Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill
Madam, I rise in full support of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.
Madam, there are several reasons why I did not hesitate to join the Workgroup behind this Bill, when my fellow parliamentarian, Seah Kian Peng, approached me. My constituency has one of the highest number of elderly residents in Singapore. Some of them need financial help; some simply need other forms of love and attention from their children whom they had raised. The social services sector I am familiar with has also been raising concerns over the growing trend that more elderly are growing old alone even when they have grown children whom they raised. Some of these senior citizens are simply left in residential homes – not visited, not supported by their families.
Madam, let me first share what the Bill is not about. One, despite its high visibility, this Bill is not one that will directly impact many Singaporeans. In fact, out of a local population of four million, for instance, only about 200 applications a year have been filed by elderly parents at the Tribunal to secure basic financial support. This Bill targets a very small minority of Singaporeans. Only those who are financially capable but choose not to care for their elderly parents without any valid reason.
Two, this Bill is not about promoting the entitlement of parents and encouraging them to take their adult children to task through acrimonious court battles. It is not first resort – it is a last resort. In fact, the amendments create a larger space for conciliatory settlements before a parent officially files a claim to the Tribunal and measures are added to ensure that frivolous and undeserving applications can be dismissed by the President and the proposed Deputy President of the Tribunal.
Three, this Bill is not about creating an additional source of revenue for elderly Singaporeans to meet the lifestyle that they are used to or the annual holiday that they aspire to.
The truth of the matter is that about two-thirds of maintenance payments granted by the Tribunal in the past were less than $360 – the typical Public Assistance quantum and covers only "basic needs", such as food, clothing, housing and, now, medical costs.
And, fourthly, this Bill is definitely not an endorsement of the State to abdicate its duty to provide good essential services, such as education, healthcare, security, housing, transport and social services for its people. The State must continue to put in place important programmes, such as the CPF LIFE, active ageing programmes, HDB Lease Buyback Scheme, HDB studio apartments, ComCare and the like, to ensure a stronger infrastructure and safety net for our ageing population. The State must not shirk from its duty of including and providing for those who genuinely need a leg up in society, especially in essential services.
What is this Bill about? Madam, this Bill is about Singaporeans reiterating our commitment to values we deem important – important enough to hardcode into legislation. It is about acknowledging that as a civilisation, there is a sacred relationship between parents and children, which is evident even amongst animals – that parents are expected to raise and look after their children and that children have the moral duty to care for their aged parents and not regard them as "appendices" or "after-thoughts" once they are old or disable. This Bill is about strengthening the moral fibre of our society and reminding young and old again of our traditional values, which we cherish against the national backdrops of Internet broadbands and flashy casinos.
This Bill is about specifying the floor or the minimum standards on how families can be the first line of care and support – the minimum standard being meeting our parents’ basic living needs. No one is forced to commit themselves to higher standards such as forgiving their parents 77 times as what the Church would advise and what my colleagues, for example, Mdm Halimah, Ms Ellen Lee and Mr Zainudin, now have suggested in public, to forgive. This Bill is about the minimum standard expected of and consequences an adult child will face if he disregards the call to feed and clothe his own parents when he is in a financial position to do so.
Madam, I hear of a minority of Singaporeans who object to the principal Act and to this Bill and who claim that issues like providing for one’s parents are personal choices and filial piety cannot be reduced to simply financials. "Leave the families alone," they say, "and things will sort out themselves. If children would not take care of their parents even if they can afford to, let the State foot the bill." Madam, it is likely that proponents of this school did not realise that it is them, as taxpayers or other charities or donors, who will be subsidising these adult children who would not pay for their parents. Proponents of this school of thought are unlikely to have the opportunity also to serve on the ground and witness the hardships and issues that the different stakeholders in this matter are facing.
Mr Ang, one of my elderly residents, came to my Meet-the-People Session for financial assistance more than once. As my volunteers helped him to complete his ComCare and CDC application forms, we found that he had two able adult children, which will then, of course, dilute his priority to access help. When asked why he would not seek help first from his children, as there are other people who are in greater need on the ComCare list than he, Mr Ang said he did not want to disturb his daughter. His daughter is married and he felt should not be responsible for him. He then shared that his son who had been supporting him had recently not done so and refused to now pick up his phone calls.
Another resident, Mdm Lim, collects scrap boxes, a karang-guni woman and sells them for a living. She comes regularly for food rations and financial assistance from me and my grassroots. Her son, a professional executive, sees her occasionally but refuses to commit to any basic monthly support for Mdm Lim. He also refused to pick up our phone calls when we needed to find out more background on the case. Now, people like both Mr Ang and Mdm Lim, who are living on their own and had no other way to locate their children except through the mobile phone to which their children choose not to respond, would definitely benefit from this Bill.
Nursing homes, too, welcome the changes to improve the administration and operation of the principal Act. They especially appreciate the provision for access to records from prescribed authorities to locate the missing adult children, and also the compulsory conciliatory sessions before taking legal action against the children. Staff from the homes have been highlighting their deep concerns of how elderly clients are ignored by their families and left to the sole care of the nursing home staff. Some children, whether they are in Singapore or overseas, even perform the "disappearing act" and abandon their elderly parents at the nursing homes, leaving the charities which operate the homes to not just care for but also raise funds to pay for the parents' stay.
Next, Family Service Centres (FSC). The heads also welcome the proposed amendments. They shared about elderly Singaporeans who do not know what to do or where to seek help when they are in deep financial problems. The Family Service Centres welcome the opportunity to lead their elderly clients for conciliation, instead of going to the court room in the first instance. The FSCs, too, look forward to the streamlining of the administrative processes so they can easily refer these clients for help.
The proposed amendments in the Bill are welcomed by some children as well. Frivolous or vexatious applications by parents without a case are now subject to dismissal at the Tribunal level. The principle of reciprocity will also assure children, who are unable to or unwilling to maintain their parents for good reasons, of a platform to air their perspectives before being summoned to court.
Next, more than legislation. Madam, up to last evening, I was still hearing lamentations by nursing home and Family Service Centre staff on the dilution of family as an institution in modern Singapore. More than legislation, I urge the relevant Government Ministries to consider the following suggestions even after this Bill is passed so that families can work in partnership with the State and help agencies to reduce the risk of elderly Singaporeans being neglected or abandoned. These are my suggestions:
(1) Equip parents, especially fathers, through schools and social service agencies to get more involved with their children before it is too late to bond with them. Three local studies from 1999 to 2006 have confirmed that fathers were relatively uninvolved with their children. The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) has an excellent "Fathers@School" programme in support of the DadsforLife world-wide movement. The Ministry, in addition to its slew of family life programmes, should look at developing a "Parents for Life" series that target both young and old to equip them with knowledge and skills on parenting. This can include the principles behind the Maintenance of Parents Act. Instead of reaching out primarily to the English-speaking, these programmes should find more effective ways as well to reach the heartlanders in different languages.
(2) Develop a slew of measures to counter the disturbing trend of children neglecting or abandoning their elderly parents at nursing homes. Many service providers face many difficulties with families in discharging clients whose conditions have stabilised and can be discharged for care at home.
These service providers are also helpless when children decide to visit only at their own convenience, if at all. MCYS, Ministry of Health and the homes should brainstorm on how measures, such as financial and fiscal incentives or even tweaking or fine-tuning admission regulations, to encourage more to care for their elderly in their own homes and not abandon them there.
(3) Let us continue to invest in up-skilling Singaporeans in planning for their retirement, and especially in raising awareness of important schemes, such as the CPF LIFE which provides members with a monthly income for as long as they live. This will minimise the risk of being left in a financial lurch in old age. Even if our adult children are open to supporting us, let us not forget that they, too, are ageing and they, too, will be in need of financial support as well.
(4) Let me repeat my call to tighten the Many-Helping-Hands network so that there is stronger case management and resolution amongst all the help agencies to follow through identified cases. The process leading to the Amendment Bill, as our Workgroup experienced, has surfaced the usual obstacles to delivering effective and more seamless social services in our country – too many schemes, uncoordinated case management leading to agencies tripping over one another as they try to help their clients. We found that many Family Service Centres, homes, voluntary welfare organisations and even the elderly themselves, were unclear on what the principal Maintenance of Parents Act entails. This calls for an ongoing communication strategy to help the Many-Helping-Hands make sense of the numerous legislations and programmes and help schemes for our elderly and needy.
(5) Finally, let us not forget to resource the offices of the Tribunal and Commissioner and Family Service Centres sufficiently to meet the upcoming increase in compulsory conciliation sessions as proposed by the Bill. This includes the need to forecast the demand and supply of trained social workers or counsellors.
In conclusion, Madam, although this is a Bill that currently impacts less than 200 cases each year, it is a significant legislation because it embodies our courage as a country to commit to and operationalise values that are important – commitment enough to call for consequences if one does not abide by them.
Madam, I have attended many weddings in the last two months. As I listened to the wedding vows by the young couples as they start their marriages and later families, I cannot help but look forward to the day when families are also able to come together to take and commit to a similar vow – "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do the family part."
Madam, I urge Members of the House to join me in supporting this significant Bill.