afford to support them.

Sir, I am talking about the State as the provider of last resort for these people; after their own resources are depleted, after calling upon the financial resources of their children for assistance, and after the strictest of means tests.

The Government can perhaps justifiably say that this proposal is not different from what it is already doing under its public assistance programme. If so, why can't that part of the programme relating to the aged be legislated as part of this Bill? In this way, all Singaporeans are assured of some minimum financial support in their old age; first, from their own voluntary savings; next, from their CPF savings; then from their children; and, finally, if all else fails, from the State.

Sir, another comment is that the procedures for seeking maintenance are not appropriate. If so, I would like to suggest that the Government with its experts come up with better procedures. Let this Bill, as already suggested by the Acting Minister, be referred to a Select Committee for better procedures. But let us agree on the substance or the principle. The Government can help to improve the form, if not now, then later. The Acting Minister has already promised that. Let us support the Bill. If not the actual Bill, then at least let us support the principle of legislation so that this Bill can go to a Select Committee.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, what strikes me about the proposed Maintenance of Parents Bill is that one would expect the elderly parents to support this Bill wholeheartedly. But this seems not to be the case and we wonder why.

I had the opportunity to discuss this proposed Bill with my three senior citizen groups - the Crawford, Kampong Glam and Rochore Senior Citizens Executive Committees. They have hesitation in accepting the Bill as proposed.

The senior citizens felt that using the law is not the way to encourage filial piety. It must come from the heart. They do not see it as a major problem in our society today to warrant Parliament to pass legislation to require children to maintain their parents.

Sir, our objective and approach should be to bring the family together rather than to cause the family to break further apart. By using the law to decide on family matters, there will be little chance to bring the family together again.

There are, however, advantages if certain changes could be incorporated into the Bill. Though the number of cases of children not maintaining their parents at present is small, the Bill may be effective in reversing the trend in case the parent/children relationship deteriorates in the future. It serves as a reminder that it does not pay to be ungenerous and unforgiving to members of the immediate family. It will serve the purpose of ensuring that today's parents take their duty of looking after their children with responsibility and devotion and for the children to reciprocate later.

There are bound to be episodes of stress and strains in human relationship including members of the same family. Our objective must be to create the conducive conditions and environment for people to make up and especially in a relationship where blood should be thicker than water. Many elderly parents do not like to take their children to court. I personally do not like the legalistic approach proposed in the settling of family disputes.

In trade disputes between employers and trade unions, the parties are asked first to try to resolve the dispute through the conciliation machinery with the Ministry of Labour before going to the Industrial Arbitration Court as a last resort. Even then, no lawyers are allowed to represent either the employers or the trade unions in the Industrial Arbitration Court. The tribunal is made up of employer and employee representatives and independent referees.

Sir, in a family dispute, it is all the more necessary for the dispute to be settled through counselling, mediation and conciliation. I do not think that we should allow lawyers to represent either the parents or the children in a family dispute on maintenance. If we could have such an arrangement in the labour tribunal, I wonder why it should not be possible in a family tribunal. Mr Chandra Das suggested the family court or such equivalent.

In working out this Bill, it is important for the State to recognise that if the elderly parents failed because the children could not really afford to maintain the parents for good reasons, the parents are likely to approach the State for help and we should be prepared to do so. As of now, some lower-income families are doing their best to look after their elderly parents even with their modest means and such cases do not normally qualify for public assistance. I hope the proposed legislation does not have the unintended effect of throwing up more cases for public assistance because the children cannot afford to look after their parents and are turning to the State for support.

Sir, I support the principles of the Bill and that it be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, it is with some regret that I have to speak on this Bill. Being brought up in an Asian tradition, it depresses me immensely that in principle I have to agree that it is time for us to take steps to ensure that our senior citizens are appropriately and adequately taken care of by their offsprings.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.48 pm

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): When Mr Howe Yoon Chong presented the White Paper some 10 years ago, he already envisaged that legislation had to be made to ensure that all parents be looked after by their children. All the while I have harboured the wish that we would not be faced with such an unpleasant decision. But, unfortunately, time and again, we have come across cases where the children abandoned, abused and neglected their parents. We may take comfort in the fact that the number is at the present moment still not significantly large. But our trend of demography shows that we will have more and more senior citizens as the years go by. Coupled with the shift in the attitude of our young, it is inevitable that the problem of the aged will greatly increase. It is timely that we begin to examine the issue and propose appropriate action. However, the Bill presented by the Nominated Member, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, to this House, in my opinion, is too simplistic and too general to achieve its objective to ensure that our senior citizens will be appropriately maintained by their children. For this reason, I cannot support the Bill as it is presented. Let me elaborate.

First, I will explain why I feel that a Bill to ensure that our parents are properly maintained should be in place. We have to face the reality that the abuse and neglect of older persons do exist hand-in-hand with spouse abuse and children abuse. On the one hand, the elderly may be a victim of villains who qualify as unfilial sons and daughters. On the other hand, the abuse and neglect may come about due to excessive stress faced by the care-giver of the aged or infirm elderly. I think the Bill should attempt to address the former where the elderly has been victimised. In such cases, the elderly is financially exploited and deprived of the needed medicine, food, clothing, housing, social contact and assistance with daily functions.

While such a Bill will have no or very little impact on the majority of us, because I still believe strongly that the average Singaporean will uphold the Asian values for a long time to come, we will have to accept that there will always be a group of hard-hearted people who have actually and severely neglected their parents. If we want to deal with this small group of incorrigible hard core people, we must have a Bill that is much more definite and finite in order to be totally effective because the Bill presented has not clearly defined what it means by "adequately maintained". For example, can the court take action on those who so cleverly disguised their unkind action by just providing their parents with a space to sleep, feed them with the minimum amount of food and yet still put psychological pressure on the old folks day after day? Can they be deemed to be adequately maintained? Therefore, the children can claim that their parents are being looked after.

Sir, maintaining parents is different from maintaining divorced spouses and children because divorced spouses and children stay separately and it is a clear-cut situation where a quantum of financial amount is needed for the assistance. Whereas in the case of the parents, as long as shelter and food are provided, it can be argued that they are being maintained.

Secondly, even if the children decide not to maintain their parents, the worst that can happen to them is that the parent can go to court to sue the children and if the children are found guilty, all they have to do is to start providing financial support to the parent and would not suffer any adverse consequence. In other words, the Bill lacks one very important ingredient, ie, the deterrent factor in which those who are found guilty of violating the provisions will have to face appropriate punishment.

Let us be reminded that the target of this Bill is at the incorrigible few. Even Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon has stated that there would not be a big rush of parents suing their children and that the intention is to just keep this Bill in the background to be used only if and when necessary. Therefore, to deal with this group of hard core people effectively, there must be a punitive measure so that they would think twice if they decide to abandon or abuse their parents. Would we be over-reacting in imposing punishment to those offenders? I do not think so because there is already in place a legislation which punishes parents for abandoning their children or for abusing or ill-treating their children. It is perfectly appropriate to do vice-versa.

To conclude, the proposed Bill needs to be examined more carefully. It is recognised that filial piety and love for one's parents cannot be legislated. Therefore, no Bill can make those who are already unfilial or actively abusing or neglecting their parents more filial or responsible. Apart from getting maintenance for the parents, it is imperative that some form of punishment as a deterrent should be introduced, otherwise it would not convey the society's resolution that such irresponsibility and cruelty is socially unacceptable.

Sir, I repeat that I am for some form of legislation to protect the old folks but I cannot support this Bill as presented, as it is not going to be effective and, therefore, fails to address the objective of the intention.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Nominated Member, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, approached me to give my comments on his draft Bill before he introduced it in Parliament. I raised a number of questions with him and from his written answer to me he confirmed a number of points.

Firstly, he agrees that, at the moment, the issue of children neglecting their parents is not a problem in Singapore.

Secondly, he feels that filial piety in our society has not deteriorated to a state which is as bad as that in the developed countries.

Thirdly, if the children are poor, the law cannot compel them to do the impossible. For those who are genuinely poor, the State should offer them financial assistance.

From my understanding, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon is of the view that the introduction of this Bill can only achieve the following limited effects:

1. For those recalcitrant ones who refuse to maintain their parents despite repeated counselling efforts, there is at least a channel for the parents to sue for maintenance through the legal process; and

2. With this law being in force, the children will be less inclined to neglect their parents, for fear of being sued in court and lose face.

If this Bill, which is now being debated in Parliament and for which the media have spared no efforts in covering, has only such limited effects, then I really doubt its value.

Although this Bill provides that parents may go to court to sue their children for maintenance, it does not necessarily mean that the parents will receive their maintenance promptly every month, even after the court has made a ruling. If the children fail to pay the maintenance, the parents will have to bring their children back to the court again for an enforcement order. They cannot expect the matter to rest with just one appearance in court.

First of all, to make the children pay up the maintenance to their parents as ordered by the court, is just like the maintenance issue in divorce cases where the parties will always have to go through the legal processes which are too tangled up to unravel. There is a problem in implementation. In his reply to me, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon too admitted it.

Secondly, if the purpose of this Bill is to make the children afraid of being brought to court and branded as greatly outrageous, and therefore not daring not to maintain their parents, then the reporters from the newspapers can be even more effective for this purpose. They can interview the parents and even present them on television to tell the whole world how unfilial their children are. I think this will be more effective than bringing them to court.

Now, let me express my views on this Bill.

Mutual distrust between parents and children

Let me give you two real-life illustrations. A resident in my constituency had all along been giving money to his mother for her to pay the monthly conservancy charges to the Town Council. But since the introduction of this Bill in Parliament, this young man has been coming personally to the Town Council to pay the conservancy charges and asking for a receipt so that, in future, he will have evidence that he has been maintaining his mother.

Another person enquired from me the contents of this Bill. After that, he told me that he was considering whether, in future, he should make his monthly payment to his father by way of cheque rather than by cash. No doubt, in these two illustrations that I have given, the existing relationships between the parents and the children are already bad. But now it has developed into mutual distrust between the parents and the children. There should be love and affection between parents and children. Yet it has now degenerated into mutual distrust. Is this not lamentable?

Undermining the relationship among siblings and causing existing conflicts to turn white-hot

I believe that the vast majority of parents would not resort to bringing their children to court as provided for under this Bill. But, in the case of children whose parents are staying with them, if their other siblings have not been making financial contribution to them, then they may be tempted to make use of this legislation to demand that their parents go to court to seek maintenance from the other siblings.

As a result, the existing conflicts will become more acute and even to the extent of being irretrievable. The parents who are sandwiched in between would not know which side to take. This would certainly add on more misery to the old folks in their autumn years.

Bill is no solution to problem

As the name implies, "maintenance" means "sustenance". But for the old people, their expenses are not confined to just sustenance. The most important thing is medical cost, especially those who are suffering from chronic diseases such as kidney failure, senile dementia, etc, and the burden on the children is certainly not simply sustenance only!

If, one day, our society has to face the problem of many old people being deserted by their children, then we would have to review where the problem lies. Why are the old people having no protection for their living?

Who are the people who refuse to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining their parents? What are their family incomes? Is it because the pressure in life is too heavy for them to tackle? Or is it because we have been emphasising too much on material returns that the moral standard in our society has degenerated to such a deplorable state?

We have yet to have a thorough understanding of the nature and actual situation of the whole problem. For that matter, we are not even sure if there will be a problem. To hastily legislate and even to pass a law at this moment is just too perfunctory!

For example, this Bill provides that the duty of the children to maintain their parents is only up till the death of their parents. What about the funeral matters and their expenses? Will the children who have been sued in court and who have already had a show-down with their parents come forward and deal with the funeral of the deceased parents?

Will Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon consider further legislation to make it mandatory for the children to bear all funeral expenses of their parents, and make their attendance at the funeral compulsory?

Possibility of Bill being made use of by the Government after it is passed in Parliament

Let us not forget that this question of maintenance of parents had already been raised in the Howe Yoon Chong Report on the Aged. At that time, the Government felt that the moral standard of our society had not degenerated to a state where legislation had become necessary, and also the aging problem was not yet serious.

Now, with the Government worrying about our aging population and the problem of the aged becoming a threat to the Government, this legislation introduced by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon to make it mandatory for children to maintain their parents can be said to be most opportune.

After this Bill is passed and becomes law, the old people who have children may not be able to go to the Government for assistance when they are in trouble, because there is provision in the law for them to sue their children in court for maintenance. The Government can then be perfectly justifiable in washing their hands completely off the matter. However, the Minister said, just now, that the Government will not. I heard it!

Does this mean that, in future, those parents who would not bear to bring their poor children to court will find it more difficult, or even impossible, for them to get any assistance from the State or from welfare organisations?

These taxpayers who have been working unrelentingly for the country enjoy no protection for their old age. They have even to cough out exorbitant lawyer's fees to sue their children in court. Is this the reward they get from the country?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, maintenance of parents is part of our culture, and an unalterable principle. But as the saying goes, "Even the most upright magistrate will find it difficult to decide in a family dispute." This very complicated and delicate matter concerning human relationship, particularly the individual family relationship and operation, should best be resolved through mediation by the individual families and relevant organisations.

The introduction of this Bill is not to provide a solution to the problem, neither can it provide an effective protection to the parents. Furthermore, it may even give rise to negative effects.

To a perfect family where children are already supporting and maintaining their parents, this legislation is redundant. To those whose children are not providing any maintenance, but are self-reliant, this legislation is meaningless.

As for those who are in need and not receiving any maintenance from their children, there is doubt whether they will bear to go to court and bring charges against their own children!

If this legislation has resulted in the parents being forced by one or more of their children to go to court and bring charges against their other children who have not been contributing to their maintenance, then the parents will be in such a predicament. Even if they succeed in getting the maintenance, can it be meaningful?

What is more worrying to me is that even up till this moment, the Nominated Member who introduced this Bill has not been able to produce any valid data or statistics to show that there is a need for this legislation. Even the PAP MPs who are supporting this Bill are unable to produce data to prove that there will be a need for such a legislation in future.

The only argument is that this Bill can provide a safety net for a very small minority of old people. The number is so small! Really, to whom are we providing this safety net?

Furthermore, after the implementation of this law to provide for maintenance of parents, should there be any adverse effect, or as MP Peh Chin Hua said, "various kinds of adverse effects", then will Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon consider introducing further legislation to make it mandatory for children to treat their parents with kindness?

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to this Parliament, yesterday and today can be said to be days of grief and sorrow. This is the year which is designated the "International Year of the Family". Yet, ironically, we have to be here to debate this Bill. As some Members pointed out just now, the introduction of such a Bill is undoubtedly a show of no confidence in the filial piety of our younger people in Singapore. This is indeed lamentable!

Just now, the Member for Hougang referred to a Chinese saying: "Even an upright magistrate will find it difficult to judge on a family dispute". If Prof. Walter Woon has the benefit of dealing with constituency affairs, he will be able to understand the significance and meaning of this saying and the profound philosophy behind it. During our "meet-the-people sessions", we often come across various kinds of family disputes and problems - disputes between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, husband and wife, father and son, and among siblings. They would come to their Members of Parliament to pour out their grievances and want us to settle the disputes for them. Very often, it would appear as though each party has its own reasons, and both sides would insist that they are in the right. So, who is the wiser? From my experience, I would say it is extremely difficult for such family disputes and problems to be resolved through legal means.

Recently, we read from the newspapers about some real-life cases, such as husband and wife going to court to fight over a HDB flat; mother and son suing each other in court over some property; brother and sister fighting over some estate matters, etc.

When members of one family go to court over some family disputes, they have to go through some lengthy and costly process of litigation. In the end, are their problems truly resolved? Are these family disputes settled? I do not think so. No doubt, the court may have made a ruling to conclude the process of litigation, but this does not necessarily mean the family disputes are thus resolved once and for all.

Secondly, I feel that if the Bill is passed in this House, there will be great problems and difficulties in its implementation. I have personally come across such an example, the case of a divorced woman claiming for maintenance. Her ex-husband was a professional with very good income. The court has granted custody of the children to the wife and ordered the husband to pay a fixed sum of maintenance to the wife every month. But he fell in arrears of payment of the said maintenance for six months. The woman had to go to court to apply for an enforcement order and, eventually, a warrant of arrest. But she faced problems in the execution of the order. For a number of months, according to this woman, the husband was at home but the authority was unable to bring him to court or compel him to pay up promptly the monthly maintenance to the wife. Yesterday, I heard the Minister for Home Affairs talking about the difficulty in executing the orders to bring parking offenders who had been summoned to court. There is a problem with enforcing such orders.

So if one day, unfortunately, we have more and more of such cases, we will surely face great difficulty in enforcing the maintenance orders or warrants of arrest against those who fail to comply with the maintenance orders.

I am even more worried that one day, if we begin to resort to legal means to deal with family problems, then gradually we will develop a trend of over-litigation in our society. More and more people will be resorting to legal means to solve their problems, especially family problems and disputes. I believe this would result in very bad consequences.

Take America, for example. The American society is one which practises the rule of law. Can their laws resolve their social problems? I do not think so. In the United States today, one out of every two marriages ends up in divorce. What are the consequences? The consequences are that it becomes very popular for the Americans to enter into a contract between the husband and the wife, even before they are married, like a business dealing. The contract specifies that after the marriage, the husband cannot do this and that, and he must do this and that. Similarly, the wife must do this and that, and cannot do this and that. So, what kind of a marriage is this? The contract also provides for the division of matrimonial property after their divorce.

So if one day, unfortunately, our society suffers a collapse in the spirit of filial piety of our people, then even though you have this law in existence, it is but an empty shell.

Another problem with attempting to resolve family problems through legal means is that it will, more often than not, result in abuse. In the United States, many lawyers are like private advisers. They specialize in suggesting wicked ideas for their clients. Originally, the clients may not want to sue, but the lawyers, in order to earn commissions, would instigate them to sue. This is one example of how the legal process could be abused. If there are more and more of this kind of cases coming up, then some lawyers will certainly use all sorts of tricks to attract more business to their firms.

Recently, a colleague of mine went to Los Angeles. He told me that one day he was walking in the streets when he noticed a signboard outside a very small office, and that was the office of a lawyer. It was written on this signboard: "Quick divorce. No hassle. US$399 only." I think if our society develops to such a stage, then it will be a very great tragedy indeed. So, if you want to have a quick divorce, it is just US$400 only. It is simple. There is no hassle and no trouble. You can get it done straightaway - instant divorce!

If the society has problems, I think we must try and find out the root cause and trace the root of the problems. Otherwise, it will be like what Laozi had said, "The law may be manifested, but robbers and thieves are still abundant." Notwithstanding the many laws a country may have, if the society has problems, there will still be many robbers and thieves around.

In my view, using legal means to resolve family disputes and problems is a wrong approach. Parents who have to resort to legal means to get money from their children to cover their expenses in the autumn years of their lives will not lead happy lives. I do not think they would be living happily, neither will they live long. How can their lives be meaningful!

So the crux of the problem is whether we want to emphasise and propagate the spirit of filial piety. Although we do not have to be like Emperor Kangxi who attempted to rule his empire by the spirit of filial piety or the "24 examples of filial piety", many of which were "blind" filial piety, I think we should promote vigorously the idea of filial piety in Singapore.

At the same time, we should also be very careful in handling the arguments which have been advocated by the so-called experts. These sociologists are attempting to inculcate among our young people the idea that children themselves did not ask to be born, and as such they have no obligation to support or maintain their parents. If we allow this kind of thinking to be promoted among our young people, then even if you have such a law, it will be just an empty shell. Furthermore, if we want to learn from other societies where the children can call their parents by the first name, then again, the consequences will be unthinkable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in short, any matter within the realm of moral values should be handled through moral and ethical education. If you must legislate, then I think it should be done the other way round. The Bill is known as the "Maintenance of Parents Bill", but its contents do not seem to provide for the maintenance of parents. In my view, the contents of this Bill seem to suggest that it is a Bill for parents to demand money from their children.

If you want to talk about maintenance of parents, I think the contents should be reversed and that is to provide for all children to fulfil their legal obligations to maintain their parents. If you do not maintain your parents, then you must show cause as to why you should not be maintaining your parents, by producing evidence to the effect that you have been ill-treated or neglected by your parents during your younger days. Only then, will the law be fair and reasonable. We have, in force, a law to provide that parents must bear the responsibility of looking after their children. Conversely, those people who have been brought up by their parents shall be legally obliged to look after their aged parents when they get old. I think it will be perfectly justifiable. It should not be designed in such a way that parents who have been neglected by their children will have to beg for money from the children for their old age, through legal means.

In view of all the aforesaid reasons, I feel that I am unable to support this Bill.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Bill in the name of the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament on the maintenance of parents.

The Government has been highlighting the important problem of aging in our population. Not many people may realise that Singapore has a relatively more older population than Malaysia or Indonesia. In some of the more older constituencies, as in Queenstown, one can almost find one in two flat units comprising largely the aged and the retired. Most of these aged and retirees stay by themselves and live on their savings. In most cases, the children support them though the children may not be staying with the aged parents. However, sad to say, there is a small minority of aged who have children but are not getting the maintenance support from the children.

To me, the reason why I would support the Bill is very simple. Are we as a society valuing filial support in the family? If we believe and nurture this as a value, especially as we stress family value as a national value, then children should help to maintain their parents in their old age, especially if they have no means of income. Most people would not need to, or want to have recourse to the law to seek maintenance from the children, but this does not mean that the recourse is not available. Hence, my support for this Bill.

Some people have argued that we do not need such a law. We have not got one for so long. Why one now? But the sad fact that there are such cases of the aged struggling by themselves, with little help, or no help from the children, is real. There are not many, but there are. I have actually received a letter a few years back by the daughter of one of my residents who sought some assistance from me. She wrote to me from overseas where she had emigrated, telling me specifically that it is the State's duty to look after the aged, namely, her parents. After all, she argued, people pay taxes and what is the Government for. I can understand how one can get into this mindset. It is part of being initially enamoured of and later ensnared by the welfare by the state prevalent in the West. The danger is that our people can also get into this mindset.

We stress family value as a virtue and do not like to see families break up. But we do have laws to protect the women and the children; why not parents when they are aged and cannot fend for themselves when the children are no more living with them?

This Bill leaves it to the Government of the day to decide on the quantum of the maintenance and the detailed administration of the law. I have no doubt the details for the smooth administration of this law need to be worked out. Perhaps, it may not be a good thing to go to a court in the first instance. It is expensive going to the courts. Perhaps, it may suffice administratively, in the first instance, to apply to some agency in the MCD. Perhaps, the consensual approach through some counselling agency is preferred than taking the adversarial approach through the courts.

Those of us who have sat in the Public Assistance Review Committee (PARC) will, no doubt, agree that many of the cases of the aged and destitute that come up to the PARC do have children. But through breakdown in the family relationship and communication and through the financial hardship of the children's families, the old folks are left unsupported. As a result, they have no recourse but to seek the help of the MCD. The MCD, as we all know, is reluctant to help because the applicants have children. I hope that, with the law for children to maintain their parents, there is better reason for the MCD to assist, if it can be established that the children are doing their best to help in spite of their economic difficulties.

I do not subscribe to the argument by some people that because we are an Asian society, we will know what to do with our parents, that is, to naturally maintain them. This law provides for those in difficulties, who have children, but are not supported by them. At least, there is a recourse for them. It will not be something they will factor in in bringing up the children. The Bill will not substitute legality for morality. But it will draw the line for the limiting case and allow the abandoned poor and the aged to seek assistance from their children. It will also help in the limit to draw the line for the society we are attempting to build through the shared values and the emphasis on the family, including filial piety. Philosophers, moralists, story tellers will interpret the issue in different ways, at different times. But the law founded in morality will maintain its course. That is why we are all here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill in principle and suggest that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I find myself in the same unhappy predicament as Dr Tan Cheng Bock was at the end of yesterday. I will start off by referring to a suggestion by the hon. Mr Peh Chin Hua who suggested that 2% to 4% of a working child's CPF be channelled to the parents' account to be divided between the father and the mother. This suggestion might provide the answer to our problem of declining birth rates. If each child has to put 2% to 4% of his or her CPF into the parents' account, this might be the best inducement for parents to have more children so that their old age financial maintenance is secured. Just as the peasants of farming families of old days used to have many children so that more hands could work on the farm and ensure the old folks' needs in their later life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Maintenance of Parents Bill has had mixed reactions. Why has this been so? Because different people have different conceptualizations of family relationships.

One idealised view is that the family is a warm, loving place where people are nurtured, cherished and cared for. According to this view, grown up children will automatically look after their dependent parents and thus there is no need for the Bill.

The other view is that the family is an area where there is an abundant opportunity for potential and actual conflict and this Bill will bring all this conflict out of the private domain into the public sphere and will not add to enhancing filial respect but will actually worsen the situation.

I personally support the spirit and principle of the Bill which is, that it is the responsibility of adult children to care for their parents. Ideally, this care should include both psychological and material dimensions but emotional care cannot be legislated and thus the Bill deals only with financial maintenance.

Although the principle of this Bill would be acceptable to many of us, though not all of us, it is clear that there are many grey areas in the interpretation and implementation areas and much is left to the discretion of our courts that have an adversarial system and have neither the time nor the resources to sort out the many potential problems. I realise that the similarities in the implementation of this Bill to relevant sections of the Women's Charter have been pointed out by Prof. Woon but there is one essential difference in the maintenance of wives and children and in the maintenance of parents. In the former case, there is only one spouse in the equation while in the latter case, the equation becomes very complex because of the many siblings, their various relationships to each other and their parents and the difficulty of assessing the needs of the aged - should these be basic needs or needs tied to a comfortable way of life.

Many of the parents who will require maintenance from children will also require financial aid to press their claim. However, these parents may own a small flat but may not have disposable income. Being an owner of a flat may disqualify the parent from applying for legal aid and therefore the stringent qualifications for eligibility of legal aid may have to be reviewed for parents applying for maintenance under this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 4.30 pm. Moment of interruption.

Debate to be resumed what day, Prof. Woon?

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.