Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Bill was first introduced in this House, there has been extensive debate, both in the media, and on the ground. I kept a running count of this afternoon's debate. Eight speakers spoke - three against, one reluctant yes, four yes, but wanted some refinements. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has engaged the passion of Singaporeans, which is not a bad thing. The broad verdict, as I read about it, is that the majority of Singaporeans, especially young working adults, are in favour of the Bill, with a significant minority of older Singaporeans opposing the Bill because they fear that it would erode and demean existing family values and family ties. But one thing is sure, even for those who do not support the Bill, as it stands, they are not saying an outright no. As Mr Leong Horn Kee has put it, their hearts feel that this may not be the right time. Therefore, if we can somehow win over the hearts of those who demurred, this Bill has a chance of getting popular support. I think it deserves clarification. It deserves to be committed to a Select Committee and it deserves to get ultimately popular support, if not overwhelming majority support. But let us listen to why some of these people are saying no. First, these people are saying that filial piety cannot be legislated. This Bill is not a solution to a moral problem. If legislation is needed, then our education system has failed and it is better, they say, to go back to basics now instead of using the hammer of the law. Many Asian parents, Singaporean parents, are resigned to a traditional Asian way. They say, "If my children are unfilial, then what is the point of bringing them to court. I will live the shame. I will camp outside the Town Council office, maybe pressure my MP." But my response to this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that filial piety certainly cannot be legislated. But this Bill does not even attempt to do that. What it attempts to do is to solve a practical problem of maintenance for the very few abandoned parents. The Government, as I understand, aims to foster filial piety, not through legislation, but by a multi-pronged approach which includes conducting moral education in schools, hosting public seminars, especially during this International Year of the Family, promoting family values through good local SBC programmes in the media - I think SBC should step up its effort - giving tax incentives to support parents via the parents relief scheme, the CPF Top-up scheme, encouraging children to insure their parents under Medisave, and even recently, to re-prioritise the balloting of flats to allow children and parents to live together. So all these measures, taken as a whole, in toto, might help to foster filial piety. The Bill does not attempt to legislate filial piety. But we must recognise that even while these educational programmes, these public programmes, are on-going, there is a limit to what we can do. It cannot for a start create a utopian society, which some of my colleagues appear to want us to do. Whatever we do, whatever this Government does, however it does it, however much money it pours into it, there will be abandoned parents. Hence, I think we need a multi-pronged approach - education, tax reliefs, public seminars, and also legislation, because legislation can serve as a last line of defence. I think Walter Woon here is right. Children who are filial need not fear the Bill, nor parents who are the beneficiary of their children's love need fear the Bill. If the Bill is passed into law, the Maintenance of Parents Act will not in any way dissolve at the drop of a hat existing filial relationships. And, of course, here we are on safe territory. We are not entering virgin territory with this Bill. There are precedents in Asia, America, Europe, to assure us that we are entering safe territory. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the sanctity of filial piety will not be violated if this Bill becomes law. There are really two solutions to this very real problem of abandoned parents. The first solution is that the State picks up the maintenance cost. The second one is that the children pick up the maintenance cost. Not surprisingly, many Singaporeans want the Government to take the first option, which is the Government should pick up the welfare bill, maintain the abandoned parents, pay for them, send them to the old age homes, send them to the voluntary organisations. But what does it mean for us? It means that the negligent few are passing the buck to the responsible majority. So this Bill also serves as an educational exercise that we cannot allow a negligent few from hoisting the problem onto the majority of us who are responsible, who are loving children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think individuals must take personal responsibility and the community cannot share in their negligence. Mr Ling How Doong is a strong advocate of using State funds to take care of abandoned parents. He said rhetorically, "These people pay taxes, Sir. Now they are old, take care of them." But Mr Ling will also be aware that the people we need to help most are the people who may not be paying taxes. With GST on, many of the poorer income people have dropped off the tax net. These are the people with little savings. These are the ones that need the protection of the law. Secondly, this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me. When you pay taxes, you are receiving the benefits of the environment, receiving the benefits of the State. So you are actually using up your services. As you are paying taxes, you are using up services. By the time you retire, theoretically, the State should withhold its benefits. But, of course, no government should do that, and this is just to remind advocates of this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me for life. I think it does not hold water. Sir, the second group of people, who are afraid to say yes at this point, say, "Well, there is no serious problem now. So what's the fuss? Why create a problem? Don't fix the problem when none exists." And this is particularly prevalent among older Singaporeans. My answer to that is that the Bill does not attempt to solve the problem now. The Bill hopes to address the problem which might not even arise in the future. And if it does, just bury bury the Act somewhere, if it is passed. But, Sir, going by the trends of the West and the East, we cannot take things for granted. And I share Mr Maidin's concern that the problem might become worse in the far future. Most aged parents in Singapore today are maintained by their children. In a way, these are lucky parents because even though they have small CPF savings, they have many children. All you need is one child or two children to support them, and they are okay. But, Sir, in 20 to 30 years' time, say, in the year 2020, a convenient number to choose, when a large percentage of our people would have become aged, then the problem of abandonment will become serious. Because families would have become smaller, the financial burden of the few who help maintain parents would be great. The temptation to opt out must be very real. But some tell me that even then the problem of abandonment is not serious because in the year 2020, we will have lots of CPF. The Labour Minister has put in place various laws to ensure that we top up our CPF, we raise the Minimum Sum. I think these will still not be enough. In any case, the people we need to help most presently are not sufficiently covered by CPF. Many of these are lower-income self-employed who do not pay much into CPF anyway. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I met a group of young feedback contributors last Thursday, 21st July, I asked them about this Bill and whether they would be keen to maintain their parents when their parents become old. By show of hands, 16 of the young working adults agreed that they will support the Bill, they like the Bill. In fact, they think that they will be the beneficiaries. In the meantime, they do not mind supporting their parents. Five were against and five were not sure, because they want to see some refinements before they make their verdict. And I am encouraged by the young working Singaporeans for their positive attitude. The problem does not lie with the young working adults. The problem right now, the concern, the worries, lie with a group of elderly Singaporeans. They echo the view and they say that we are an Asian society, so do not mimic the ways of the West, do not try to legislate filial piety, do not try to legislate love. But there are many precedents in Asia - Taiwan is an example quoted both by Mdm Foo and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon. Taiwan is an Asian country - a Confucian society where the ways of the sage, the old, is honoured in both rituals and practice. They have a teachers' day, a Confucius day, where all the students pay homage to Confucius, and then they recite all the familiar teachings of Confucius. Yet Taiwan has already legislated an equivalent of the Maintenance of Parents Act. Israel has long had a law - the Family (Maintenance) Law - to make sure that children maintain parents under certain conditions. For Members' information, Israel is an Asian country, although situated in the turbulent Middle East. And I personally know of a few cultures which are more passionate about family values than the Jews. Because of the fresh memories of pogroms, the persecution in Europe, and around the world Jewish families are very close together, they cherish family values perhaps more than any other culture today. And yet they have an equivalent of this Maintenance of Parents Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so if the argument from the heart is that the law will dilute family values and replace a filial relationship with a legal one, then the experiences of Israel and Taiwan will confirm this fear to be totally exaggerated and misplaced. There are, as Mr Chiam confirmed, very, very few cases of Israelis and Taiwanese being brought to court. So this Bill, if passed into law, is really non-intimidating. Their collective experiences in administering their laws also suggest that a litigious culture will not be nurtured. And most of all, the experiences of these two countries - Taiwan and Israel, both in Asia - dispel the fear that family values will not be sacrificed on the cross of legislation. And there are more precedents, Mr Deputy Speaker. According to the laws governing Muslims in Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria and the United Arab Republic, children are obliged, under law, to support their needy parents. In India, even children in straitened circumstances, must maintain their abandoned parents. And all these are ancient societies with established traditions of filial piety. In other words, I am saying the Asian voices have said yes to a modern law. Clearly, Sir, those unsure of the deleterious effects of this Bill can rest assured that no harm can be done, much good will flow in. But I agree with those who have shown some concern about various provisions in the Bill and, for these reasons, I recommend that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee so that it will receive wider representations from the public. There is one refinement which I hope the Select Committee will consider, and that is something which I share with Mdm Foo, that it would be convenient, sometimes necessary, to help abandoned parents to seek redress under this law. And I propose that some authority, perhaps by a Commissioner of the Maintenance of Parents, be appointed to bring charges against children. The Commissioner can act on his or her own or can act when he or she is alerted by MPs or community leaders, or act on behalf of institutions caring for abandoned parents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.