PROBLEMS OF THE AGED - (Paper Misc. 3 of 1984)
Mr Speaker, this is a Report on the Problems of the Aged. It is a trite observation but perhaps if I may be permitted, Mr Speaker, Sir, to state that this is not a new problem. Societies from the earliest inception have had an aged population in their midst. The only difference perhaps is that today the ages at which people age are advanced beyond what they were some years ago. So it is not a new problem, and it is not by any means a problem that is only peculiar to Singapore. It is a universal problem that is found wherever we have societies because it is in the nature of man that he must grow old and eventually die. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there appears to have been an attempt to view this problem as an alarming problem in our midst. I think that tendency should be discouraged. It is not an alarming problem. It is a problem that can be coped with and dealt with if the whole community - and here, of course, when I speak of the community, I speak of the Government as well, because the Government is the agency of the community. The Government is not, as it were, something set apart from the community, the Government is part of the community - if the community accepts its responsibilities for every sector of its population, ie it accepts its responsibility for the caring for the aged; it accepts its responsibility for the caring of the young, the education of the children. So it is simply an acceptance of a responsibility which we cannot shirk. I would deprecate even using the term "problem". It is simply, as I say, an acceptance of the responsibility for the caring of people in our midst. And we are, of course, at the moment concerned with a certain category of people in our midst, and that is, our citizens who are aged 65 and above. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may make a general observation on this Report as a whole. It is, in my view, Sir, much too sketchy a report on the acceptance of the responsibility. There is no proper analysis in this Report, as I see it, of the differing problems that will be encountered amongst the section of the population aged 65 and above. The Report would appear to deal with this as one homogeneous problem but, of course, as has been said, the problems vary. It varies according to the income, according to the age, according to the bodily health capacity of the person. There is no attempt made, as I say, to analyse the problems in these different categories. All that is being attempted is, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, general paternalistic advice to the community on the problem, The Report is sadly deficient in what steps the Government has in mind, as the agency responsible for the caring of the community entrusted to it, to deal with this sector of our population who will be unable to look after themselves. The problem, as has been explained, is really, if one comes to look at it, to be found in those people who are too ill and who need a high level of medical care and nursing care. These are the people who are categorized as Type C. It is they who present the most acute problem. It is they who have the greatest need. Type A referred to in this Report, as the Report itself mentions, need hardly any great care to be accorded to them. Speaking in the Budget debates in March this year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked the Minister for Social Affairs when we were discussing the estimates for his Ministry about the provision of homes for the aged sick, that is the group categorized by Types B and C in this classification of the University Department of Social Medicine. The Minister admitted that there was at the moment a definite shortage of places for people in this category. He said that whilst there was an abundance of places in homes for the aged, he said there was a definite shortage of places for people in these categories. So we have that as a starting point - that there are not sufficient beds in Singapore today for people who through no fault of their own are totally unable to look after themselves. Neither are their relatives able to look after themselves in the majority of cases. Of course, those who are very rich, who are very wealthy, are able to look after their relatives who are bed-ridden but the majority of our people are simply unable to take on this responsibility. How does this Report address itself to that group? I find nothing at all here about how that problem is to be dealt with. There is a projection about what the demand would be in the year 2000. This is, Mr Speaker, Sir, at Table 5.2 at page 37. There is also a Table showing the present distribution of the aged population. You will find that out of a total of 6,400, that is, taking the position of Types B and C today, Mr Speaker, Sir, only 3,000 are being catered for in institutions. When we come to the year 2000, out of a total of 12,772 in both these categories, assuming that the rate will remain the same, only about 5,700 will be catered for in institutions, it would appear. But there is a definite growth in actual numbers from 3,000 to 5,700. In another 15 years we will have another 2,700 more people who will be totally unable to look after themselves. If there is a definite shortage of beds for the 3,000 now, what are the plans to see that there will be sufficient beds for the 5,700 in the year 2000? The Minister said in his Budget speech that the Government has no plans or does not propose to build any homes for the aged sick. As I said in the Budget speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the Government appeared to be doing in this direction, and as he himself said in his speech, was to appeal to voluntary bodies, to charity organizations, to build more homes for the aged sick. I said then that that was a clear abdication of Government responsibility. And when I say "Government responsibility", I say a clear abdication of the community's responsibility because the community acts through the Government. If the Government does not lead the way, then the community is to be blamed. It is the Government that must lead, must set an example, and if the Government fails in this, it is no good saying it is leaving it all to private charity to let the citizens take care of all this because, "We are not going to do it." That would be a total abdication of the Government's responsibility in this aspect. That is one of the aspects on which this Report is strangely silent. There is no adequate analysis of the need, what sort of need will be presented, and how it is going to be met. There is, throughout the whole of this Report, as I said, a moralizing tone, doled out paternalistically to the community that they should all do their part. But what about the Government? What part is the Government doing? What role has Government got in all this? Nothing. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some assumptions that are made in this Report which would seem to be implied and which I must question. There is an assumption that if the Government takes over to any great extent, and there is increased Government spending, it will undermine filial piety and civic consciousness. It is suggested that if Government takes over this responsibility to any extent, then private charities, private voluntary bodies and our own citizens will not do anything. I do not know what is the basis for this assumption. It is certainly not the example in other countries. It is certainly not the example in Britain which is often characterized as a welfare state. What is important is that there are some areas where the caring can be done only by the Government at the most economical cost. The Government must recognize that this assumption, that if Government increases its spending it will undermine filial piety and civic consciousness, must not be made an excuse for Government inaction. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see in this Report figures that directly challenge any such assumption. You find in page 44, paragraph 6.4.7, that in a survey conducted in 1982, "93% of the senior citizens are visited by their children." It goes on to say that "the majority, 60%, receive visits at least once a week." It refers to senior citizens who have been put into institutional homes. "22% receive visits at least once a month, while 11.8% are visited less frequently than once a month. 70% of them receive gifts or money from their children during their visits. Thus, most of our senior citizens now do receive support from their children." Then it goes on to say in the next paragraph that 87.7% of our senior citizens have stated that they could depend on their family members. So the facts would appear to belie the assumption that if Government steps in with a bit more spending, all the children will give up any caring for their parents. That is a wrong assumption, and I think it is an insult to our community as a whole. I do not think our Singapore citizens have shown that the young are unmindful of the filial respect that they owe their parents. So I do not think we need to lecture to them about it. As I said in previous speeches in this House, at Budget sessions, all that they ask for is that the Government recognizes their needs and gives them practical help and then they will undertake for their part what is necessary. But what they do not want is the Government using this as an excuse for inaction and leaving them to shoulder all the responsibility when, in the majority of cases, they are unable simply to shoulder that responsibility. The Minister for Finance, again speaking at the Budget session, said that the income tax reliefs could not be raised because he did not want any of the population to think that they could get anything for free. But there is the other side of this. Our citizens are paying taxes, and what is it that they are getting in return for the taxes that they are paying? Almost every service to the community is charged, not perhaps at the economic cost but there is a charge levied for almost every service. So the citizen may well ask, "Well, what am I paying my taxes for? Even when it comes to caring for the aged sick, you say I have to look after them when I am just simply unable to." We are not talking, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, of the wealthy, of the rich. They do not need any assistance, any help. We are talking of people who live in one-room HDB flats, two-room HDB flats and even three-room HDB flats who will be unable to shoulder this responsibility. It is to them that the Government owes a responsibility and caring concern. As I said, there is very little in this Report which sets out what is going to be provided in the way of caring for people in this group. May I refer you, Sir, to the Report at Chapter 5 about Social Services and Institutional Care. There it is set out that apart from institutional care there are important services which can be provided to help the community. It goes on to say about these services which have been introduced in other countries successfully. A number of them are set out, such as Domiciliary Nursing Services, Good Neighbour Programmes, Home Help Services, Meal Delivery Services, Day Care Centres, and Respite Services. Then it goes on to say: 'Of these services, only domiciliary nursing services are at present available in Singapore, and are provided by the Home Nursing Foundation. The other services are suitable for introduction in Singapore.' That is all - "are suitable for introduction in Singapore." There is not a word as to whether any steps will be taken to provide this sort of service to families. It is that sort of thing that this Report significantly lacks. I have referred in this House to letters that have appeared from time to time in the press where our citizens looking after their aged parents have appealed for help, and there have been some letters where they cry out for help. But what is the Government's reply to all that? I would have thought that this Report might have gone on to set out some of the services that can be introduced in Singapore to help our people look after their parents or grandparents. No. Nothing. Much of it remains a speculation. Before I move on to the most controversial recommendation, Mr Speaker, may I say that that seems to be the only specific recommendation that this Report has made. There are one or two other aspects of this Report that I would like to talk about, and that is, this suggestion that there should be legislation to legislate for filial piety from our children to their parents. Again, may I say that the findings of the survey which I have just read out would appear to indicate, if you wanted any evidence at all, that there is hardly any need at the present moment for this proposed legislation. Once you make it, as this Report recognizes, a legal duty, as it were, and add to it a sanction for non-performance of that duty, then you rob it of everything. You rob it of the human flow of kindness. You rob it of the love that it should spring from, and I would urge the Government to think very carefully before it introduces any legislation to legislate for filial piety. It is not a thing that can be legislated, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know that under the Women's Charter, husbands are made responsible for their wives' welfare, and maintenance payments can be ordered against them. But that is on the basis of a contract, marriage being a contract. It is on that basis that that provision has been found. But what is the basis upon which you are going to legislate and make it compulsory for children to support their parents? There is no contractual basis for it. All you can point to is this moral duty, and that is not something that you can legislate for. It can be done but as I have said, our citizens are not lacking in this moral duty. So I cannot see the need for it. But if there is, it can be done through other means, by the inculcation of other values, or other aims in life than materialistic pursuits. This Report, again, recognizes, perhaps before it is too late, that the erosion of a lot of these values has been due to the policies of this Government because it has set out materialistic pursuits as the only be-all and end-all of life. So who is responsible for that if there has been an erosion? It is the Government who has been responsible for this erosion. So we do not need any moral legislation. We need less emphasis on material pursuits or pursuits of the material life, and building up of the other values which are more important in a human society. I would urge the Government, Sir, not to be hasty in accepting the recommendation to legislate on filial piety. Now, I turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the one specific, positive recommendation. While it lacks in everything else in what the Government will do, it comes out with this one recommendation, that is, that the age for the withdrawal of the CPF savings should be raised from the present age of 55 to 65. Enough has been said here. Even the Minister in his speech referred to the outcry that has followed this proposal. The rest of the Report has been forgotten. The focus has been turned to this one specific recommendation. Our people are rightly indignant that this Committee should have come up with the proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason that is given for this, and that is at paragraph 2.3.8, page 25, would appear to be this, that if you allow them to withdraw at 55 they will not invest the money and they might squander it and, therefore, they should not be allowed to withdraw it, because it says: 'the lump sum of CPF money gives them an illusion of financial security. Unless properly invested or protected, it may not be sufficient for an elderly person to maintain reasonable standards of living with dignity and self-respect.' Mr Speaker, Sir, what I cannot understand is this. If you say that a person of the age of 55 is not able to manage the money and, therefore, should not be allowed to withdraw it, then how can you say in the same breath that when he reaches the age of 60 he will be able to manage his saving, invest it and look after it for the rest of his life? I should have thought he would be less able unless, of course, you are hoping that between 55 and 65 he will die, and then the monies will revert to the Consolidated Fund. Is that what you are thinking of? That is, if he has not nominated somebody else. Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposal to raise the age of withdrawal of CPF savings from 55 to 60 and eventually to 65 is an attempt, and I say it is a disgraceful attempt, to bond our workers to their employers. An employee who has worked with an employer, when he reaches the age of 55, is compelled to continue working for that employer. He has not got the freedom to opt out of it because he says, "I cannot get my CPF savings. So if I do not continue, then I shall not have any money at my disposal." So this is an attempt to bond him to continue working for his employer. That, in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is completely disgraceful in this time and age. No employee should feel bonded to continue working for his employer. At Table 2.2 you find that 50% or more of workers who were able to continue working with the same employer were forced to accept reduced wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, you see there that the door is open for exploitation by the employer of his employees. The employer can very well turn round and say, "Well, if you want to go on working, and I know you have to go on working because you are not going to get your CPF savings, you take this reduction in your salary or in your wages, otherwise there is no work for you with me." This is economically unsound, not only just for the worker but also for the country as a whole. It militates against the employer mechanizing or bringing in automation into his industry or whatever he is doing, because he says, "i can now rely on cheap labour. I only have got to wait till my workers turn to 55." So economically it is unsound. It also does not take into account the fact that there are workers who are unable to continue working after 55, not because they are decrepit but because the sort of work that they have been doing is too tiring, takes a heavy toll on their health that they would be unable to continue with that sort of work. I am, of course, referring to workers who work in hard manual labour. It would be totally unreasonable to expect workers working in manual labour, and hard manual labour at that, to continue to work in that same labour after the age of 55. Is it not time he had some easing of his work? If he is to do that, he has to turn to other jobs. And if he turns to other jobs, what are his chances of getting another job at the age of 55 on the same salary or wage that he has been drawing? The chances are that he would probably find himself accepting a job with much lower wages. What does he do then with all the needs, the commitments that he has, at that age? Reference has been made to the education of the children. There was a reference made to a parent who wanted to send the son or daughter to the university and who wanted to support him or her. Would they be able to do that if they are forced after the age of 55 to take a reduction in their wage with no other monies at their disposal? Then there is the question of the uniformed workers, people who are in uniformed service. Even the Government recognizes that when you are in a uniformed service, after say, 20 or 30 years, you should be retired and allowed to choose some other employment less onerous, less demanding. That is why we have a lower retirement age for our people in the uniformed service. If they are not able to withdraw their CPF savings, how are they going to manage? So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this proposal is completely iniquitous. By all means, encourage our citizens to continue working after 55, to 60 and even to 65. But I cannot see the need to tie this down to the CPF. It is a completely wrong use of the CPF Act. It is dishonest, Mr Speaker, Sir. If this proposal is accepted, may I say it amounts to cheating our citizens of their monies. Mr Speaker, Sir, only on Friday the Prime Minister in this House remarked that I had let down the voters in Blair Plain. I am afraid the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he had been given wrong information. They were completely wrong on their predictions as to what was going to happen in the Anson bye-election. But I would not go into that. He was saying that I had let down the voters. What is this proposal? Our citizens have been persuaded to put up with this compulsory deduction of a quarter of their salaries. It has not always been a quarter. It has only just come up to a quarter. But it has been quite substantial. They have been persuaded to put up with this and suffer as a result of that on the promise, on the expectation that they would get it when they reach 55. As the Member for Rochore said, it was simply that they were asked to deposit the monies with the Government just as you go and deposit the monies with the bank or a finance house. Now, suddenly, the Government turns upon them and there is a proposal that the Government should say to them, "i am sorry, chaps, we are not going to give you the money at 55. You better wait till you are 60 and maybe even then we won't give you the money. We might only give it to you when you are 65." And what guarantee is there that they are going to get it when they are 65? This is not the first time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government would have gone back on its word. I mentioned, was it last year, the workers' welfare fund. There was a solemn declaration made in this House in 1965 when we came out of Malaysia that the payroll tax would be set aside for the welfare of the workers. A fund would be set up. That was a solemn declaration made in this House. And as I pointed out, that was forgotten. There has been no welfare fund for the workers and the payroll tax was paid into the consolidated fund. As I said, this is not the first time that this Government would have gone back on its word to the electorate. So I would ask the Minister and the Government to think very carefully before it embarks on this dishonest act which, as I say, would amount to downright cheating of our citizens. I do not want to repeat what has been said by others. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have my amendment of this. Of these two amendments, may I ask for your guidance as to which amendment you propose to put to the House first? Because if you put the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru first, then my amendment would be out of order, assuming that that amendment is accepted.