MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

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

The Maintenance of Parents Bill was committed by a resolution of this House to a Select Committee on 27th July 1994, more than a year ago. 1,003 written representations were received, which I think might very well be a record. However, only nine representors were invited to give evidence and Members will see the details of this evidence in the Report that has been presented to the House.

When I summarised the debate during the Second Reading of the Bill last year, I did say that many Members had made very good suggestions as to the creation of a non-argumentative and non-confrontational mechanism. But I also, as a Private Member, was not in a position to promise anything. I expressed the hope at that time that the Acting Minister for Community Development would look into the possibility of creating such a non-confrontational mechanism and that the Minister for Finance would look indulgently on financing the mechanism. I am glad to report to the House that that is exactly what the Acting Minister for Community Development has done and I am in his debt and in the debt of his officials for all the hard work that they have put in to create this new and non-confrontational mechanism.

If I might just take the House briefly through the changes that have been made. The primary change takes the question of maintenance of parents away from the courts which are not equipped to deal with family disputes or family matters, and to vest it in a specially created tribunal, a tribunal that is now established under clause 13 of the proposed Bill. The Tribunal will have a President who is legally trained and other members who are not necessarily legally trained. One of the features of this Tribunal is that no lawyers will be allowed to represent clients because the introduction of lawyers in sensitive matters like this, ie, to sling mud at the other side, tends to exacerbate the differences amongst the parties. So we have taken away the legal representation although, of course, if there is an appeal to the High Court or Court of Appeal, lawyers might come in. One hopes that the disputes will not go that far. So for the most part it would be the applicants themselves, the parties themselves who appear or, with the permission of the Tribunal, who have a representative who is not paid, or a Commissioner, which is also provided for in the Bill, may make an application on behalf of an applicant.

The Tribunal would not be bound by the normal rules of evidence, nor would it hear in public unless there is an application to do so. Again, it is a sensitive thing. Apart from the creation of the Tribunal, there has been fine-tuning of the provisions of the Bill. A minimum age has been stipulated to be tied to the Retirement Age, although people who are unable to support themselves physically or because of mental infirmity will be able to make applications even though they are below that minimum age.

The proposed Bill has also been confined not only to those who are domiciled in Singapore but also to those who are residents. Perhaps I might just explain this. The legal concept of "domicile" does not require a person to stay in Singapore. And a concern was expressed that there might be in future bedroom communities of elderly Singaporeans resident outside Singapore but who have not abandoned their Singapore homeland, as it were, and rather than have a situation where these people are asking to be supported, the Select Committee accepted the recommendation made by one representor that only those who are resident in Singapore as well as being domiciled in Singapore should be entitled to make an application.

The Bill, as amended, also states the definition when a person is unable to maintain himself and makes clear now in clause 3 that we are not talking about sharing the wealth. So the concern of some people that parents might try to get a share of the wealth of their children undeservedly would have been addressed. This is not meant to ensure that you can have a share of your children's wealth. This is basically to ensure that you are supported at the basic minimum, to provide basic amenities and physical needs. And this, one will find in clause 3 of the Bill.

The other provisions of the Bill are consequential on the creation of a Tribunal and a Commissioner. They provide for matters like costs and procedures. The Minister is empowered to make rules to implement this Bill and to address the concern that some people have raised that there might be vexatious claimants, the rules will also provide the Tribunal with power to dismiss vexatious claims at an early stage.

So, all in all, may I say to Members that I hope with these changes, much of the reservations that were expressed at the Second Reading of the Bill may have been addressed.

Let me say once again, so that I am not misunderstood, that I do not think that this will solve the problem of parents who are not maintained because the law is not a panacea. But with this in place, with education in place, and with the continuing emphasis that we have placed on preservation of the family and family values, I have every confidence that we may be able to preserve family as the basic building block of our society. It is my sincere hope that nobody has to make recourse to the Tribunal, but if that is required, at least, the mechanism is there.

May I end by once again thanking all the Members who have spoken for the Bill or against the Bill and the representors who have taken the time to write in and to appear, and again to the Ministry officials and to the Minister for his support.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.10 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm