Hansard, 2010-11-23

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2010) To (2010) Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 27 Nov 01 Dec 04 Dec 11 Dec Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 29 Nov 05 Dec 07 Dec 17 Dec Mr Sin Boon Ann 10 Dec 22 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Minister for Home Affairs how prevalent is the problem of gangs in Singapore today and what are the measures being taken to bring them under control.

2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how serious is the problem of teen gangsterism in Singapore; (b) whether there are any studies done on what causes teens to turn to gangsterism; and (c) what measures are being taken to curb teen gangsterism.

3. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many violent crimes

recorded by the police in 2009 to 2010 were gang-related; and (b) whether there are any perceptible trends of concern relating to gang activity in the last five years.

Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would take Question Nos. 1 to 3 together.

Yes, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of Parliament asked about the gang situation, whether there are trends of concern and the measures taken to curb gang violence. The rioting situation can, broadly, be used as a proxy indicator of gang violence. Between 2005 and 2009, rioting cases fell from 489 cases to 283 cases. Between January and September 2010, there were 214 rioting cases. Cases with secret society connotations have also generally decreased. These figures are in the handouts* given, so that Members themselves can look at them. The trends therefore are downward as a result of effective Police action over the years.

There has been understandable public concern over recent reported gang violence. And as I have previously stated, the Police take a serious view of such violence. At the same time, we must be careful not to draw erroneous conclusions based on recent reports of gang violence. Conclusions should be based on facts. Overall crime rates have fallen in the last five years. The rates for crimes against persons and violent property crimes in particular have also remained low and stable over the past five years. And as the handout shows, the trend of gang violence is downwards.

So when we assess the current situation, we need to assess with the

right perspective and on the basis of all the facts. These two recent cases do not suggest that our crime situation is worsening or that our policing efforts are not adequate. We continue to be one of the cities with the lowest crime rates in the world. But low crime does not mean no crime.

What are the trends of concern? Traditional secret societies have been effectively suppressed by Police’s tough enforcement. What you now get are primarily street gangs with the following characteristics:

they are loosely-organised street-corner gangs with fluid memberships;

they have no links with the traditional gangs but adopt their names for recognition and credibility;

they operate without any specific aim; and

they fight over trivial matters such as staring incidents, passing of remarks and accidental contact.

Youths who join street-corner gangs are usually:

school drop-outs, unskilled youths and students who are not academically inclined; and

they turn to gangs to fulfil emotional and psychological needs not met in their families and schools. They seek a sense of belonging, security and power.

Forty-five percent of rioting cases this year involved youths. Thirty-two percent of rioting cases had secret society connotations.

Sir, I will now deal with how we have approached the issue. In terms of enforcement, we will charge the law

breakers where we can. Eight youths have been charged with murder in the Downtown East case. For the cases of armed rioting in Bukit Panjang, six are being processed for detention under the CL(TP)A.

We have a "zero-tolerance" policy towards gang activities and we will continue with that. Other than those persons arrested in relation to the Downtown East and Bukit Panjang incidents, Police have rounded up 93 suspected gang members since end October 2010. Police will continue their island-wide sweep.

The Ministry of Home Affairs will also study whether Police require additional powers to intervene upstream. The intent is to disrupt early the formation of loose gang associations. Examples of such powers could include:

issuing directives to at-risk youths to abide by curfew hours; and

issuing directives to attend intervention programmes.

Sir, enforcement measures alone will not be sufficient. Investing in preventive and rehabilitative efforts for at-risk youths and youth offenders is also needed.

The National Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation Committee (NYGR) coordinates preventive and rehabilitative programmes to tackle youth delinquency. These include:

school talks and visits to Prisons for at-risk students;

training of school operations managers as Honorary Voluntary Special Constabulary Officers;

alerting parents of at-risk behaviour under Police’s "Youth Hanging Out Late" initiative; and

the Streetwise Programme to help youths disassociate from gangs.

The rehabilitative efforts have seen encouraging results. For example, of the 229 youths who completed the Streetwise Programme from 2005 to 2008, less than 10% of them have re-offended within one year of completing the programme.

We will do more. A new Central Youth Guidance Office (CYGO) under MCYS has been set up in July 2010. It coordinates inter-agency efforts to tackle youth delinquency. Minister of State Masagos leads this effort. The CYGO is studying solutions to:

enhance outreach to at-risk youths; and

coordinate intervention services at the local level.

They will be piloting some of these ideas soon.

Sir, the community also has a crucial role to play:

families are our first line of defence. Parents need to pay more attention to their children’s activities;

they need to identify tell-tale signs of delinquency; and

seek help early if necessary.

This issue of youths and gangs requires a multi-pronged, multi-party approach. We will work with the community and do what is necessary to continue to keep this in check.

Let me conclude by emphasising the following:

the crime rates are not going up – the rates have, in fact, been coming down steadily;

rioting cases are not going up – they have, in fact, been coming down steadily;

the two recent cases of gang clashes do not mean that there has been an increase in gang activity;

we remain a low crime city;

the steps we have taken over the years have worked very well. But we will continue to try and take further steps.

*Cols. 1803-1804.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. First, the Minister used rioting as proxy to determine whether there is an increase in gang-related activities. Could the Minister please give figures as to the kind of arrests and the number of people arrested for the gang-related activities that the Minister has cited? The second part of this question is: could the Minister share with this House the breakdown in the figures, for instance, by gender and more specifically whether there is an increase in the number of girls involved in the gang-related activities and whether there is an increase in the number of Malay youths involved in gang-related activities?

My second question: One of the questions among people is that they feel there is less visibility on the ground of the Police compared to the past with the Neighbourhood Police Posts when the Police would ride their bicycles and go round the neighbourhood. Now, even the Neighbourhood Police Posts operate much shorter hours. Would the Ministry consider increasing the presence of the Police on the ground or increase the operating hours of the Neighbourhood Police Posts or resurrect the Police-on-wheels scheme? That would help to restore confidence in the people.

Thank you. The Member has asked for fairly detailed statistics. As I understand it, the Member would like to know the number of youths picked up for gang-related activities and then, specifically, whether we could give the gender and, third, whether we could be more specific on Malay youths.

For some of these statistics, I think it would be best if the Member wrote in and then, I can give it to her because I do not have the details right now. Let me try and do the best that I can. Total rioting cases: I have given the handout. Rioting with youth involvement has come down from 205 in 2005 to 112 last year. So far, up to September this year, 96. If Members would like to look at the proportion of total rioting cases which involve youths, it has stayed steady at about 40%. If Members look at actual numbers: because the total number of rioting cases has come down, the number of cases of youth involvement in rioting has also come down. I do not have the precise gender breakdown here but I can tell the Member that in that regard it is primarily boys and not so many women. We had a programme specifically targeted at at-risk Malay youths, the Giant Trampoline Project. It was a successful programme but after review we decided that it was best done combined with the national StreetWise Programme. So it has been folded into the national StreetWise Programme. For the detailed statistics, perhaps if the Member wrote in, we can give them to her.

The second point that the Member made is a larger policy point, about the perception that there is reduced Police presence and whether we can increase Police presence. We have to go back to the underlying point: the thrust or the assumption behind the question is that crime is increasing and that can be solved by having more Police patrolling either by bicycles or by having men-in-blue patrolling. But that assumption is wrong.

Crime is not increasing. Crime is actually decreasing. We seek to continuously reduce crime.

Any case of rioting is taken seriously. That is the meaning of the "zero-tolerance" policy. We, however, have to be realistic that in a city of five million people, there will be some crime. We will have to deal with it. What is the best and most optimal use of our resources? If we believed that that is going to be done by having men patrol on bicycles, then that would be done. But over many years, we have done various studies on what is the most optimal use of our people: how do we leverage and synergise with the community, is it better to put our men in fast patrol cars and having an overall view of the entire area, having better intelligence, knowing what the hot spots are and being able to react very quickly? Bear in mind that each cohort in the entire population is shrinking and the Police force, like everybody else, has a challenge in getting our share of talent in. And only certain types of officers can make it to the Police force. Taking all that into account, we have to be realistic of what are the resources available and make the best use of those resources. The fact that the best use has been made of those resources, as the Member can see, has been borne out through the crime statistics. And that is the ultimate answer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some supplementary questions for the Minister. First, coming back to the statistics that were shown to us: does the Minister agree that apart from the rioting cases that have been reported: (i) there are probably unreported cases, and (ii) even if there are cases reported, some of these so called gang-related activities could be categorised under other crime types? For example, even a simple crime like voluntarily causing hurt could have had

some gang connotation even though it was not classified as rioting. It depends on how the Police classified it. The rioting figure itself does not give us the full picture.

Second question: Sir, I understand that as far as the Police's response to secret societies is concerned, it has always been specifically under the CID. About two years back, the Secrets Societies Branch (SSB) was merged into a more generic unit which had to deal also with anti-vice, gambling suppression and so on. It was only some time this year that it was reconstituted into a dedicated Secret Societies Branch. I would like the Minister to comment on whether he thinks it is possible that during this two-year period when the SSB was merged into this generic entity, there might have possibly been some loss of focus on this crime problem and perhaps even some loss in intelligence because the officers were involved in responding to other crimes as well. The fact that it has been reconstituted shows that the Police find that the gang issue is still quite alive in Singapore.

Third question is about schools as a possible breeding ground for gang activity. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the Ministry will work closely with the operations managers of the schools but I wonder whether it is time for MHA to put in more resources to work with the schools to combat this problem at the inception.

Last question: It was reported that some of the suspects had attended some programmes conducted by MHA earlier. Could Minister tell us which are the programmes that they attended?

I count that as five questions. I will try and remember them. I think the first point was whether apart from the reported rioting cases there

would be unreported cases. I think the thrust of the suggestion behind that question is maybe these statistics cannot be taken at face value. If that is what Ms Lim is suggesting, I would disagree because the point is the reported cases themselves tell a story. The fact that cases go unreported must mean that they are not serious or, for some reason, there were obviously no victims and it was not serious enough for it to be brought up to the Police's attention. As a trend, the Member can look at the number of different proxy indicators: the number of rioting cases, the number of youths picked up, the reports made. And we can draw conclusions from that. And, certainly, I do not think we can draw the opposite conclusion that for some reason, maybe during certain years, there were so many unreported cases that the trends are the reverse. I do not think we can draw that conclusion. I think the conclusion I have drawn is a fair one.

Ms Lim also asked, could there be other types of cases and whether could there be classification issues such that maybe the trends are different and which are not captured by the statistics I have given. And for that, I can tell her that we have looked at the different statistics which I have referred to, but I will give her another statistic. Let us look at rioting cases involving the use of dangerous weapons. That would tell us if there is an increasing trend of violence in rioting cases. The total rioting cases – Members have got the statistics. Rioting with dangerous weapons, charged under section 148, has remained relatively stable between 70 and 60-odd between 2005 and 2009. This year so far, 38 cases. They formed roughly somewhere between 14% and 20% of the total number of rioting cases. So whichever way we look at it, I think the conclusion is the situation has remained stable and, on the whole, has been coming down.

The third question that Ms Lim had was the reconstitution of the Secret Societies Branch. Again, the answer that I would give is the Member can be reassured that there is no loss of focus on this issue. There is complete focus on the issue of crime as a whole as well as how to deal with youth gangs and gangsters who may not necessarily be youths which is why we have our legal framework in place. The number of people with secret society connotations who have been picked up and currently under detention number just under 200. There has been a very careful assessment of every situation and where it is necessary to use CL, we have not hesitated to do so. Where it is possible to charge them for serious offences in Court, we have done so. And, again, I will return to the answer: Members should look at the results. The results are clear, of this approach. The Police have to constantly look, together with changing population demographics, geographical changes, how best to optimise their resources and whether there can be synergies. They are always looking to find these synergies. So we try out different strategies in different departments. That does not mean that a particular one loses focus. And, in fact, the Police have been actively working, not just on the crime prevention and control, but also to try and spread the message down to the schools and the youths.

Ms Lim has also asked: can we do more with the schools? I think we are doing a fair bit. What we do, for example – I do not intend for this to be an exhaustive list – youth at risk are identified. Officers talk to them and explain to them the risks of getting into crime. They are brought down to the Prisons to see for themselves what it would be like if they get on to the wrong side. They are given some taste of what it would be like to be a prisoner in that the Prison Officers treat them like quasi prisoners just to show them what it would

be like. We get mentors to talk to them, to try and get them to make sure that they do not get into these problems. And, we have the National Committee on Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation (NYGR), for example; we have the StreetWise Programme and the Trampoline Project. But there is only so much society or organisations like the Police can do. And in all of these questions I would also like the MPs to focus another part of it – fundamentally, parental responsibility and individual responsibility. Let us not start taking the approach that every problem can be solved by the State or by the Police Force. The Police Force is there to protect society and to deal with the problems but because we are left with the situation where sometimes the parental responsibility is not there, we have to deal with the issue.

We have been looking further. I agree with Ms Lim that we must continue to look at this and see what else we can do. There are two things that we have talked about in the last two weeks. One is: whether the Police can intervene even earlier on the crime control model to pick up youths who have not committed any crime yet but where violence is just possibly around the corner. Can we find the model to make sure that they do not get into those groups? We are studying it. I am not sure that there is a clear solution but we will study it and if there is a legislative solution, we will come up with it.

Secondly, we all recognise that the moment a kid gets out of school or drops out of school and he falls into bad company, there is a very high risk that that kid will end up as a prisoner or commit a crime. We have to look at the point where the kid is at risk of dropping out of school or actually drops out school and see what more can be done. Members have heard me talk about the new Central Youth Office headed by Minister of State Masagos. He will do a

study to see how best we can do more. It is not something that is piloted by the Ministry of Home Affairs alone, nor can it be. It requires inter-agency effort. So he will lead an inter-agency effort along those lines. I think I have answered the Member's questions. Is there anything that I have left out?

The question on the programmes attended by the suspects who were charged or rounded up.

Right. Can I ask that the Member sends in a written question on that and we will give her greater detail. So far, I have identified the StreetWise Programme. I talked about where our Prison Officers take the youths to the Prisons to give them a taste of what it would be like. There are a number of programmes like these. But if the Member wants more details, she can write in.

Last question, Mr Christopher de Souza.

Thank you, Minister, for your replies. The statistics showed that the rioting may be going down but I think anyone would agree that it is very rare for eight people to be charged for a murder against one person. So I think that signifies a great deal of violence in that case. Coming out of the recent cases, my questions are: (i) would the Minister reconsider the manner in which operations against secret society units or gangs are levelled, (ii) whether we need a dedicated anti-gang related unit and a centralised one, and (iii) would the Minister consider keeping the Neighbourhood Police Posts open 24 hours?

Again, I think my answer is going to be very similar to the one given to Mdm Halimah. The assumption behind Mr Christopher de Souza's question is this: eight people have been charged – that signifies seriousness, that

signifies that the crime situation is worsening and, perhaps, the way to deal with it is to have a dedicated anti-secret society unit and to have Neighbourhood Police Posts. That is the sequence of thinking. First and foremost, as I pointed out, first assumption on the trend of cases is not correct. The trend is downward. The overall crime rate is coming down. Likewise, the rioting cases. We have to start with facts because when we talk about deploying Police resources, it must be based on careful analysis of the facts and not knee-jerk reactions.

Would having Neighbourhood Police Posts in a greater number of areas and having them operate for longer hours help in the precise situations we are talking about? Could it have prevented these two rioting cases? That is how one must approach it. The studies and internal assessments we have done is that the resources we have and the optimal use of them is the way we are doing it now. Neighbourhood Police Centres with fast patrol cars, fast responders and more emphasis on intelligence on the ground and picking people up early if we identify them as gangsters. There is a new problem that is turning up when they are not members of the traditional gangs or not quite the type of gangsters who can be picked up under CL. But, nevertheless, they can quickly commit violence. How do we deal with it? That is the issue and I have talked about how we think we will deal with that issue. The Member can be rest assured the CID is very focused on this particular issue of reducing violence as well as reducing gang violence and a broad array of measures would have to be looked at and I have talked about them.

4. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Community Development,

Youth and Sports so as to protect children whose parents are divorcing (a) whether the Ministry will review the present arrangement and require that the matrimonial flat/house be sold and sale proceeds be shared by both parents; and (b) whether the Ministry will differentiate between ownership and occupation of the property by allowing the parent who has custody of the child to (i) stay in the flat/house until the child is working; or (ii) pay rental for the flat/house to the former spouse until alternative housing is available.

5. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) how many children were affected by divorce/separation of their parents in each of the last five years and how many of these children went through counselling; (b) whether the Ministry will make it compulsory for parents to send their children for counselling before their separation and divorce are completed; and (c) whether the Ministry will conduct a survey on the impact of divorce on children, including the emotional impact, to better address the needs of these children.

Mr Speaker, can I take Question Nos. 4 and 5 together?

Yes.

Sir, Mdm Cynthia Phua has asked both questions relating to the impact of divorces on children, focusing on the issues of housing and counselling. I will handle the issue of housing first.

Under the Women's Charter, the Court will decide on the division of matrimonial assets. In arriving at its decision, the Court will consider all the relevant circumstances of the divorcing couple.

Among other things, the Court will take into account the extent of the contributions made by each party, the needs of the children and any agreement between the parties on the ownership and division of the assets.

The present arrangement provides more flexibility for the Court. Making it a requirement for the matrimonial flat or house to be sold for the proceeds to be shared by both parents may not necessarily be in the best interests of the children involved in a divorce.

In the case where the matrimonial flat is a HDB flat, only the parent who obtains legal custody of the children is considered to have formed an eligible family nucleus, and allowed to retain or take over the ownership of the HDB flat. For such cases, the HDB may grant a mortgage loan for this parent, subject to credit assessment. The CPF Board had also revised its Act in October 2007 to allow the Court to order zero or a partial refund of CPF monies to the ex-spouse, based on the merits of the case.

The Subordinate Courts and HDB have recently worked out an arrangement to provide more help to low-income households undergoing a divorce. Under this arrangement, the HDB would first assess the feasibility of the preferred housing options of the divorcing couple. With this information, the Courts will then be in a better position to make a more informed decision on the housing for the divorcing parties. This is in addition to the existing arrangements where solicitors are required to submit documents on the settlement of the matrimonial flat to the Court for its decision.

There is nothing to prevent an ex-spouse with children from staying in, continuing to stay or renting a flat that is owned by the former spouse, as Mdm Phua has suggested. However, on the

ground, such an arrangement is unlikely to work if there has been an acrimonious divorce.

Mdm Phua had also asked for statistics on children affected by divorce and the counselling requirements for these children. Between 2005 and 2009, an average of 6,025 divorces was filed every year in the Family Court and 1,780 at the Syariah Court. About half of the Family Court's and 70% of the Syariah Court's cases involved families with children below the age of 21.

Yearly, the average number of children below the age of 21 who are affected by the divorces of their parents, therefore, amounts to about 4,700 and 2,600 for marriages under Women's Charter and the Administration of Muslim Law Act respectively.

At different stages of the divorce process, the Family Court will assess the need for children to undergo counselling. At the onset of divorce proceedings, children may be referred for counselling during the Pre-Trial Conference if custody is likely to be disputed. At the hearing, if the Court assesses that the children require support counselling; it may refer them to the counsellors at the Counselling and Psychological Services of the Family Court or relevant community resources. Where necessary, the Family Court may also order the parties and the children to attend parenting workshops or to order that access and transfer of children be done under the supervision of a social worker in a social service agency, like a Family Service Centre. However, the Family Court and relevant agencies do not track the number of children who go through counselling during the entire process of divorce or separation of their parents.

To further safeguard the interests of children in divorcing families, the Family Court has, since 2008, implemented a programme called Children's Best Interests,

Less Adversarial (CHILD) which basically means we are trying to avoid an adversarial hearing of disputes involving children and hoping to eliminate unnecessary affidavits. Divorcing parents who volunteer to be on this programme are guided by counsellors to focus on working out care arrangements, parental duties and responsibilities post-divorce, rather than focusing on the more acrimonious aspects of the process.

For Muslim divorces, while the Syariah Court does not direct children for counselling, it has, since January this year, been collaborating with As-Salaam PPIS Family Support Centre to run a voluntary programme focusing on young children in divorcing families. One of this programme's objectives is to identify potential at-risk children and to facilitate their access to national resources and also to raise awareness amongst families on importance of helping children cope with a parental divorce.

The current system thus accords flexibility to provide counselling for children where it is necessary. We should study carefully a proposal of making such counselling mandatory. Whilst counselling may be useful and may even be essential in some cases, it may not be necessary in all cases. Also, we should bear in mind that counselling children alone would not be helpful if the divorcing parents themselves are unable to manage the divorce and its aftermath in a calm and satisfactory manner. Any counselling would have to involve the parents, as we need to bear in mind that it is still both parents who are responsible ultimately for the children and for providing continued love and support.

Studies elsewhere have shown that divorces can have a very negative impact on children and in many different areas. We are open to conducting similar studies

in Singapore and, in fact, we do welcome researchers to tap on the MCYS's Family Research Fund (FRF), which supports research on family trends and issues in Singapore with a view to informing policy-making.

Let me end by stressing that children will always be adversely affected by a divorce. There are no easy solutions. But I would urge any couples contemplating a divorce to place the welfare of their child or children as their paramount priority rather than to engage in a destructive battle of attrition.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for Minister. I would like to thank the Minister for his detailed reply, especially for his care for the children in the disputes. But I would like to appeal again – one, is for the younger children to go for counselling. I would still like to appeal for mandatory counselling, although Minister has mentioned that it does not mean that mandatory counselling is helpful for the children. But I would like to appeal to the Minister to re-consider because these children, at a young age, would not be able to express their difficulties. So, with counselling, at least we can guide them to come out from their problems and how they face their separated parents.

Secondly, on housing. Housing is essential to the child. The child has already lost his family and by moving out, he will lose his classmates and neighbourhood friends. To the child, when he moves out of his familiar place, he will be very lonely. I would like the Minister to work more with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and also at the same time, to work with the Law Society, to ask the lawyers who are taking care of such matrimonial cases to centre on the children's welfare.

I thank Mdm Cynthia Phua for those two supple

mentary questions. I have explained earlier that we were not keen on making counselling mandatory. We wanted to give the Court the flexibility to make an appropriate decision depending on the circumstances of each case, and you know the cases will be unique. But I recognise the Member's point that younger children are at greater risks, they may have difficulties expressing themselves and processing the trauma which they are undergoing; and the counselling would probably be more beneficial or more helpful in their cases. But let us leave this decision to (i) the parents involved, and (ii) give the Court the flexibility to make a decision which is appropriate, fair and effective.

The second point is just as important and I totally agree with the Member that having to move out of a house in the aftermath of a divorce is extremely disruptive for children. Having to change schools, make new friends, settle in to new arrangements and, almost always, in circumstances in which finances will be tighter than they were before divorce. All these illustrate why parents, for couples that are embarking on this terrible process of dissolving a marriage, need to really do so by putting the children's interests first and foremost. And perhaps even that should take precedence over seeking vengeance or retribution or attrition – all the negative aspects that accompany the process of divorce.

I explained earlier in my answer that HDB is already involved early on in the process, particularly for the low-income families because the HDB will work out all the different housing options which they are eligible for and this information from HDB then becomes useful for both the contending parties as well as the Court to bear in mind before a decision is made. And the objective here again is to minimise the disruption. Having said that, there will always be some and although we can minimise it, we cannot immunise

or indemnify the children from all the problems that will be brought upon them by the parental choices. So, the Member has my assurance that the HDB, MCYS, the Family Service Centres, the counselling services of the Family Court and ultimately the Judges of the Family Court will bear all these points in mind as we make decisions and implement the system.

I would like to put one question to Minister. Once a couple has reached the divorce stage, I think that is quite disastrous, the impact is already there on the family, especially the children. So my question to Minister is whether there are sufficient programmes now to assist couples who are facing marital difficulties to assist them in counselling because the information and feedback I get is sometimes couples are very confused. When they need help, they do not seem to feel that they have sufficient support and help for them in order to get that kind of assistance. So whether there are programmes and whether these programmes are effective and how do we make known to couples who need this help that these programmes are available?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Like many social issues, this is complex and requires intervention at multiple levels. First, even before marriage occurs, we have to make sure that people go into it fully prepared. So, some of the measures which were taken in the preceding years include things like trying to discourage minor marriages because there is a disproportionate number of minor marriages that end up in divorce.

Secondly, to encourage people to go for marriage preparation courses, not State-run but run by social, religious or other community entities with which the couple has either a cultural or religious affinity with because all these help to

build a larger safety net around the couple.

Third, MCYS, through the Family Services Centres, also tries to run marriage enrichment courses or courses which remind people not to take marriage for granted and that marriage is an ongoing commitment and requires constant work and nurture. But beyond that, I think we also need to bear in mind the fact that these are personal, private decisions and personal, private responsibilities. The State cannot mandate love, we cannot order people to stay in love and we also have to recognise that, frankly, for some couples, they may have reached a stage where a divorce may be the best of a series of bad choices which are available to them.

What we need to do then is to mitigate the damage, particularly, the downstream consequences and damage to the children. And that is Mdm Cynthia Phua's point on making sure that they have adequate access to counselling. The answer is MCYS will continue to do so, minimise disruption to housing, pay attention to schooling. This is something which we will have to do more of as we talk about working with young people at risk with peer group pressures, that they have access to mentors who will help these children develop, and develop positively, even in a situation where they may be bereft of at least some parental supervision.

Unfortunately, we do know that children of divorce couples are over-represented as far as juvenile delinquency and other negative social phenomena are concerned. So these are the facts, what I am laying out is the fact that we need a total approach to this. The parents, the couples themselves, the social religious community entities, the Family Courts and MCYS. There is no magic bullet and no

quick solution to it. The other problem here, of course, unlike say, youth crime, is that we are working against an upward trend, as far as divorces are concerned, and also earlier divorces. I expect that in the future, there will be more children who, at an earlier stage of their lives, are exposed to the trauma of divorce.

So, I will not say that everything that we have done today is enough. We will have to do more simply because we are swimming upstream.

6. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the incidence of (i) offences against persons; (ii) offences against property; and (iii) drug offences, for the period 2008 to the present as compared to the period of 2005 to 2008.

7. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the recidivism rates for (i) offences against persons; (ii) offences against property; and (iii) drug offences for the period from 2008 to the present as compared to the period of 2005 to 2008.

Mr Speaker, can I take Question Nos. 6 and 7 together?

Yes.

Mr Christopher de Souza has asked for the incidence and recidivism rates for offences against persons, offences against property, and drug offences. These rates are requested for the period 2008 to the present as compared to the period of 2005 to end of 2007.

Comparing the two periods, both incidences of offences against persons

and property offences have decreased. From 2005 to 2007, the incidence of offences against persons averaged about 97 per 100,000 population, and this decreased to 91 per 100,000 from 2008 to September 2010. The incidence of offences against property also decreased from an average of 602 per 100,000 population for the period 2005 to 2007, compared to 508 per 100,000 population for 2008 to September 2010.

The number of drug abusers arrested in recent years has gone down compared to the 2005 to 2007 period. The number of drug abusers arrested increased from 793 in 2005 to 2,211 in 2007.

Since 2008,the number of abusers arrested has stabilised. One thousand, nine hundred and twenty-five abusers were arrested in 2008, 1,883 in 2009, and 1,328 in the first nine months of this year.

Prison measures the recidivism rate as a percentage of local inmates who were released in any particular year and who were subsequently convicted and imprisoned again for a new offence within two years following their release. We are only able to compare the recidivism rate for the period of 2005 to 2007 since the tracking period for the 2008 release cohort will only be completed at the end of this year.

Singapore’s recidivism rate has declined over the years from about 44.4% for the cohort released in 1998 to an all-time low of about 23.7% for the cohort released in 2004. Although the recidivism rate has since increased slightly to about 26.5% for the cohort released in 2007, this is still low by international standards. We think it will hover around that rate.

The recidivism rates for ex-offenders who committed crimes against persons, property offences and drug offences had increased for the cohorts released in 2005 to 2007. The recidivism rates for those who committed crimes against persons rose from 18.3% to 21.1%, while that of

property offenders rose from 37.5% to 39.1%. The recidivism rate for drug offenders increased from 21.6% to 25.5% for 2005 to 2007.

Singapore has managed to achieve these results because of our tough laws and the efforts of each and every member of the Home Team. In addition, we have enjoyed strong support from the public. Moving forward, we will continue to focus on developing and grooming our officers to be ready for future challenges, and deepening our engagement with community partners and members of the public.

The recommendations of the recent Committee on the prevention of re-offending, which I chaired, point to the need for the community to provide aftercare support for ex-prisoners. Studies and experience in many countries point to the need for a strong collaboration between the authorities and the community to better ensure that ex-prisoners integrate into the community and that their rehabilitation needs such as for employment, positive social peers and other forms of support are met.

Thank you, Minister of State for your replies. There were a lot of statistics, but I think I am correct to say that the incidence of drug offences increased from 500 in 2005 to about 1,900 in 2008. There seems to be quite a large spike over three years. My question coming out of that spike is: would MHA consider attempting to track the soft drugs that are not yet listed in the Misused of Drugs Act (MDA), for example, the Subutex case, before it was classified. Try to get those drugs in the schedule of the MDA early, so that the drug offenders do not move up the ladder to more serious drugs. I think that would be one way of nipping it in the bud.

The second point is about the recidivism rate. The recidivism rate has

increased from 18.3% to 21.1%, 37.5% to 39.5% and 21.6% to 25.5% on all three categories of offences being offences against persons, properties and drug offences. Would that be because our population has increased or that we have not got these people in jobs earlier enough after release? If it is the second reason, could we do more to get the inmates who are released in jobs early or earlier?

Mr Speaker, we agree with the Member that looking out for new drugs that will threaten our community is one of the initiatives that keeps the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) on its toes, to make sure that these drugs do not come in the community before it becomes a menace. In the early 1990s, we focused on tackling the growth of heroin. After introducing a comprehensive anti-drugs strategy in 1994, we saw the drug situation in Singapore drastically improved.

But now and over time, we see that psychotropic drugs, as Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned, have begun to surface as one of the emerging threats in Singapore. But we must continue with our anti-drugs control and not succumb to international pressures to allow other forms of drugs reduction – what they call harm reduction in Europe and US, where they give needles to people who are drug abusers. They look at this situation as a health issue rather than a social menace. Therefore, we will continue to look at the threats of heroin and other psychotropic drugs. Moving forward, we will continue to keep abreast of the developments, examining the measures and see what we can do to ensure that, not only do we re-classify these drugs as drugs we ban from Singapore as a drug subject to abuse, but to also to ensure that our students, children and youths continue to be educated to stay away from drugs.

On the issue of rehabilitation and recidivism, our Committee that concluded quite recently discovered that the issue of offenders re-offending is actually quite a complex issue. Indeed, for many of them, the situations they face when they leave the prison are very complex. To that extent, the Yellow Ribbon programme called for the community to support them, to open the second prison. While they have finished their sentence, they actually have to confront new challenges when they come out to the community. Therefore, among other things, the Committee on the Prevention of Re-offending (CPR) has looked at how the community can help the prisons and the authorities to reduce recidivism rate, to give better scaffolding for ex-offenders depending on the degree of risk of re-offending.

For those who have very high risk of re-offending, we provide case management framework for them which is overseen by Singapore After-Care Association (SACA) as well as Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA). In addition to that, the Committee also recommended that they go down to the locality, so that these offenders are not only given support for their individual needs, they are also given support to re-integrate better with their families. The case management support for this group of offenders require the case managers to work with the local Family Service Centres (FSCs) so that in the first few months after their integration to the community, they are well integrated and can settle down.

For those who are at lower risk of re-offending, SACA and SANA, together with MHA, have started to recruit volunteers to start what we call a "befriending service". Six months before they are released from prison, volunteers will start to write to these prisoners, with their consent, so that they can start to visit, write letters, befriend them and continue to be their friend after their

release from prison. We are also concerned about the families. Since the recommendations have been put up, we are now piloting family outreach, piloted by our Member, Mr Maliki Osman in Admiralty. We asked the inmates for permission for the grassroot leaders to approach their families, and then provide scaffolding care for their families to look out for the support that they need in terms of financing, housing, children's schooling and so forth, so that they do not fall into dysfunctionality when their spouses are in prison.

For those who are highly dysfunctional, we also tap on agencies like MENDAKI, which provides wrap-around care. They have piloted some successful family cases where the families are brought from the brink of dysfunctionality back into functioning within the society. We must also look at other upstream issues that affect our community and somehow get them into offending. As the Minister for Home Affairs has announced just now, part of the recommendations of CPR is the formation of the Central Youth Guidance Office (CYGO) under MCYS, which should look at various initiatives by various Ministries, so that they are streamlined, co-ordinated and no gaps in between them, so that all youths upstream can access the services that youths should get. For youths who are in school, they get the kind of the services and support they want. But there are also youths who are out of school or in the transition of being out of school whom I think we need to fill the gap for. CYGO will, among other things, be looking at these issues.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister of State had mentioned the handing out of needles and that is a route that we should not go down. I totally agree. I was not suggesting that we would go down that route. But on the issue of targeting the

soft drugs which are not yet scheduled in the MDA, would MHA work on trying to clamp down on clinics that dispense these sorts of drugs very freely, such as codeine and anti-insomnia drugs, so that we do not allow those soft users to eventually trump up into hard abusers.

We certainly share the concern of the Member and we will continue to look at the situation and monitor it. If we should re-classify all these drugs that should be prescribed for specific use and not for abuse, we will certainly take action on that.

8. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Manpower what are the criteria for approving S-Pass and Work Permit applications for jobs that do not traditionally come with paper qualifications such as cooks, cultural performers and trade workers.

The S-Pass was introduced in 2004 to cater to companies' need for middle-level skilled manpower at the diploma and post-secondary levels. These jobs generally require post-secondary qualifications and include technicians in the IT and aerospace industries and skilled nurses in the healthcare industry.

MOM recognises that there are industries and occupations such as cooks, cultural performers and trade workers where the quality of a foreign worker may not be solely dependent on his educational qualifications. This is the reason why S-Pass applicants are assessed based on a combination of factors in addition to educational qualifications. These factors include salary, job type and relevant work experience. Such a system enables us to obtain a holistic assessment of an applicant’s skills and abilities. There is also an online S-Pass Self-Assessment Tool on the MOM website that allows

employers to check the eligibility of their applicants.

Last year, as part of our efforts to raise the skills profile of the foreign workforce and thereby improve productivity, we announced that we would recalibrate the S-Pass criteria so that only the more experienced and qualified applicants would be eligible. Employers should take this into account when submitting S-Pass renewal or new S-Pass applications.

Those who cannot qualify for S-Pass can apply for a Work Permit instead, subject to the normal Work Permit conditions. We would also like to encourage employers to hire better-skilled Work Permit holders with either some academic or skills qualifications such as trade certifications for the construction sector, ITE’s Skills Evaluation Test or WDA's Workforce Skills Qualifications. Employers of such skilled foreign workers will enjoy lower levy rates and will benefit from the better quality of their foreign workforce.

We, therefore, encourage employers to bring in higher-skilled foreign workers, re-design jobs to achieve higher productivity and reduce dependency on lower-skilled foreign workers.

Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I have a couple of questions. Can the Minister update the House on the number of S-Pass and Work Permit applications that were rejected in the last two years as a result of a lack of paper qualifications for the jobs that were mentioned, such as chefs, cultural performers, and so forth?

The second point I want to make is this. I understand that there is a need by the Government to respond to the call by Singaporeans to contain the number of

foreign workers and talents. But is there a way that we can allay the anxiety and stress faced by businesses who need staff such as cooks or cultural performers to survive in their business? I think the Minister will agree that if one is running an enterprise or a restaurant serving Thai cuisine, then it probably makes sense to employ a Thai chef, many of whom, I think, do not have diplomas or degrees. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

Sir, the rejection rate for the S-Pass and Work Permit applicants is not available. But we do see a wide variety of reasons – many of them do not have sufficient quotas; some of them may have the qualifications but do not have sufficient work experience. As I have explained, we have a matrix of factors. There is no minimum requirement per se, but we take a holistic approach in assessing the qualifications and the experience as well as salary and job description of the worker, so that we can make a holistic assessment. It is basically a summation of many factors. So, they will not fail basically on just one factor. Of course, there is a minimum salary requirement of $1,800; this is one single factor that could disqualify them.

As regards the second question on how I can allay the anxiety of employers and businesses who want to continue to employ foreign workers, including S-Pass holders, I think the ultimate answer is to encourage these employers to look for innovative and productive ways to re-design their jobs and business models so that they can depend less on foreign workers. Singaporeans can take on many of these jobs and, in fact, many of these jobs can do with fewer workers so that productivity of each worker can be improved. But there could be special cases that Ms Denise Phua might have mentioned. If there is a specific case that the Member has in mind and would like the Ministry to take a look, please feel

free to forward it to me, and I would assess the situation on a case-by-case basis. By and large, I would encourage employers to focus on innovation and productivity so as to reduce the dependence on foreign labour.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about industries where there are non-conventional employer-employee arrangements, for example, freelancers who are quite prevalent in the performing and art industry. What are the options available for these people who want to seek work on a project basis and not with a single-employer arrangement?

Sir, primarily, as we allow a foreign worker to come into Singapore, we would require an employer to be responsible for the stay and the work of that foreign worker. In the event that this particular foreign worker gets into difficulty, we would need to be able to hold a certain employer accountable and responsible for the well-being of this foreign worker. It will be very difficult for us to open the gate and allow foreign workers to come in without an employer to be responsible for them. I would encourage industries to explore different opportunities and approaches even if the work is for a short period of time. We do allow employers to apply for Work Permit for a short period of time and after that, once the project is finished, whether it is for three or four months, we can terminate the work pass. There will also be some exempt activities like getai and so on, if they satisfy certain criteria, we do allow cultural performers to enter and work for a short period of time for specific work pass-exempt activities.

Ms Phua, last question.

I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer and I must also commend MOM for always being very even-handed in

processing these applications whenever we need exemptions.

I want to ask if the Minister could make known the matrix that he spoke about just now so that it can be communicated to applicants, especially the small-time operators that I have spoken about. So that they, in turn, can assess their chances of getting the applications approved before they even submit them, and then make their own decisions with regard to their own business.

Sir, let me explain that the S-Pass matrix is a fairly complex one which includes many factors and it also varies from industry to industry. For example, the qualifications, trade certificates and so on will be quite industry-dependent. So, it will be better for an employer who would like to employ S-Pass holders to go to our website where there is a self-assessment tool. The employer can key in the background of his potential S-Pass worker and the self-assessment tool will then inform him whether this particular candidate is likely to qualify. Of course, this self-assessment tool is not 100% guaranteed because it is just a simplified version of our matrix, but it will help the employer to have at least a first-line assessment of the suitability of this person as an S-Pass candidate. And if the candidate passes this self-asessment test, the employer can then submit his name to MOM. But if this person fails the self-assessment test, then the chances of him obtaining an S-Pass will be very low. So, we encourage employers to use this tool to make a self-assessment of the quality of their S-Pass applicants to see whether they have a chance to qualify as S-Pass applicants.

9. Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Minister for Health what is the outcome of the Ministry's investigation into the IVF mix-up incident and what will the Ministry do

to reassure patients, both local and foreign, that similar incidents will not happen again in the future.

Sir, my Ministry has completed the investigation into the IVF mix-up incident at Thomson Medical Centre (TMC). The investigators have concluded that the mix-up was due to lapses in procedures and human error.

Assisted Reproduction Centres handle specimens from many couples. To eliminate the risk of any mix-up, they follow a number of procedures in accordance with international best practices. First, the embryologist will work on the specimens of only one individual or one couple at a workstation at a time. Second, he will carefully label all the receptacles and instruments with the couple’s or the individual’s name. Third, he will discard the disposable instruments such as pipettes after each use. This is to avoid any contamination. Fourth, at every critical step, a second operator will counter-check that the specimens are transferred to the correct receptacles.

The investigators found that the TMC IVF Centre had deviated from some of these procedures. At the time of the incident, the embryologist was processing semen specimens of two individuals at the same workstation at the same time. The pipette used for transferring the specimen was reused instead of being discarded after each step. Even though it was reused only for handling the specimens from the same individual, it unnecessarily raised the risk of human error. This was particularly risky as there was no second person to counter-check that the specimens were transferred to the correct receptacles at every critical stage. These lapses in procedure contributed to the occurrence of a human

error and both led to the IVF mix-up in this case.

Following this incident, my Ministry has directed all Assisted Reproduction Centres to strictly follow the correct procedures, if they have not been doing so. My Ministry has also suspended the operation of the TMC IVF Centre.

The incident has impacted the reputation of the TMC IVF Centre and indirectly affected Singapore’s reputation as a regional medical hub. TMC has been responsive and has cooperated fully with my Ministry in the investigation. They are determined to recover from this incident. The key is full disclosure of the facts and immediate correction of any systemic inadequacies to ensure that similar errors will not recur. This is the way to regain patients' confidence and trust.

Thank you, Minister, for the reply. I would like to ask the Minister a few supplementary questions. Firstly, how many IVF Centres did the MOH find which did not follow the recommended SOPs and as a result, it could possibly have resulted in other mix-ups which were not detected? Secondly, what is the right of the patient whose specimen has been mistakenly used for this IVF incident and whether he should be informed of this mix-up? Lastly, with regard to the Straits Times' report on the scarcity of sperm donors, what is the Ministry's position on this and is this is a cause for concern?

Sir, there are nine IVF Centres in Singapore. We call them Assisted Reproduction Centres. After the incident, we re-checked all the nine Assisted Reproduction Centres. Two of them, besides TMC, did not comply with all the procedures. That means that there were six who fully complied. All the public sector Assisted Reproduction (AR) Centres fully complied with the SOP.

What is the right of the unintended parent or father in this case? We consulted the National Medical Ethics Committee. We tasked it to convene a meeting to discuss this particular incident because many parties are involved here and there are obligations and ethical duties of the operator and the hospital towards each of these parties, and all have to be taken into account. They have given very sound advice; they said that TMC will have a duty towards each and everyone of those parties involved. However, in fulfilling all those duties, it may conflict or cause other problems to some of the parties involved, and their advice is that the baby's rights should take priority. In the case of this unintended father of the baby, their advice is if the donor asked, then TMC will have a duty to inform. But TMC need not volunteer the information, taking into account the impact it may have especially on the baby. We have shared the National Medical Ethics Committee's advice with TMC.

As for the shortage of sperm donations, this is a global phenomenon. I think we are not alone in having a shortage of people coming forward to donate sperms.

Sir, given what has happened, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has done any audit to satisfy itself that what has happened is the only incident that has happened so far, and that nothing of this nature has happened before, save for one that is reported.

We carry out regular audits on all Assisted Reproduction Centres, including Thomson Medical Centre. But should we go backwards in time and start checking every IVF baby to see whether there has been a mix-up in the past? Short of doing a DNA parentage test on every IVF baby, we will never know.

I think we should do what is

practical. Based on the information that we have, we are not aware of other mix-ups, certainly not in recent years.

Last question, Assoc. Prof. Straughan.

May I follow up on the Minister's response to the last supplementary question? Would the Ministry consider offering free DNA matches for successful IVF cases if the parents and the children so choose to validate the process?

Sir, we offer a DNA parentage testing service but whether we should offer it for free is a separate issue.

10. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how effective are the new measures to curb the activities of loansharks; (b) whether the Ministry has observed any trends of loansharks resorting to more aggressive tactics to recover their loans; and (c) what more can be done to curb this nuisance.

11. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will provide an update on the number of loanshark harassment cases in HDB towns; and (b) whether the enhanced measures that were introduced had been effective in reducing loanshark cases.

Sir, may I take Question Nos. 10 to 11 together?

Yes, please.

The number of harassment cases, after surging from 9,400 cases in 2007, to 11,400 cases in 2008 and to 17,900 cases last year, has stabilised. Over the period January to October this year, the number of cases dropped about 8.4%, to 13,848 cases compared to 15,120 cases over the same period last year. Meanwhile, arrest figures have stayed high as the Police press on with their ground efforts. Up to 31st October this year, the Police arrested 1,327 persons for harassment and loansharking offences, an increase of 66% compared to the same period last year.

Whilst the drop in the number of harassment cases is encouraging, we cannot declare victory. The improved situation can be attributed to several factors including the effect of enhanced measures introduced in the Moneylenders Act in January this year, stiff sentences meted out by the Courts, sustained enforcement against loanshark syndicates by the Police and the tremendous effort of community and grassroots organisations to deter and apprehend harassers on the ground.

Has there been a trend of loansharks resorting to more aggressive tactics? The main modes of harassment remain unchanged. These involve pasting or writing debtor notes on walls, splashing of paint on doors and mailing of hell notes. In some cases, gates were chained. Whilst there have been some cases where fire was used, there has been no trend that loansharks and their harassers are resorting to more aggressive tactics. Nevertheless, the Police have taken note of a recent case where a harasser purportedly set fire to a car parked at a carpark. Two persons have been arrested in relation to the offence and the Police will certainly press for deterrent sentences against them if found guilty.

On their part, our Courts have meted out stiffer penalties against offenders,

when appropriate. Two recent cases illustrate this tougher approach. In the first case, a 24-year-old male offender was found guilty of carrying out a series of harassment by setting fire to the doors of his victims’ units. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment, 15 strokes of the cane and fined $30,000 in August. On appeal, the High Court increased his imprisonment term to 54 months last week. Before the amendments, his sentence would have been limited to a maximum fine not exceeding $40,000 or optional imprisonment not exceeding 36 months, or both. In the second case, a 22-year-old male offender used a hammer to cause damage to properties by smashing the glass window panels of the victims’ homes. He was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane in April.

Sir, enhanced measures have not only been limited to prosecuting the harassers but have also been effectively wielded against those higher up the hierarchy. Up to 31st October this year, the Police smashed 12 syndicates and arrested 104 persons suspected of being involved in syndicated loansharking activities, an increase of 25% compared to the 82 persons arrested over the same period last year. Where syndicates are concerned, the Police will not only push for deterrent sentences but will also assess if the assets obtained from their ill-gotten gains warrant freezing or confiscation. At the January sitting, a key concern shared by Members who spoke on the amendments was the involvement of youths. I warned youth offenders then that they could not hide behind their young age and would be subject to stiff punishment. The number of young offenders under the age of 16 arrested for loansharking and harassment activities dropped from 22 persons for the period January and October last year to 13 persons for the same period this year.

With regard to Mdm Halimah's query as to what more can be done to fight this scourge, let me say that tough laws and enhanced police enforcement are only part of the solution. As, if not more important, is the active involvement of the community. In this regard, I am happy to note that many community and grassroots organisations have responded to the call to mount self-help initiatives to safeguard their neighbourhood and to work with the Police to counter this scourge. The many Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) Projects engage residents to be extra eyes and ears on the ground, report cases immediately when any suspicious activity is sighted within their neighbourhood and, in some instances, conduct local patrols. A key outcome is that a neighbourhood being harassed does not feel that it is helpless and at the mercy of the harassers. To date, close to 800 Neighbourhood Watch Groups (NWGs) have been formed island-wide, with some NWGs scoring notable successes against loansharks, resulting in arrests and a drop in harassment activities.

Moving forward, as I have said before in this House, we must all continue to press on resolutely in our fight against this scourge. These are organised crime syndicates that will adapt their operations to avoid Police detection and arrest. That is why even as we note some early successes, we will continue to monitor the need to strengthen our laws.

Sir, notwithstanding the Senior Minister of State indicating that numbers are stabilising, we still hear from the ground feedback and reports about loansharking causing a lot of distress, inconvenience and fear to our residents. Some residents have given feedback that they have got used to this kind of harassment which is a worrying sign. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether we should set a more

ambitious target in terms of reducing the number of cases of harassment and loansharking activities and perhaps commit a bigger budget and more resources to decisively deal with loansharking activities. Deal them a severe blow so that we can break the back of the racket and the network.

My second question: we discussed earlier about youth gangs and whether there are indications that many of these teens in the gangs are also involved in these loansharking activities. Are these groups breeding grounds for loanshark runners?

Sir, the first point is that we must see the situation in context. As I mentioned just now, given that the surge from 2007 to 2009 has stabilised and come down means that we are doing something right. I would like to attribute it to all the stakeholders working together. Having said this, I also agree with Mr Liang that every case is one case too many. Definitely from the feedback on the ground, we feel for the residents when they get harassed. I receive many appeals from Members. When MPs write to me, I would ask the Police to see whether more can be done. It is not a matter of resources because the Police are, in fact, resolved to work with the grassroots to tackle this problem. The Police have, for example, bought more CCTVs and, where appropriate, they have also helped the residents, Town Councils and grassroots fix CCTVs.

On the question on youths – this is something we are monitoring all the time. Like I have said, the figures have shown that for youths under 16, the number of youths involved in loansharking and harassments has come down. There is no trend as such but this is something we are always mindful of. As I have said, we have strengthened the law, so a person over 21 years who instigate or get a youth under 16 years to get involved in

loansharking can now be sentenced up to nine years. Sir, the message is very clear and I would urge everybody to continue to press on.

Two supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State. First, what can we do for those who borrow money from loansharks and then refuse to change their addresses and allow buyers of their flats to be harassed by the loansharks? This is a serious problem and it has not abated as a result of the new measures.

Secondly, although the Senior Minister of State said there is a decline in loanshark activities, 13,000-odd is still a large number of cases. Is there any indication that there is a linkage to the casinos, ie, people are now borrowing more money and, therefore, end up with a lot of loanshark problems?

You have three minutes, Assoc. Prof. Ho.

Sir, on the links with the casinos, the Police tell me that, as of now, there is no linkage. Of course, they are monitoring and it could be early days yet. From the number of harassment loanshark cases, there is no spike. If there is spike, then we will have to study it further. This is something we are always very mindful of – that the casinos should not lead to an increase in crime. This is why the Police have beefed up its resources in that area.

On the other point about the change of address: I agree with Mdm Halimah. Indeed, this is something that we should be more serious about. In fact, under the National Registration Act, a person can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to five years if one does not change his address within 28 days. I have told the Police that if a borrower has moved and did not

change his address to avoid detection, then we should press for a deterent sentence against him. Having said this, even if he had changed his address, that may not necessarily mean that it will deter harassment. The loanshark cannot check the register in the NR Registry. But still, the fact that he has done something which has led to another person – an innocent buyer – being harassed is something we should all take odium against. In the last amendment, we amended the MLA to say that "if you borrow using a false address, you are specifically subject to punishment". So it is a specific offence now.

Last question.

Many of these syndicates operate outside of Singapore. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether we have taken further steps to deal with any syndicate that operates outside the reach of our laws. The second question is to ask the Minister whether he will now consider it appropriate to make it an offence to borrow and do business with loansharks as I think this will help dry up the source of demand for illegal loans.

Sir, when we tabled the amendments in January, we said the Police would work very closely with its overseas counterparts to address this problem. Indeed, there are some syndicates that may operate from overseas. The last time we amended the Act, we put in extra-territorial jurisdiction. So, we have signalled our seriousness in this regard. The Police will continue to work with its counterparts.

The second issue is something more complex. I cannot answer it within 45 seconds. We have discussed it in this House before and the debate in this House showed there is a diversity of views. When we floated the balloon about three years ago, there was also a diversity

of views from the ground. As I have said, we will monitor the situation. It is not something that we have discarded but with the improved situation, we need not go down that route. As many Members have mentioned, we also have people who are genuine borrowers. If we criminalise the act of borrowing, that may lead to other problems.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 12-15, 18 and 22 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix*. Question Nos. 16-17 and 19-21 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Those with an eye on legal history would have noted that this is the first time in 36 years that a PAP backbencher has moved a Bill. Some reporters have asked me what I think of this fact. On the law itself, I will share my wish at the end of my speech. Indeed, in answering, I find myself torn. I support family values and I know the law is needed to give force to these values. So, let me speak about values first. Members would have read in the media the views expressed in response to the proposed amendments to the Act. I am encouraged to see that the process of tabling this Bill has generated much discussion amongst the public on the issues of family and filial piety. It has also

sparked a national soul searching on the roles of love and duty in the family and on the place of parents in society. The Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) stands for values of the society – it stands for our belief that the first port of call for help is the family; that the law should be used to enforce such values because they have an impact on all of us; that it represents the best balance between public interest and private costs. All this, I shall speak about in due course. But I say now that, as a law, the Act is an instrument of last resort. I wish that it had not come to this. Today, some 15 years later, the Act appears to be needed more than ever. Indeed, the amendments that I am proposing reflect the concerns of myself, and that of the Workgroup – the fact that these amendments are needed, demonstrate not just the need for the Act, but the need for strong enforcement mechanisms to make children provide for their parents. It is a sign of individual failures in caring for the elderly in our family and a last ditch effort at making the family work. And because I believe in the family, I believe such an effort is worth making no matter what the cost. Sir, I do not mean to claim that children are increasingly unfilial – far from it. Allow me to share the views of young people. Some students at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy – a few of them are here – recently did a survey of their peers and wrote me a policy memo with their findings. The survey drew about 4,483 responses. More than 95% of them agreed or strongly agreed that they should care for their parents and about the same percentage intended to financially support their parents after their retirement. Forty-three percent said that within the first five years of their working life, they intend to give 10% of their monthly income to their parents and 28% said they would give 20%. It shows that

a majority of young people do want to provide for their parents. At the same time, I note that this is not an unconditional feeling because about two-thirds say that they are concerned that they may not be able to support their own spouse and children as well as their parents. Government statistics in part support this idea of a drift away from supporting parents. According to the 2005 National Survey on Senior Citizens, some 66% of those aged 55 and above receive regular cash contributions from their children. But those who consider their children as the main source of financial support have unfortunately fallen from 66% in 1995 to 44.7% 10 years later. Here, while I do not want to be judgmental about the young, I do want to urge them not to consider their parents an "optional extra". In other words, after their own comfort, after their children's enrichment classes, after paying for their flat – then comes the $100, $200 or $300 to their parents. The issue is not so much a generation of children who are all equally unfilial, but rather the fact that the very institution of the family is now under more stress than ever with an ageing population and smaller families. According to the Department of Statistics, Singapore's age-old dependency ratio has been decreasing steadily since the 1970s, with the number of residents aged 15 to 64 years per elderly resident going from 9.9 to 8.2 between the year 2000 and this year. This figure will continue to decrease as evidenced by Singapore's resident total fertility rate; its continual decline from 1.28 births per female in 2008 to 1.22 births per female in 2009. The same figures show that the number of seniors aged 65 and above living on their own has increased from about 15,000 in the year 2000 to 22,000 in 2005.

Faced with these stresses, I urge young people to reaffirm in their hearts that parents, spouse and children should all come together. No one group should take priority over another. If there is not enough meat, we will all eat tofu together – as a Chinese saying goes, and I will say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] The Chinese say that a peaceful family will prosper. In a loving family, the taste of tofu is as delicious as a steak. I remember many years ago (almost 40 years), my family of six – father, mother, my two older sisters, a younger brother and me – lived in a 3-room HDB flat at Mattar Road. At that time, we ate whatever that was available and we shared the food on the table. People who ate first would ensure they left some food, usually more, for those who ate later. It is said that "contentment brings happiness". I believe many MPs have the same experience as me. We have seen many low-income families live happily together and we have also seen some very unhappy rich families.

(In English ): Society has changed since then and also since the introduction of the Maintence of Parents Act. The furore 15 years ago was about legislating filial piety which was, and is, an issue seen as deeply personal. Today, I see that a bigger issue is the way in which bonds between parents and children have changed and, arguably, in some cases, loosened. Just as MCYS is reviewing the Women's Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act to make them more relevant to Singapore today, it is also timely to review the MPA to better reflect the sentiments and aspirations of our society and work towards the larger goal of emphasising the importance of family values. Sir, allow me now to turn to the Amendment Bill at hand. At this year's Committee of Supply debate on the

budget for MCYS, I accepted Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's proposal to revisit the MPA with a view to tabling amendments as a Private Member's Bill. With the acceptance, came the realisation that it was a mammoth undertaking. I knew I needed expertise and a lot of wise counsel. So, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have worked on these amendments for their valuable contributions. Today, we will hear them address this House, giving their own thoughts on the Bill. Our Workgroup was also very fortunate to have the support of a very committed and very competent secretariat team, and a pool of volunteers who came forth to share their advice and expertise and, not least, the President of the Tribunal of Maintenance of Parents and Commissioner, both of whom facilitated and were generous with their views and feedback. In the course of the present review, the Workgroup which I chair, we took care to ensure that we have not deviated from the original intention of the Act which was, and is, to deter that minority group of unfilial adult children from neglecting their duty to care and provide basic maintenance for their parents. The Act was not, and still is not, a means to legislate filial piety – a value which should come naturally from the heart. Where filial piety has failed and parents are left in the lurch with no means to support themselves, the Tribunal continues to meet their real needs by securing financial support from their children, taking into consideration the circumstances of both parties and keeping in mind the principle of reciprocity of care. I would also like to thank the various stakeholders and members of the public who have given so much of their time to provide me with their views. Since the consultations started, we have received numerous e-mails, calls and letters. There

have also been several letters to the Forum pages of different newspapers and radio and TV programmes also provided much coverage. The strong and warm support from all was most motivating and encouraging to the Workgroup and affirmed that we are doing the right thing. We recognised from the start that there were no easy answers to an issue as deeply personal and complex as family relationships. I can say frankly that some Members felt that we should have gone further, in a way echoing sentiments from some members of the public who called for a "fiercer" Maintenance of Parents Act. Eventually, the Workgroup decided to steer away from this. Instead, we decided and elected to strengthen the conciliatory aspects of the Act. This reflects our collective belief that families must continue to be encouraged to resolve differences on their own for this builds the spirit of resilience and tolerance. We also maintain that this is the optimal solution given the complex nature of family relationships and that all of us know our own families the best. There were also lighthearted moments and serious discussions about what entails "maintenance" – one member, a senior lawyer who was glued to his Blackberry (iPad was not launched then) asked whether broadband access counts among the bare necessities of life. For him, no doubt, it would be! Let me now turn to details of the proposed amendments. Prof. Walter Woon put it succinctly in 1995 when he said that, "The law is not meant to get rid of all the problems. It is not a panacea. It is a last resort." Therefore, where families have hope of resolving their differences through non-legal means, what the Workgroup proposes is an enlarged platform for conciliation as facilitated by the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents.

The Workgroup embraces a "conciliation first" approach that places this process as a first recourse for cases that come forth. Bringing the case before the Tribunal should be a measure of last resort as it begins the legal and necessarily adversarial court proceedings. Enhancing the Commissioner's role to deal with the parties at an earlier stage will better facilitate a settlement between parents and their children without having to make a claim at the Tribunal, thereby building resilient families and preserving family ties. With the changing landscape, we can foresee a future increase in caseload under the Act. Our eventual goal is that a larger proportion of these cases will be reconciled without going to Court. That, to us, will be a good outcome. Three measures have been proposed to this end. The first is to enhance the Commissioner's role to assist parents at the pre-filing stage. Currently, the application process begins with a formal filing of claim with the Tribunal, which many elderly find too drastic a step. It is therefore proposed that parents who approach the Tribunal for the first time will have their case referred to the Commissioner. The Commissioner will then assist them in the following ways: (a) refer the parent to other public agencies for assistance where appropriate; or (b) refer the parent and children for conciliation; or (c) take other measures as the Commissioner thinks fit. Secondly, it is proposed that conciliation sessions referred by the Commissioner at the pre-filing stage should be compulsory. Today, a party may not attend the conciliation session referred by the Commissioner at the pre-filing stage as these sessions are voluntary. Hence, the Commissioner should be empowered to require any party

to a claim to attend the conciliation. Failure by that party to appear will be taken into consideration by the Tribunal when determining the maintenance application. Thirdly, agreements that are reached during conciliation today are non-binding. There is no recourse for parents in the case of default except to have their cases filed with the Tribunal should their children default on the agreement. We, therefore, propose that where cases have reached an agreement through conciliation, the Tribunal President or the Deputy President may endorse the agreement as a maintenance order and this maintenance order shall have the same force and effect as if it is a maintenance order made by the Tribunal. This is a proposal for workflow improvement and simplicity. It is part of what we call a beneficiary-centric approach that we have embraced. As of this year, the success rate of cases resolved at the conciliation stage stands at 70%. The Commissioner's Office is to be commended for the good work that they are doing. However, with the proposed measures, we hope that the success rate of conciliation will see a further increase in future. If such was the case, this would mean that lesser families would have to invoke the law to settle maintenance issues. The extensive public consultation undertaken by the Workgroup has given members of the public the opportunity to offer suggestions and voice their concerns on the Workgroup's proposals. Of all the feedback that was received, one single topic emerged as the top concern – that of undeserving parents. About one in five comments focused on the issue of whether the Act would protect children from parents who are deemed undeserving of maintenance. Others shared stories of the absence of reciprocity in their own families and

feared that parents would use the Act against them in future.

*Cols. 1785-1796. *Cols. 1805-1806.

First, I want to state upfront that it is true that it is not always the children who are at fault. Hence, to each of these responses, we assured in our replies to them that the Tribunal would take the circumstances of both parties into account and that the Act is neither open to the abuse of parents nor a mechanism that works unfairly against children. This is the principle of reciprocity of care that the Act embraces. I hope this helps to allay concerns from individuals who have written in questioning the MPA for potentially "distorting" behaviour. Some feedback we received suggested that the Act would also create a "moral hazard", disincentivising parents from saving for their own retirement and encourage reckless management of finances since they can turn to their children for support when their resources run out. I concede that cases of "moral hazard" do exist. I have had people writing to me that parents have gambled their savings away and later brought their children to the Tribunal. But my own sense is that such cases of "moral hazard" on the part of parents will not be high. I, in any case, such parents will be found out when the Tribunal investigates. In a nutshell, the principle of reciprocity entails that the Act does not impose an absolute obligation on children to maintain their parents. The Commissioner and the Tribunal should be convinced that it is just, that it is equitable. Since 2005, the Tribunal has dismissed 11% of the cases heard. Some of the reasons include parents found to have neglected, abused or abandoned their children in the past, or they have not exercised their moral duty to care for their children. Sad but it happens. In such circumstances, the Act explicitly provides for dismissing the case

or reducing the quantum of maintenance. My Workgroup colleagues and I personally witnessed some cases heard at the Tribunal which were dismissed on such grounds. We should also be reminded that the Act is meant to provide for or to supplement basic living expenses of parents. On this point, allow me to qualify that the term "basic needs" should be determined based on what the parent requires for basic sustenance at the point of the maintenance application. It should neither be about maintaining the same standard of living as before or about sharing of the children's wealth. Therefore, those parents seeking extravagant sums of money to meet other needs have come to the wrong place and they will be disappointed. On average, 60% of maintenance orders made by the Tribunal are for a monthly sum of $300 and below. Ideally, all children should care for their aged parents based on true reciprocity of care, where one generation cares for another because of love and gratitude for past kindness. Many Singaporean families enjoy such loving ties with their parents. Yet, it is inevitable that circumstances are different for each family and the blame is not always with the children themselves. It is therefore important that all the beneficiaries under the Act continue to be treated in a fair and just manner. Next, I would like to touch on the issue of access to information, which is one of the proposed amendments to empower the entities under the Act. In 2008, about 14% of elderly parents who approached the Tribunal were unable to provide adequate details of their children and thus unable to proceed to file their cases. It is indeed unfortunate that needy parents were unable to receive much needed assistance as a result of this gap.

These parents have simply been "cut off" from their children in every sense of the word. In this respect, information such as the whereabouts of children or an indication of their financial status is crucial in facilitating conciliation efforts and in investigating the merits of the case. The Workgroup proposes that the Offices of the Tribunal and the Commissioner be empowered to obtain information, records, documents or articles from such Government agencies or statutory bodies as the Offices consider necessary. This information is to be used for the purposes of:

identifying and locating the children of the parent;

assessing the veracity of or supplementing the information provided by the parties involved; and

assessing the ability of the parent to maintain himself and each of the children of the parent to maintain him.

We are mindful of and we recognise the need to put in the necessary safeguards to manage data disclosure and also the confidentiality of certain information. For a start, the list of agencies which the Offices may access information from must be approved by the Minister-in-charge. Access to such information should only be exercised as a last resort when the parties refused to provide the information, or where the information provided is insufficient for the Offices' purpose and all other methods to locate the children or to verify the information have been exhausted. Also, any information obtained pursuant to this amendment should not be shared to third party unless necessary and with the written permission of the source

agency. These safeguards will ensure confidentiality of the information. In reviewing the Act, we also sought to ensure that the process for claiming maintenance should be simple, straightforward and expeditious. As it is, parents and children that come forth to resolve maintenance issues bring with them much emotional baggage from the past. We believe that the administration process behind the Act should be beneficiary-centric in that any additional stress put on the families should be minimised. Several measures to streamline processes have been proposed. Firstly, we are proposing for the dismissal of frivolous or vexatious applications without the need to convene a Tribunal hearing. At present, there is no restriction on the number of times that the same person can make a fresh maintenance or variation application. An applicant may make multiple applications even though previous application had been dismissed or there is no substantial change to the parties' circumstances. I recall in particular, a member of public who wrote to me explaining her predicament. Her father-in-law had made repeated applications against her husband and the family has been summoned for multiple mediation sessions by the Tribunal – six times in all. Each time, she was tasked with taking time and effort to gather the necessary paperwork and evidence for mediation. The frequency of taking urgent leave to attend mediation sessions also jeopardised the husband's employment. Despite the fact that circumstances to the case have not changed, a full Tribunal hearing had to be convened each time before the case could be dismissed. With our proposed amendment, this will no longer and should not be necessary. The Workgroup also observed hearings for variation orders where the applicant

failed to turn up. Respondents had their time wasted and several had used up a significant portion of their annual leave to repeatedly attend hearings. We therefore propose that the President or the Deputy President to the Tribunal be empowered to dismiss any frivolous or vexatious application with valid reasons. The President or the Deputy will be empowered to do so independently without the need to convene a full Tribunal sitting. As an avenue for recourse, the aggrieved party may appeal to the full Tribunal against a decision of the President or the Deputy President. In such an appeal case, we will, of course, exclude from the panel the member who dismissed the application in the first instance. Applicants who wish to appeal even further may do so with the High Court. However, the High Court can make an order for costs to be awarded against the applicant should they find the appeal wholly unmeritorious. In short, existing safeguards are in place to deter parents from escalating their appeals with no grounds. We are also proposing another change in the name of administrative expediency. Currently, the President of the Tribunal must be one of three members to form a quorum for a Tribunal hearing. It is proposed that up to four Deputy Presidents be appointed and that Tribunal hearings can be presided over either by the President or the Deputy President. These appointments are a new feature we hope to introduce to allow for a more expeditious process at the Tribunal, such that applicants and respondents alike will experience a shorter waiting time before their cases will be resolved. I made references to the role of the Deputy President earlier in my speech. In summary, the Deputy President is introduced to play three key functions:

to preside over Tribunal hearings in the absence of the President;

to dismiss frivolous or vexatious claims at the preliminary stage; and

to endorse agreements reached at conciliation as maintenance orders.

The key enhancement under (ii) and (iii) is that these can now be undertaken without the need to convene a full Tribunal hearing. Other proposed measures to streamline processes are as follows: (a) Currently, a fee of $10 is charged to parties to obtain a copy of the recorded proceedings. We propose that the fee be removed.

We also propose that the prescribed forms (currently 14 forms in all) be removed from the Maintenance of Parents Rules. The Tribunal secretariat will work to streamline the forms and regularly review and update them administratively.

Lastly, we suggest that "Medical costs" to be included as a category for consideration in addition to shelter, food and clothing as a component of what constitutes "basic needs" under the Act.

Beyond the legislative amendments proposed in the Bill, we also recognise the importance of follow-through after agreements have been secured between parties. The Commissioner should have a role in monitoring cases after Maintenance Orders have been issued, in particular cases where the children repeatedly default on the Orders. The Workgroup would like to suggest that MCYS, the Commissioner and the Tribunal devise an effective administrative system for case monitoring. Such a

system should help ensure that payments are made on time and, if not, that prompt and adequate assistance is given to the parent to enforce the payments. We also ask that MCYS considers resourcing both offices adequately to carry out such an important task. I believe investing in this aspect will have significant payoffs going forward. I would like to, at this stage, make another point quite separate from the amendments but one which I feel is worth making. Section 12 of the current Act empowers the Commissioner to make an application on behalf of a parent, or represent applicants before any proceedings or appeals under the Act. Despite this provision, it is possible that some parents would expressly object to have their case pursued under the Act. In such cases, we agree that the Commissioner should and must respect the parent's decision. However, the consequences of not proceeding with the maintenance application should also be clearly explained to the parent, including not being eligible for other forms of public assistance. This is in line with the rationale that the onus of taking care of one's parents should first and foremost lie with the children if they can afford it and not the state. The state should only step in and will step in to assist when the family is financially in need. Family togetherness and support is important and should always form the first line of care and support. This is the principle upon which Singapore's social welfare is based – that of personal responsibility, family responsibility and the Many-Helping-Hands approach with the state coming in when all else fails. Sir, in this last part of my speech, let me touch on what we have chosen not to

do, which to me is as important as the changes we made. Technically, a child could choose to disregard the rulings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal alone cannot sentence an individual to a fine or jail. The Committee, while giving the policy more teeth in terms of effective implementation, also realises that family ties are complex, that circumstances and history can never be fully understood. This is why we have decided to uphold the conciliatory and non-adversarial spirit of the original law. Deterrent provisions go against this spirit. If the Act carries a jail sentence or a fine, parents may withdraw their application if, as a result of their children's reluctance to pay, these children have to be punished by a jail sentence or a fine. To improve the payment and the enforcement of Maintenance Orders, we are instead proposing for an effective administrative system to monitor cases to help ensure that payments are made on time and, if not, give prompt and adequate assistance to help parents enforce payments. Sir, in closing, let me say that we have kept within the spirit of the original law, we have attempted small but significant steps towards the care of aged parents.

Our hope is that we can collectively work towards the goal of minimising the number of people who would have to resort to the use of this Act. But for those who do, for whatever unfortunate circumstances, we hope that the amendments can minimise further stress on already strained family ties and preserve family relationships as far as possible. We recognise that at the end of the day, the law alone cannot solve society's problems. The amendments will not be able to roll back the increasing pressures that families face. The law is there to

complement the larger effort of education that needs to take place. We also benefited from the National Family Council's recent campaign centering on filial piety.

The effort must begin in our homes where parents model the filial piety and children learn by example. Moral education in schools can but only complement. Yet, school education can still play a role in inculcating these values to our young and I hope that schools will continue to emphasise these values in their curriculum. This is a wish that I hope the Ministry of Education – and I am looking at Dr Ng – will consider. The values expounded in the Act should be inculcated from young. I should add that all various VWOs, community and ethnic groups should play a part. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC, my colleague Mr Sam Tan, will elaborate how one group, the Nanyang Confucian Society, has been focusing on promoting Confucius ethics and values which include filial piety. The Society is doing great work and I encourage them to further contribute to the cause of promoting good values especially filial piety by recognising those who practise them. I hope other groups across different races would also consider likewise. Sir, at the start of my speech, I said I would share with all what my wish is with regard to this law. For the law itself, my fervent hope is that that the Act will, over time, gradually fade away through disuse. Perhaps so few people will find they need to use it, the tribunal is so little exercised, the laws are so rarely applied that we will look back and ask – "What was that archaic law again?" This day may come, 20, 30 years or later, but I hope that day will come. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.32pm

Mr Speaker, this proposed relook into the Maintenance of Parents Act takes place a good 15 years after the Act was first enacted in Parliament in 1995, that is a year after the Bill was mooted by then NMP Prof. Walter Woon.

It is widely accepted in an Asian society, also a Confucianistic one, that it is the moral obligation and duty of children to provide for their parents.

Hence, there is this legislation provided for to help ensure that children with financial means fulfil their obligations and do not abandon their parents.

Having said that, unless necessary, very few parents would want to take the initiative of bringing their children to Court. The proceedings will not only be time consuming, it will also be a hassle and traumatic for them. Besides, the anger, hurt and ill will generated through this recourse will be like a wedge, as it were, separating and hurting fragile family ties and unity if ever there is one. Instead, some may be of the view that it would be best left to the relevant authorities to bring errant children to Court. I commend the proposed Bill, among other things, for the enhanced role of the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents. It is an important empowerment so that the timely intervention at an early stage of the mediation process of cases can be resolved with compulsory reconciliation outcome of the parties concerned. However, failing which, these cases go through the Tribunal phase.

One would note that there is a conspicuous absence of deterrent measures introduced in the Bill. It cannot

be so as it would contravene the very spirit of the Act. Moreover, filial piety or honouring one's parents cannot be legislated, not now or ever. Otherwise, it would be a sad day for the family institution, the fabric of any society with its support network being the first line of defence.

It is hoped that for deserving cases with poor outcome of financial assistance, other sources of support from the community are made available to them. This, I presume, is outside the scope of this Bill.

As we are aware, Singapore’s population is growing older rapidly over the years and considered second to Japan in Asia. Taking the definition of old age as 65 years and over, the old-age dependency ratio is expected to rise, from the current 12 per 100 working persons to about 30 in 2030. This issue will require serious consideration in time if there is no change in trend.

Government has in recent times taken pro-active steps to address the challenges of an ageing population, including work-life issues, such as a maturing workforce, prolongation of retirement and employment, changing/upgrading skills and training and, more importantly, the sustainability of one’s income beyond working life.

In conclusion, it is hoped that the MPA amendments would not necessarily mean the opening of flood-gates of appeals from parents, but a timely reminder that we need to redefine our own retirement goals in the light of a longer life expectancy and the need to prepare oneself so that we can have the means, and of course the health, to enjoy and even celebrate our golden years.

With that, I rise in support of the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

3.36 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend Mr Seah Kian Peng for taking this initiative and the MPA group for strengthening the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill (MPA).

Although this Bill is not meant to legislate filial piety or to place a price upon filial piety, it allows the Government to emphasise that filial piety, underpinned by Asian moral values, is still relevant to a modern society like ours. Our parents cared for us and brought us up, and it is only our duty to look after their well-being when they are no longer independent.

Sir, currently, the Tribunal and Commissioner have very limited powers in terms of accessing data and information about the adult children. This significantly hinders the operation of the MPA. Clause 8 inserts a new section 14A to empower the Tribunal or the Commissioner to obtain information, records, documents or articles from officers of the necessary authorities. Sir, this is a positive step towards enhancing the operation of the MPA in serving its original purpose as the Tribunal and Commissioner are now able to better assess the ability of the parent and his children to maintain him.

Sir, I am all for the spirit of the MPA, but I would like to seek clarifications on certain proposed amendments in the Bill.

Sir, the Bill seeks to emphasise that the financial ability of children will be a huge factor in considering the monthly maintenance payment to the parent. I am concerned about the increase in manpower and resources that this will bring. I understand from the Workgroup’s consultation paper that offices will be adequately resourced to ensure prompt payments by children. Sir, clause 9 allows information to be had by the Tribunal. Could I seek clarification on how this will work such that there will not be a drastic increase in the amount of manpower and resources required in pressing for prompt payments? How would these costs be defrayed?

Sir, I understand that the usual practice is a monthly maintenance payment rather than a lump sum. Considering the financial background of children, it is a fair thing to do, but I am afraid that this might result in an abuse of the system by children. Every now and then, after the settlement process has ended, those who want to shirk responsibility may try to worm their way out by citing a lack of financial ability to make the maintenance payments. How do we ensure that there is no such disruption and what recourse is available for the claimants? How do we enforce the monthly payments in an expeditious way?

Sir, as much as this Bill is meant to preserve family ties, there could be a possible breakdown of the relationship between the parent and the child or the children when such maintenance applications are made. We cannot eradicate the possibility of violence or ill will on both sides. Are there further measures to ensure the safety of parents who have made such maintenance applications? Would there be a close monitoring of such cases and intervention in the form of counselling for the affected parties?

Sir, I would like to check whether the Workgroup would have figures on parents who were abused by their children following the application for maintenance. These further measures are necessary to promote the legislative intent of the Bill such that parents are not afraid to make such maintenance applications when necessary.

Once again, I would like to commend the Workgroup for putting together this Bill. I agree that a settlement procedure is the best way to reconcile a parent and his adult children through this "many-helping-hands" approach. Family issues are sensitive and this Bill aptly recognises that.

With that, I support the Bill.

4.04 pm

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] The Chinese say, "It is better to serve our parents a glass of water when they are around than offer them ham when they are dead." This shows that the best practice of filial piety is love from the heart rather than offerings after they depart.

The Chinese character for filial piety "孝" sees the elderly "老" being carried by the son "子". It means that children should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining their parents. It is exactly in this spirit that the Act was enacted years back and it is also due to this spirit that I support the amendment.

The amendment will give the Family Tribunal more power and make the law more effective. However, this will not make the children more filial. The Act will be more effective because it empowers the Tribunal to obtain information to locate the children's whereabouts. Children paying up under the order of the

Tribunal is simply fulfilling his duty but he is not going to be more filial. Filial piety cannot depend on legislation.

It is worth mentioning that this amendment is in line with our Asian society's traditional value. First, the amendment recommends pre-filing conciliation before formally going to the Tribunal. This is in line with the common belief that "one does not wash one's dirty linen in public". Traditionally, we believe that even a righteous official cannot solve his own family disputes ( 清官难理家务事). Family disputes are best to be discussed and solved among the family members themselves.

Second, when formulating the law, we take into consideration the underlying principle of reciprocity. If parents fail in their responsibility in bringing up their children, they may not have the right to request for maintenance from the children. Some may argue that despite this, children should still take responsibility in caring their parents as they have brought them up.

The Chinese say that every family has its own problems (家家有本难念的经). Therefore, it requires the mediator at the Tribunal to have a listening ear. We urge the Tribunal to listen to the views of both parties and find out what is the specific problem. Some children are indeed financially unable to pay, not that they do not want to. If the children cannot provide for the parents for financial reasons, then the responsibility to take care of these old people falls on a sound social safety net, including CDCs, various charities and welfare organisations.

The amendment will ensure that aged parents will be taken care of by the family members, especially their children. We also know that legislation cannot bring about filial piety. Filial piety should start

from the family and community education. From the many family-based activities organised by our community, we are reassured that our community embraces the spirit that one cares for the aged in the community in the same way as one cares for his own aged family members ( 老吾老以及人之老).

Sir, I support the amendment.

*Cols. 1807-1808.

4.07 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am privileged to have been part of a group of my fellow MPs to have worked on such an issue as the elderly and how this can be tackled sensibly and, yet at the bottom of it all, dollars and cents only matter when they are properly matched to values such as compassion, care for the elderly, respect and reciprocity.

First, the law already enforces an obligation on children to pay for their parents' living needs. These current amendments merely render the existing law more concretely. It already assumes that society feels that this sort of duty is not just a moral one, but also one that is enforceable. Having already made it into a law, it is only sensible to me to make the law as easy to implement as possible, which is the essence of the amendments today.

I must say that in this regard, I come to the side of the parents – once a ruling has been made to obtain financial assistance from the children, the duty of care has been established and the children ought to pay up. If we allow them to walk away and dodge payments, we are forced to spend money and time chasing them down as if we were ah longs or illegal moneylenders – a situation no one wants and most certainly parents, too, have their pride and self-esteem. And parents who have looked after their children well and

their children have now the financial ability to care for them should be responsible. If they do not take on this responsibility, we do whatever is needed to empower public officials to help.

Second, these amendments are necessary but they are not sufficient. Part of the justification of this law lies in the fact that children should look after and pay for their parents because their parents paid for their upbringing. No. But we are not speaking of any business investments here. There can be no audit that will give us a clear idea of the flow of feelings and emotions, of love denied, or affection withheld, or incompetent care, or egregious disregard for the elderly. I can say with authority that in a business transaction, it is wrong for anyone to enrich himself from the company coffers by inflating his expense claims or by hiding these actions from his directors. But who am I to say that a child should honour his parents by giving them respect and dignity? Who am I to say that money paid out should be returned when the paying out was unconditional? Yet, the difference with corporate responsibility is not so different. The reason we accept the norms of corporate governance – that it is good to be accountable, to be transparent, to curb unfettered discretion – is, at the end, a moral one. We agree that this is the "good and right" thing to do. So, too, we need to make sure there is such a code or value for the family about what is "good and right".

In a way, the MPA is only at the tail end of the work. The MPA is merely a way of codifying one principle of this code – that the first port of call for parents should be their children. They should not go immediately to the State. This only works, however, if the children and the parents themselves agree to abide by and work according to this code. When I say "code", I do not mean laws such as the MPA, I mean the principles that underlie it.

The United Nations agrees that governments should deal with the elderly according to the following principles – independence, participation, care, self-fulfilment and dignity. The UN calls these principles "Principles for Older Person" and were adopted by the general assembly in 1991. There are many countries who hope to solidify these principles into laws of their land. For example, in India, they have the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007; in China, the principle of the People's Republic of China on the protection and rights and interests of the elderly 1996; and America, the Older Americans Act (section 721) which prevents elder abuse, neglect and exploitation.

While these may differ from MPA in its application, they all try and capture the values which we feel older people, that is, our parents, ought to have. Law, however, is a poor vehicle for values. If we want to make sure that these principles are learnt and accepted, we ought to look elsewhere. One easy answer would be to say that parents should teach these values and schools can help us reinforce them.

On public engagement and national conversations: being a respected older person and the responsibility of being part of a family – I do think that some form of public engagement needs to take place about the roles of children and parents, the sort of family that each member wants to build and each understands the expectations of the future.

In our Asian context, I think that most parents think of their children as their children for life and give little thought to the possibility that one day they might need their children for both financial and emotional assistance. My colleague, Mr Seah Kian Peng, has spoken about the policy memos written by the Lee Kuan

Yew School of Public Policy students which I read with much interest. One of them had a quote from a Roman philosopher Cicero who said that "old age will only be respected if it fights for itself, maintains its rights, avoids dependence on anyone, and asserts control over its own to the last breath." I do not think he was talking about the MPA, but I do think what he said has great force today. He was, I think, making the point about someone who says, "Here I am, I have planned for my life, provided for myself and I am master of my life." The question before us today is when we are old, can we be masterful and independent – a respected responsible older person that Cicero talks about?

If we agree that being a good son or daughter means providing for parents, if we agree that being a good parent means not neglecting our children, then should we move from discussing the principles to making this a reality and into policies we make and how we can implement this and weave it into the fabric of society?

I would ask the House to consider something more concrete and practical. Have a series of pro-family statements that will lead to action, but born out of national dialogue and public engagement. One example could be a statement like: We should give $x (be it $5 or $20 or whatever amount you determine) of our income to our parents when we first start work, and this could be cumulated over time. Today, there is a CPF Top-up Scheme for parents, but I would like to suggest an opt-out system where when a person begins work, a certain pre-determined base is automatically deducted from his or her CPF account and credited to the parents’ CPF account (be it father or mother or both). This account can be called the Parents' Savings Account and can only be drawn down by parents on a monthly basis after they reach the age of

55 or 62. This amount can also be used as part of the parents' Medisave, MediShield or living expenses. And like charities, their contributions can be, perhaps, given tax deduction and, better yet, double tax deduction. Obviously if the parent is not deserving, or for any reasons best known to the individuals, they can also choose not to contribute to the Parents Savings Account and therefore opt out.

Having discussed this extensively before I came to the House, I realise that there are many pros and cons with this suggestion, including the definition of "parents". Would it include stepparents, adopted parents, foster parents and things like that? But I felt that it was a proposition worth considering. And based on the survey that Mr Seah mentioned earlier on, where 90% of the 4,000 young people surveyed believed and felt that they would care and support their parents, I felt that it was a worthwhile proposition. With an ageing population, we should consider this now when we are young rather than address the needs when we are old or when relationships break down and we have to rely on the MPA.

Sir, let me end with an enduring image that has stayed in my mind while working on the amendments. As part of the process of drafting the legislation, Members of the Committee sat in on the work of the Tribunal.

This case stayed in my mind. It was about a widow in her 80s. She has five living children. One daughter, divorced, had been the main caregiver to her mother for many years. She recently remarried and now lives with her husband in Malaysia. The applicant has multiple medical conditions – kidney failure, heart problems, diabetic, hypertension and she needs daily dialysis. With her daughter’s departure, the widow was then passed to the care of her eldest son.

In one year, this son exhausted all his savings and her medical bills were mounting. His mother needs regular dialysis and he carries her down from his flat and brings her for dialysis treatment and, oftentimes, this has resulted in him being late for work. He now wants his other siblings to share the load. What struck me was not just his call to share the financial responsibility but for them to visit her. I was moved by his story but I soon learnt that each of the other three siblings who were present had his or her own story to tell regarding his or her financial situation.

The Tribunal then ordered a payment of $25 from each of them. My first reaction was about the amount disbursed. But as I reflected upon it, it was a wise decision – it was not just about money, it was about healing within this family. I think the daughters now feel that they are able to contribute within their means and they may begin to visit their mum, as they were concerned about the financial responsibility if they had any contact with her. But even with this amount, the other son said it was difficult for him as he had just lost his job. And when asked how he was looking after his family, he replied, "My father-in-law."

The external intervention provided by MPA was an objective resolution to how much one should pay for a mother who needs a lifetime of care. The widow will still need help from Government agencies and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). I believe this lady will be given ComCare assistance. Her medical bills will be subsidised. Yet, the principle still holds, even if it is a thin $25 thread, people have a duty to care for their parents.

Family ties and social conditions are complex and complicated. One cannot go in with any assumptions at all. Do not be quick to anger, to judge or moralise. Who

knows why the man lost his job, could not find another or why he could not visit his mother? Who knows what happened between a mother and her daughters?

I think more than ever that a good outcome is not just about getting payment for the parent but also getting some form of family life back to the people who find themselves in difficulty, not just the financial aspects but the relationships within – the healing process for this family has begun. The Workgroup's conciliation-first approach is still the essence at the Tribunal. This, to me, is the meaning and importance of MPA.

Sir, I thank you for your patience and I support the Bill.

4.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

Let me first commend the hon. Member for Marine Parade and his Committee Members for the work they have put into this Bill and for tackling probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent times in Singapore.

The Bill does not seek to do away with or undermine the principles which underpinned the original Act. But in seeking to improve its administration and operation, it reinforces the policy behind the Act. The controversies of this legislation have been fully debated and will continue to rage on. I cannot add to the arguments made by both sides. I am heartened to learn about the results of the survey done by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy about what our youths intend to do when they grow up and to look after their parents. But what will they do when the rubber hits the road? It may be that as our society evolves, the policies and the laws we have to maintain

our elderly will have to be radically changed. But I do not believe that time has come.

One thing we can agree on is that despite the increase in the number of applications, the absolute numbers remain small. What that means is also debatable. But it is clear that taking your own flesh and blood to Court or the Tribunal is still a bridge too far for many. I do not think that is entirely a bad thing. But if parents or siblings do take that step, we should make the ordeal as quick, efficient and as fair as possible. I would like to have added "painless", but I think that is a bit difficult. I therefore support the measures to streamline the process and to enable the Tribunal to have access to as much information as possible so that they can reach a just decision.

In this regard, I have a few points I hope the hon. Member will clarify.

First, a new applicant must refer his claim to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner may refer him to any relevant Government agencies for assistance. Two points arise: First, while I understand the rationale for this step, is there not a real risk that the resolution of the application will be delayed? For example, if the applicant is referred to, say, the CDC for assistance, time will be taken to investigate the claim. The end result may be that the agency may refuse assistance because the applicant has got working children who can support him, which brings him back to square one. Second, and I think more fundamentally, by sending the applicant to a Government agency first, are we not sending a message about who bears the primary responsibility for maintaining one’s parents? I understood from the hon. Member's speech that the first line of care should remain with the family.

My second point of clarification is this: section 5(6) of the current Act directs the Tribunal to refer the parties to a conciliation officer before hearing an application. The Bill now brings that step forward by directing that all new applications be referred to the Commissioner, who may then refer the parties for conciliation. I support the conciliation-first approach. However, is there a need to refer the matter to a different officer for conciliation? That adds another layer and will delay matters. Can the Tribunal not attempt conciliation before deciding on the application? After all, the facts relevant for conciliation will likely be the same facts for the final determination of the application. This approach is not unprecedented. Our Court judges often help parties to explore settlement before trial and only proceed to hear the case when it is clear that settlement is not possible. Litigating parties have often found this extremely helpful. Having the Tribunal facilitate conciliation will therefore streamline and expedite the process. And the final order made can expressly reflect the fact that it was reached by settlement instead of by compulsory order. The parties will also likely treat the conciliation efforts of the Tribunal more seriously as opposed to the efforts of a counsellor.

My third clarification is this. The Bill gives the Tribunal or the Commissioner extensive powers to obtain information from Government agencies or statutory bodies. This is a powerful tool, which some other agencies do not have. I have one query. Is the Tribunal permitted to disclose the information it obtained in the course of the proceedings, such that it will be revealed to all the parties appearing before the Tribunal? There is no expressed reference in the Bill to this.

If the Tribunal cannot disclose the information, then it may be unfair to the parties as they will not have the opportunity to know the information the

Tribunal is relying on to make its determination or to respond to that information. I hope the Member can clarify whether the Tribunal can disclose that information.

4:25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Working Committee led by fellow MP Mr Seah Kian Peng on the amendment Bill.

I rise in support of the Bill. I am of the view that this Bill would address some of the concerns as we grapple with issues that arise from an ageing and fast-changing society. There are many challenges that a family unit has to contend with today. Whatever stresses that we face in our lives, the most "sacred relationship" is between parents and children. This love relationship is also the main reason for the many appeals that we have from our residents – appealing for schools, asking for additional resources for tuition fees, housing. And all these appeals are for the children.

After visiting the Tribunal in Lengkok Bahru and witnessing four cases, I asked myself – what went wrong? Families who failed to imbue good traditional values when their children were young? Or, in some cases, have parents themselves failed in their obligations to care for their family? With many families having both parents working, did we, as parents, plant the biblical mustard seeds deep enough in good earth to set them to grow? In the long term, we must tackle this planting of seeds as one of the root causes of the problems we are facing today, that is, if the seeds are not planted deep enough, the children will grow up with a different set of values, and filial piety and respect for their elders are gone with the wind.

While today’s Bill may give some clearing of the bottleneck in the problems that are confronting some families in the

maintenance of their parents, I would like to urge the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) to do more to assist working parents to act responsibly as parents, give our children a good upbringing and imbue in them with strong and sound family values.

Now that we have the passage of this Bill, I am pleased that the amendment provides an opportunity for the parents and children to meet under the aegis of a pre-tribunal mediation. This is a far better platform as a first step in bringing the parents and the children together to discuss and work out an amicable solution in the presence of a trained counsellor than it is for the parties to go before a more formal legal setting. The environment is more conducive to work out a compromise than in a formal legal setting. This mediation may induce the children to be more forthcoming to meet and hear out their parents’ claims. Although there is no mention of the number of mediation sessions, I would like to urge the Tribunal to allow the sessions to go on as long as there is progress towards a good outcome.

I am extremely pleased to note that there are provisions for the conciliation officer. Many a time, family members have reached a stage where they are unable to talk to each other. With the gentle probing of a trained counsellor, issues can be put into perspective. Tempers and angry words across tables can be minimised. The power of listening can be emphasised.

I also note that the Bill addresses the question of "medical costs" as another factor to be looked into in deciding whether a parent’s income and financial resources are sufficient to maintain him or her. This is very important as, more often than not, in the context of an ageing population, medical costs is one of the key components in a claim. This is

especially so for routine medical costs, such as for high blood pressure, diabetic medication and also occasional hospitalisation medical costs. And all these medical costs are common and come with ageing.

Ironic though it may seem, but it is a reality that many parents do not know where to contact their adult children who have moved out or have set up their own families. Some only have their mobile phone numbers. To me, this is sometimes a tell-tale sign of the strength of the bond between the parents and the children. Many are not sure of their children’s whereabouts, let alone what or where they are working, or even their marital status. It is a sad scenario but it is a reality in today’s society.

As we know, the telephone companies are not obliged to disclose the address of the owners of the telephone numbers. So, for the parents to serve a legal notice on their children is in itself a great challenge. Although the Tribunal is now able to get the information from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), the information, however, may not be updated by the children. If information of current telephone and hand phone numbers can be obtained from the telephone companies, this will assist the Family Court better. Let us monitor the effectiveness of this amendment and, if necessary, we would ask for a review of the Act again.

I support the amendment Bill.

4.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I must say I have been privileged to be a part of the Workgroup. The purpose of my speech this afternoon is to elucidate some of the broad principles that been brought to bear in making these amendments and,

hopefully, will provide a guide for the subsequent application of the Maintenance of the Parents Act.

Sir, the aim of these amendments is to improve the operation of the Act. It is not to implement a radical shift in policy or approach.

It has been more than 15 years since the Act was passed in 1994. Since then, we have been able to observe its provisions in operation and realised that improvements can be made to it. These include improving the application and hearing processes provided for by the Act, increasing the emphasis on non-litigious methods of resolution, and ensuring a proper balance amongst the interests of the various stakeholders involved.

The original Act provides for applicants to apply to the Tribunal for maintenance. This created confusion for some applicants as to who precisely to contact. We have now clarified matters by setting out clearly in the amendments that the Commissioner should be the first person to approach. We have given the Commissioner enhanced powers to handle this role, which I will touch on later.

However, repeated applications must be treated differently. Where such applications have merit, the Workgroup raised concerns that a compulsory review of each application by the Commissioner could add unnecessary length to the process. Where such applications are frivolous or vexatious, the application should not be allowed to use up the limited resources of the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

Hence, we have drafted the amendments to provide that repeated applications need not be reviewed by the Commissioner. Instead, an applicant can proceed directly to the Tribunal. If his application is frivolous or vexatious – for

example, if it has been heard and dismissed by the Tribunal before – the President or a deputy President of the Tribunal may dismiss it as such. To safeguard against human error or misjudgement, an aggrieved applicant may appeal to the Tribunal to have his case heard, or if he is unsuccessful before the Tribunal, to go to the High Court.

I have observed cases where parents abuse the Act to express their frustration with or even harass their children. Allowing a frivolous or vexatious claim to be dismissed at an early stage will protect the children's interests. For example, it will protect them from having to take time off from work to appear before the Tribunal each time a claim, however baseless, is made. Parents should also be aware that the Act provides for costs to be awarded at the Tribunal's discretion. If they repeatedly submit frivolous or vexatious applications, the Tribunal may award costs against them. The Act is not meant to be abused.

The Tribunal will also now include up to four deputy Presidents, who may each take the place of the President for a Tribunal hearing. This means that the Tribunal can now meet and hear applications more often, so that the waiting time for applications to be heard will be shorter. But this does not mean that standards will be lowered – all deputy Presidents will have to meet the same minimum requirements and qualifications as the President, that is, they will all have to possess the qualifications required for a District Judge.

The relationships and the needs of a parent and his children are very personal and the Act must tread sensitively. As far as possible, a litigious method of resolving family disputes, such as through a hearing – which is akin to an open battle between the parties – should be avoided in favour of more co-operative methods, which are

more supportive of family ties. The amendments support and emphasise this.

We have increased the powers of the Commissioner, who will now review each case and refer the parties for mediation or to appropriate agencies before each case proceeds to the Tribunal. This is an addition to the Tribunal’s existing obligations to refer a case for mediation before hearing it. The hon. Member in his earlier speech has wondered whether or not by requiring the Commissioner to mediate all applications before it, and also subsequently to require the Tribunal to refer a case or a matter before a conciliation officer would delay the relief for the parents. I believe in the administration of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is to try and mediate. The underlying principle is to mediate the differences between the parties and to the extent that the parents are in need, I believe, there are sufficient safeguards to provide a temporary relief for the parents. I do not think that in the interim while they work out the issues under conciliation, these parents need to be without support or without needs. I am sure that in the administering the Act, with the support of the community, there will be sufficient provisions that can be extended to the needy parents in the interim and in the hope that the mediation and conciliation will help resolve differences without parties having to go to the full length of the application under the Maintenance of Parents Act.

The idea of the Maintenance of Parents Act is to encourage people to attend the mediation and to work things out together. The Commissioner now has powers to require them to appear for mediation. The failure to appear can be taken by the Tribunal into consideration at the hearing itself. Meditation is essentially the key in addressing the differences between the parties before the Tribunal at the hearing.

The amendments will also allow consent orders to be made. Consent orders set down in writing any agreement reached between the parent and his children after mediation. The President or a deputy President can give a consent order the same effect as a Maintenance Order made by the Tribunal. This means that they will be enforceable in the same manner. Because it represents an agreement between the parties, they cannot be appealed against to the High Court unless fraud, duress, threat or misrepresentation is alleged. It is envisioned that this will encourage the parties to work together to come to an agreement even before a Tribunal hearing as such agreements are now enforceable.

The provisions for the enforcement of Maintenance Orders under the Act tap on the provisions for the enforcement of Maintenance Orders under the Women’s Charter. They will, therefore, dovetail with and be enhanced by the proposed changes to the Women's Charter as previously announced by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), once these changes take effect.

However, some needy parents are unable to identify or locate their children in the first place. Even if they can be located, the children may hide details of their financial situation. Parents, too, may not be above this. Hence, the amendments empower the Commissioner and the Tribunal to obtain information from various Government agencies to locate the children, or supplement or verify information provided by the parties, to better ensure just results.

This will, of course, raise some concerns about privacy. Nonetheless, I believe that these amendments address concerns about information-gathering powers by being structures to be very narrow in scope. For example, the

information obtained can only be used for the specified purposes and is to be kept confidential strictly.

The idea here is that to empower the Commissioner or the Tribunal to get information to ensure the veracity of information provided so as to help them in the mediation process. The point was raised earlier as to whether or not by keeping these information to themselves and not extending these to the parties in the dispute would be fair. We will have to bear in mind that this is not a litigious process, but really an effort to conciliate and verify the information given. If the children or the parents concerned are aware that the powers are extended to the Tribunal and the Commissioner to verify the information through their extensive powers to gather information with the various Government agencies, it should prevail upon them to be truthful when making submissions before the Tribunal or the Commission. So it would have a very fairly salutary effect on the parties before the Commissioner or the Tribunal.

I would like to conclude, Sir, that the Act does not aim to legislate love or filial piety. Instead, it aims to enforce social obligations expected of a financially capable child to look after his parents. These are social obligations that would be unfair to abandon to the care of society at large.

The Act is, therefore, a safety net for needy parents and our goal in drafting these amendments are to patch the holes in this safety net. However, in the long run, our goal as a society should be to increase family cohesiveness, so that as few people as possible will need to use it eventually.

4.39 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of adult children in Singapore

appreciate the love and hard work their parents have put in for them and, in turn, provide them with comfort and care during their twilight years. Unfortunately, there is a small but growing trend of neglect or abuse of the elderly by their children. The increasing number of maintenance applications over the last five years is certainly a cause for concern.

A number of senior citizens have come to seek help during my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). Some requested for financial assistance. Others asked to be put in a home. Most of them have more than two children; some with well-paying jobs. When we discuss the possibility of referring them to the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal, it is clear that most parents would rather starve than sue their children in Court. Instead of severing the emotional bonds with their children or whatever little that is remaining, they would rather forgo the money. Thus, it is with some ambivalence with which I regard today’s Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.

On one hand, we should respect the wishes of the elderly. On the other hand, if we do not recover the money from the children, the financial responsibility to support them will be transferred elsewhere, to other siblings, charity groups or taxpayers. This is clearly unfair.

The amendment Bill will empower the Commissioner to require all parties to attend conciliation sessions. This will allow all parties to have candid discussions and iron out issues with the assistance and guidance of mediators. Under the current Act, these sessions are voluntary and often respondent parties do not turn up for the necessary discussion, leaving the applicants no choice but to go for litigation. These conciliation sessions will go some way in achieving our objective of financial recovery while minimising the negative effects upon the

already weak ties between parents and children.

Some may argue that the State and charities can afford to pay for the care of abandoned elderly in view of the small number of such cases. However, this is clearly unfair to our donors and taxpayers and constitutes poor utilisation of much-needed funds. We must also bear in mind our rapidly ageing population, dwindling number of children per family, and what this means if the trend of leaving to the State to care for the elderly is allowed to grow unchecked.

Thus, I support the amendment of section 14 which will give the Commissioner the power to access data from Government agencies to locate a missing respondent and recover their means to pay. Similarly, this power will enable the Commissioner to check if the claims of children who say that they are unable to pay are indeed true. I wonder if we can go further to protect the elderly. In addition to securing financial support for them, how about better stewardship?

Allow me to share an example from my MPS. An old lady had a joint account with one of her children, a daughter, into which a total monthly contribution of $1,000 from her six children is deposited. But this daughter only gives her $10 a day and she, alone, decides on how the money is spent. The old lady has been living alone but now wants to move into a nursing home because she is getting weaker after an illness. But this daughter refused to release the money from the bank account for her mother to pay for the nursing home, despite the repeated requests from her siblings.

This case highlights an area we should look into. What do we have in place to ensure that the guardian or custodian acts in the interest of the elderly? How do we prevent financial abuse which often involves the misuse of power of attorney where usually a trusted relative given the

right to make financial decisions on behalf of an elderly person? We hear stories of how some children and relatives take advantage of the elderly and cheat them, especially those suffering from dementia. Do we have any monitoring system and safeguards in place? Do we have any data or ongoing studies on this?

Another sad MPS case was an old man whose children gave him money every month but did not care for him. He has dementia and is being neglected. We also read recently about a case in the Lianhe Zaobao where his son hardly visits his parents due to pressure from his wife and in-laws, though he does deposit a few hundred dollars into their bank accounts.

I hope the society does not become one which measures filial piety and responsibility in just financial terms and children would assume that love, care, concern or even attention is no longer necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Last week, I went to a talk on Di Zi Gui (Standards for Being a Good Student and Child). Originally, the organisers were expecting 250 people but, in the end, 500 people showed up and many had to stand to listen. Parents today are very concerned when raising their children. They want to give the best to the next generation. Parents usually do this without the thought of getting any return, regardless of whether the child is "good" or "bad". In the parents' heart, a child is always a child.

Di Zi Gui states that parents love me since I am young, and it is natural for me to be filial to them. If I am not good to my own parents now, my children would not

be good to me when I become old. On the other hand, if parents do not love me or even hate me, yet I am still filial to them, then this is real virtue. Legendary Emperor Shun's parents were not good to him, but he still obliged to their will. He did not even mind that his stepmother plotted to murder him. His filial piety eventually moved his parents. This story tells us that even if we are not on good terms with our parents, we still try to change them. Filial piety from the bottom of the heart will definitely touch the parents. We should give the same love that our parents have showered on us. The amendment Bill emphasises that the law will not force children to provide for parents who did not fulfil their responsibilities as parents. This is to be fair. What I would like to know is the definition of parents' responsibility. Is it gauged by time, money or love? If we asked ourselves: are we obedient all the time? There must be moments that we caused sadness and worries to our parents. How many parents are willing to sever ties with their child and leave him to perish? Unless the parent has abandoned his child from birth, any parent would have held, fed and loved his child. The situation might have changed due to gambling, drinking, divorce or remarrying. Do we really have the heart to leave our parents to perish when they are old and sick? Is it fair to ask the Government and taxpayers to pay for his living expenses? We show pity to a stranger, even a little dog or cat, so how can we be so cruel towards our own parents? The amendment Bill will enable the law to deal with a handful of unfilial children more effectively. At the same time, I hope it does not change people's value of filial piety into a transaction . It is correct to repay kindness but not everything has to be equal and fair. Raising children is a parent's basic nature that demands no return. By the same token, children supporting parents is also

an unshirkable responsibility. It is not something we should bargain with. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

*Cols. 1809-1810.

4.48 pm

(In Mandarin):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Workgroup on Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill headed by Marine Parade GRC MP, Mr Seah Kian Peng. The Bill is not new. Fifteen years ago, it was put forward in Parliament and had caused much debate among the public. The key debating point then was that filial piety was a personal behaviour, a private matter, and should not be commented by others nor interfered with by the Government. However, as we pass the Bill this time and make it into law, the discussion will come to an end. We will have a piece of legislature that regulates the relationship between parents and their children.

During the Budget debate this March, Mr Seah suggested amending the Maintenance of Parents Act. The debate was re-ignited with a lot of coverage by the media. Recently, I attended a community event and heard some comments. Some people insisted that filial piety is a private matter and should not be interfered with by outsiders. One man quoted Confucian ideology to support his argument. He said that the Analects talked about the importance of filial piety on many occasions, but it did not mention that the State had to enforce it by law. He also pointed out that he could not remember any other country that has legislation on filial piety, except Singapore.

The Analects of Confucius is a classic of Confucianism, compiled by the

disciples of Confucius. It reflected Confucius' thoughts comprehensively. Confucius was born in the Spring-Autumn Warring-States period. This year is his 2,561st birthday. Although the Analects did not mention that the State should enforce filial piety by law, it did not object doing this either. I checked some Chinese historical documents and, indeed, found records of enforcing filial piety by law. For example, there is a story in the Biography of the Lord of Hengshan. The original words were, "Prince Shuang was executed for whistle-blowing on his father – the king – and his body was displayed at the marketplace". Prince Shuang's behaviour was considered unfilial. Han Dynasty began in 202 BC, not too far from Confucius' time. We can guess that before this incident, there must be some kind of legislation on this. The law was based on what the society believed as the acceptable behaviour. I deduce that the time of legislation on filial piety should not be far from Confucius' time.

The Book of Filial Piety, said to be written by Confucius, also carried a line which states, "among the 3,000 crimes of the five categories, not being filial is the most severe". The Book was written in 241 BC. We can reasonably deduce that there was such legislation at that time already.

Perhaps Confucius himself did not join in the debate of legislating filial piety, but some of his disciples must have been involved in the legislation process. Confucian scholars thereafter were not against this either. Hence, filial piety is the core of Chinese culture and ancient Chinese laws also stipulated that people must be filial to their parents.

From Sui, Tang to Qing Dynasty, legislations from different historical periods all stipulated what behavior was considered unfilial and how it should be punished. For example, in the Laws of

Tang, it was stated: "The protocol says that when children are looking after their parents, they should make their parents happy and not go against their will. They must provide them with food. If they have the ability but refuse to provide for their parents or grandparents, they can sue them and they will be considered guilty." What was the punishment then? According to the Book, if children did not maintain their parents, they would be jailed for two years. Compared to Singapore's current law, the ancient Chinese laws were far stricter.

The reason I mentioned all these ancient Chinese laws is that I want to emphasise that Singapore is not the only country that promotes filial piety, nor is it the first. As early as 2,000 years ago, China already had legislation on filial piety. Besides China, India also has similar legislations. Filial piety is the core value of oriental culture – this is undisputable. In the West, filial piety is also an important value. According to my knowledge, both the US and Canada have laws on filial piety. This shows that filial piety is a universal value and is supported by both ancient civilisations and modern societies. Governments even pass laws to enforce it. However, today we see many incidents of children not providing for their parents. I believe many MPs would have seen this during their Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).

In my constituency, 37% of the residents are over 50 years old. Every week, I see several poor old residents who come to ask for monetary or food aid. I always ask them carefully about the situation in their home, for example, whether their children are looking after them. Some old folks said angrily that, when children get married and have their own family, they forget their parents. Some would say that the children themselves are not doing well financially

and have too heavy a burden from their own family, and therefore they cannot look after their parents. Looking into their eyes, I see a mix of anger, frustration and deep sadness.

You will understand how they feel if you can see from their point of view. We work hard to raise our children, educate them and help them set up a family. When we are old and cannot work anymore, we hope our children can provide for us. To our disappointment, they now tell us they do not have enough money and cannot even look after themselves. We can only accept the reality and worry about the future. However, if the children are doing well and yet still refuse to maintain their parents, we feel angry and sad. When all the savings are gone, parents have to go to welfare or Government organisations for help. Our heart is filled with sadness when we see this happening. This is how I feel when I see old people asking for help.

The moon waxes and wanes. Around us, there are both good and evil people. There are unfilial children in this world and there are also irresponsible parents. When we ask children to be filial, we must acknowledge that children have the choice of not providing when it comes to irresponsible parents.

For the past six months, members of the Workgroup had worked tirelessly on the amendment of the Maintenance of Parents Act. We went to the Family Tribunal to observe dispute cases to gain a deeper understanding. We noticed that, in some cases, the children were indeed able but unwilling to provide. In some other cases, it was obvious that it was the parents who were being difficult. From the way they talked and behaved, we could see that they probably did not look after their children well when they were young. Now they are old, they want to use the Act to get the children to

provide for them. Worse still, some parents even use the Tribunal to harass their children. One parent made over 20 applications. When the Tribunal called for court attendance, the parent simply would not attend, but the children, being the party being sued, have to attend. Obviously, the purpose of this parent is not to get maintenance but to torture the children using the current system. This is not an acceptable behaviour. This kind of parents do not deserve to be respected and maintained. They also waste precious resources of the Tribunal and public money. When drafting the amendment, we suggested that the President or Deputy President of the Tribunal be given the authority to dismiss such frivolous applications to ensure fairness to both parties.

Under the current law, when dispute arises between the parents and children, the only way is to go to the Tribunal. In the amendment Bill, we suggested that both parties go through a conciliation process first to solve their dispute peacefully. This will avoid going to the Tribunal and the complete break-up of their relationship. Solving disputes by mediation is the main spirit of the amendment, based on the oriental value that a peaceful family will prosper.

While emphasising the value of family and making sure old people are taken care of, we must also explore how to promote filial piety. Currently, we emphasise the importance of seniors and parents; we have Respect the Aged Week and we celebrate Father's Day and Mother's Day. All these activities are to promote respect for the aged and they have so far made a positive impact.

However, what is missing is an occasion to celebrate filial piety for parents and grandparents. Hence, I propose to set up a Filial Piety Award to showcase those who are filial to their parents and grandparents. Although this is

a personal behaviour and a fundamental ethic that need not be praised by other people, it is nevertheless a good deed that should be encouraged and emulated. Awarding the behaviour openly will yield twice the result with half the effort.

Ancient people wrote the "24 Filial Piety Stories" based on model behaviours to show generations of people how to be filial. One thousand six hundred years ago, famous Jin calligrapher Wang Xizhi wrote in Lan Ting Xu that the way we looked at the past was how the future would look at us today. Arising from this spirit, it is important that we do something that can be seen as good examples by our descendants. Promoting, awarding and passing on the value of filial piety are such example-setting efforts.

However, I feel that the Filial Piety Award should be initiated and promoted by non-Government organisations, so that it becomes an award that people truly value. If it is driven by the Government, people will see it as an official campaign and will lack enthusiasm and motivation. I hence appeal to civil and cultural organisations, such as NTU Confucius Society and Confucius College, to come forward to establish an annual Filial Piety Award to recognise those filial Singaporeans and to spread their stories as good examples.

Singapore rose from a Third World country to the First World within 30 years through building the economy. Next, I hope we can further improve our ethics through moral education. When its economy and ethics are progressing at the same speed, Singapore will have a brighter future!

Mr Speaker and colleagues, what we have said today may not be remembered, but what we have done today will change people's life and their world.

I sincerely hope that Members can support this amendment, to help those old

folks who have been deserted by their children and have nobody to depend on to live a life with dignity, and to make them feel that there is justice in the world!

*Cols. 1811-1818.

5.03 pm

Sir, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA), which was introduced almost 15 years ago in 1996, provides elderly Singapore residents, who are unable to adequately maintain themselves, with a legal channel to seek maintenance from their financially capable children.

We are all aware of the purpose of the Bill. We are here today to debate on the effectiveness and hopefully agree on the refinement that we need. Allow me, Madam, to cite some examples of cases that I have seen.

I find it harrowing to see aged parents in their 70s living alone; some separated, others divorced. But, in most cases, they have children. In one of the cases, the gentleman has four children – two sons and two daughters – but he lost contact with all of them. He had to file for maintenance from his children because he could no longer drive a taxi to support himself. He even skipped his treatment for rheumatism because he could not afford it. The Central Singapore Community Development Council (CDC) picked up his case and is providing assistance. Another case also involved an elderly man around 70 years old, he was an ex-construction worker and an ex-taxi driver. He lives alone in a 1-room HDB flat. He was married, I think, on two occasions and he has five children from the marriages. After an exhaustive search, contact was made with his son from his second marriage. The son was ordered by the Court to pay

$100 maintenance, which he did since January 2009. But that is not enough. The Central Singapore CDC and other agencies intervened and offered various other help to him.

What would have happened to these cases if no one lent a hand? Our Government did not shake its responsibility and we, as MPs, work with various agencies to help. But in doing so, we also have to get the children to come forward and not push the buck to the Government and the NGOs. I dread to think what goes on in the minds of these forgotten parents. What do they have to look forward to in life? Where is the generosity in forgiveness? Do their children have any conscience acting in the way they did? Are their children setting good examples themselves for their own children? Let me say this – unless you can show forgiveness, you will not be able to enjoy peace and happiness in life because any resentment you harbour against your parents will always haunt and disrupt your inner self.

The MPA has been viewed by elderly Singaporeans as a tool for them to seek help and support. It is not a means to legislate filial piety, but serves as a reminder to the children who may have overlooked their responsibility to their parents.

Madam, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Act as it introduces more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the MPA (Amendment) Bill Workgroup, led by Mr Seah Kian Peng, for engaging various stakeholders, reviewing the feedback, identifying areas for improvement and making the recommendations on amendments to the Maintenance of Parents Act.

With regard to the proposed amendments, I strongly support the proposal for compulsory conciliation between parents and children as the first step. This step reconnects the children and the parents.

Sometimes the children are unable to provide or continue the basic maintenance but, because of pride, the children are unwilling to admit so to their parent. There are also cases where a small misunderstanding has caused the break of ties between parents and children. The facilitated reconnection allows this communication to happen and help both parents and children to understand each other's present situation and, probably, predicament.

It also helps to manage both parents' and children’s expectations. The parents need to know and be assured that the children have not abandoned them and still care for them. If indeed the children are struggling to make ends meet, I do not believe they cannot even visit their parents to provide them with the moral and mental support. Does it cost that much to travel to your parents' home to show that you care? As an elderly person, the emotional reward is just as important, if not more important than the financial reward. If the children are themselves poor and cannot afford to assist their parents financially, we should at least expect them to provide moral and mental support.

Madam, with the rising healthcare expenditure, particularly in an ageing population, the proposal to include medical costs as a category for consideration for "basic needs" is very pragmatic and timely. I have reviewed many real cases that we have encountered at the Central Singapore CDC and noticed that the medical costs range from 10% to 60% of their total expenses. In some of the cases, the elderly had to

resort to inferior medical treatment or even stop seeking medical treatment when they are short of funds. They would prioritise food and housing over their own health.

In view of this, I would also like to encourage the children to take up health insurance for their parents. The health insurance would assure that your parents would receive adequate medical assistance and pay for the unexpected large medical expenses, or help you out during the periods of financial difficulty.

Currently, we may use the Medisave to pay for premiums of the private Medisave-approved Integrated Shield plans, subject to a withdrawal limit of up to $800 per policy per year. However, I would also like to propose that for this limit to be revised upwards to assist the children. I believe this revision is still aligned with Medisave’s objective to help individuals meet their future personal or immediate medical expenses, especially the parents'.

On the proposal to enable the Commissioner and the Tribunal to obtain personal information from Government agencies or statutory bodies, I must emphasise the confidentiality of this information and the need for judicious protection of such information from being misused or even leaked. I am confident that the availability of this information will help reduce the number of cases where an application for maintenance could not be filed because the parents could not provide adequate details about their children.

Although it is proposed that access is allowed to information specifically needed for investigation and conciliation purposes only, may I suggest that we also allow for access to certain information to help the hospitals to recover the parents' medical bills from their children? The hospitals are,

unfortunately, spending time to get the children to even sometimes come to the table to discuss or assist in the payment of the bills.

Madam, during the recent National Family Celebrations, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented on the importance of keeping family ties and how the values of love, respect and filial piety keep a strong family together.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind myself and all of us that filial piety is a universal value that all Singaporeans share. Children have the responsibility to respect, unconditionally love and take care of their parents as they age. We must not let the values of filial piety to degenerate to become mere duties and responsibilities, void of feelings and emotions. We must treat parents with gratitude and love, and spend quality time with them. We owe them that and so much more.

Sir, I support the Bill.

5.12 pm

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5.26 pm

(In Mandarin):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Singapore is essentially an Asian society. The way we act, behave and organise ourselves is very much dictated by our history and culture. We are also an immigrant society and thus the history and culture of our forefathers' motherland exert tremendous influence on our own beliefs.

Unlike our western counterparts, it is common for adults, even as old as 30 to 40 years old, to be living with their parents. In Asian society, the moral duty to look after our parents after they have grown old is expected of all children. In the west, the reverse is true – children are

expected to move out and start their own life the moment they enter adulthood and they are not expected to look after their parents after they have moved out. It would be most unheard of for the parents to take their children to court to force their children to look after them.

This is where we, Asians, differ from the west. Having said that, although most Asians would look after their elderly parents, the situation has changed a lot in the modern era. More and more elderly parents are being abandoned at nursing homes. Worse still, some elder folks are being abandoned by their children to fend for themselves. It is imperative for the Government to step in and ensure that parents are not being abandoned and that children do not shirk from their responsibilities.

Ensuring children to live up to their responsibilities for their parents via legislation is tantamount to walking uphill on a slippery slope. Throughout China's 2,000 years of history, there was no record of forced parents' maintenance through the courts. In the Chinese folklore of Justice Bao （包清天） versus the Scholar Chen Shi Mei (陈世美状元), the issue was not over his failure to look after his parents. He was condemned for the intended murder of his wife because he wanted to be a Princess Consort. Abandoning his wife and children carried a bigger sin in the eye of the ancient Chinese law. Although leaving his parents behind was a moral sin, it was not a crime. This was because traditional Chinese wisdom recognised that even a righteous official could not solve his own family dispute (清官难判家务事)！

Secondly, using legislation to ensure parental maintenance suggests litigation. While the legal system can settle disputes fairly, it is nonetheless adversarial. Between parents and children, there is too

much at stake and too many differences to settle through the legal system. Taking the matter to court would not help improve parent-child relationship, it might even deepen discord, disharmony and hatred.

Hence, the Maintenance of Parents Bill needs to recognise this fact. When settling years of hatred and bad blood between parent and child, the carrot is preferred over the stick. Mediation, persuasion and negotiation (not necessarily in this order) should take precedence over the use of the law. It is not helpful for the children to maintain their parents financially under the court order yet ignore the emotional needs of their parents.

The ideal outcome would be for everyone to know his or her role in society and then there will not be any need for this law. Notwithstanding the imperfections in the society right now, the trend of parental neglect should be stopped at its roots. We should inculcate in our school children the notion of filial piety and also educate parents to fulfil their parental duties and avoid being "absentee-parents". If the parent, either father or mother, has been visibly absent during the formative years of the child, it would be hard for the children to accept the responsibility of looking after the "absentee-parent" when he or she grows old. If responsibility is enforced via legislation, a lot of bitterness would be created instead.

*Cols. 1819-1822.

How to prove the neglect of parental duty is another controversial issue. The child forced to provide maintenance for his parents may say that his parents were "absentee-parents". The latter may counter by saying that he was absent because of the need to work hard to support the family. It is difficult to judge who is right and who is wrong.

Often we see needy people who refuse help because of pride, for example,

some of the old people who collect garbage on the street. We also see destitute parents, abandoned by their high-paying and well-educated children, who would rather suffer in silence than go to the Tribunal, for fear of making their children lose face. In such situations, do we respect their wishes or do we do the right thing and take the unfilial children to task? Does the Bill provide for whistle-blowing on irresponsible children?

In addition, I would also like to raise some concerns about specific amendments to the Bill:

Section 3 (subsection (7)) states that an applicant who is aggrieved by any decision under subsection (6) can appeal within 14 days. May I ask who chairs and sits in the Appeal Committee and how do we ensure that the appeal would be impartially considered since the decision to dismiss the application in the first place is made by the President or the Deputy President of the Tribunal?

Clause 2 amends section 3 to require a person who is making a claim for the first time to refer his claim to the Commissioner for review before making a formal application for maintenance order. I would like to clarify how many cases do we have per year and how long is the process from notice of application to case completion? Will this new amendment create a backlog of cases?

In conclusion, the Bill should be supported, for it gives protection to helpless old citizens with no financial means and who are deserted by their children. However, special emphasis also needs to be paid to ensure fairness to children as well. It is not fair that children are hauled to the Tribunal the moment a parent files a complaint without thorough investigation into whether they themselves have been responsible parents. The financial situation of the children should also be taken into consideration. The Bill

is sparked with good intent but fraught with many slippery points that can cause deep-rooted resentment if not handled carefully.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on that note, I support the Bill.

5.34 pm

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this Bill.

The amendments detailed in this Bill aim to improve the administration and operation of the Maintenance of Parents Act. Before I comment on the Bill proper, I would like to thank the Workgroup led by Mr Seah Kian Peng for the hard work they put in soliciting feedback from the various stakeholders. However, at the end of the day, I feel that the proposed processes may but only serve to add layers of administrative labour that does not and will not address the inherent flaws in the original Act. Mdm Deputy Speaker, if I may now speak on my concerns on the Bill proper.

The intent of the original Act was to provide a safety net for the vulnerable elderly parents to seek assistance from their children when they are unable to secure means to provide for themselves. This expectation, that children should take care of their aged parents, is based on the notion of reciprocity, for parents were the caregivers when their children were dependent minors. Herein lies the serious contradiction. I believe we cannot treat the parent-child exchange as a contractual agreement.

When consenting adults marry, they enter into a legal contract with the State and with each other. When parents choose to have children, we, too, enter a contractual agreement with the State to exercise responsible guardianship for our

vulnerable dependent minors. However, from the child’s perspective, there was no active decision taken. Children did not choose to be born into their respective families. So how can we then hold them legally responsible for their parents?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as an individual, I fully embrace and subscribe to the ideology of filial piety. Just as our parents had loved us unconditionally and cared for us when we were not yet able to fend for ourselves, we must, in turn, love our parents and care for them when they are vulnerable as they age.

But this is a moral stance and not a legal one. My main contention with the Maintenance of Parents Act, which this Bill aims to amend, is its attempt to translate a moral obligation to a legal requirement. As a family sociologist, I would argue that the central and indispensable role that the family plays in our society is upheld by the unique nature of family relations. Family relations are not governed by a rational choice paradigm where notions of reciprocity can be quantified into neat mathematical models. We choose to invest in family. But we also enter this commitment with the keen appreciation that we may not be able to control the outcome. In fact, one might even argue that if we embrace a rational choice perspective, few would end up choosing to invest in family. Rather, family exchanges are characterised by altruistic motivations. Often times, the rewards of our investment in family are intrinsic in nature.

Notions of love and filial piety are abstract constructs that are extremely difficult to measure. This Bill proposes that we enhance an intermediary layer of administration to determine how much parents had invested in growing their children, and to translate that investment into a quantifiable amount to advise

recommendations on the portion of maintenance each child is responsible for.

While I appreciate the merits of the proposal for mandatory mediations, nonetheless, it does not address the contradictions inherit in the original Act. Should public servants paid by State funds be engaged in adjudicating private matters of the family, arbitrating who was a good parent and how much love or filial piety the child has to return? More importantly, who is qualified to execute such a lofty task – to determine how much money a parent’s love is worth?

Personally, I think if that is the key performance indicator (KPI) of the Officers of the Tribunal, then they are doomed to fail. The original Act and this amendment Bill is not about legislating filial piety. Rather, today’s debate is about the role of the State in policing the family. Do we want our families to be governed so closely by the State, such that investments in growing children must be carefully accounted for and documented so that when need be, the files can be pulled out to legitimise charges on our children?

As a mother, I will not want my children to see my love for them overshadowed by a discourse on reciprocity of care. In our contemporary society, parents can choose if they want children and, to a certain extent, how many children they can afford to raise. It is a conscientious choice that adults make. As parents, when we put the best we have into child rearing, we pray that we will raise our children well, and they will become responsible adults and filial children. However, as responsible parents, we must also plan for our retirement and live within our means to prepare sufficiently for our golden years.

The Maintenance of Parents Act which this Bill aims to amend hopes to alleviate the financial strain on the State as our

population ages. Therefore, the Bill facilitates vulnerable elderly to hold their children financially responsible for eldercare. I think this Bill only serves to trivialise family relations. Can we quantify how much investment the parent had put into each child? A more serious concern that arises from this discourse of reciprocity: that a parent who did not invest sufficiently in child rearing does not deserve to be cared for by their children. Is this what we want to teach our children? How many of us can safely say that we have lived a life without regrets, making wrong turns and decisions?

So, this contradicts the guiding principles of how a family is run. We continue to be here for our family regardless of how they might reciprocate. Simply because we are family, and that is what family is all about. Therefore, a functional family will never have to resort to invoking this Bill. So I would argue that to ensure that we can continue to rely on the family as a social safety net, rather than make amendments to an Act that is based on inherently flawed arguments, we should put in place sound social policies that will enable us to strengthen families and allow Singaporeans to age gracefully.

First, we must continue to work at repositioning the family to the centre of our society and to ensure that Singaporeans are able to enjoy a healthy work-family life balance to give them sufficient time to nurture family relations.

Second, looking at our population profile, we must anticipate that Singaporeans are living longer, and more will be ageing alone. Therefore, we must put in place affordable insurance schemes that will allow younger Singaporeans to prepare responsibly for a financially independent retirement.

Third, as Singaporeans live longer, we must institutionalise re-employment for

retired workers for those who are able to and need to continue working.

Finally, rather than depend solely on the family as social support for the elderly, we must prepare an infrastructure that can support the vulnerable aged who may not have children they can turn to.

Population trends advise that the proportion of singles is set to grow. For those who do marry, a vast majority will have small families. As Singaporeans marry later, and start their families later, by the time they reach retirement, their adult children may just be starting to build their careers and grow their families. It will be a tremendous crunch on these sandwiched families to have to manage childcare responsibilities as well as eldercare responsibilities. The pressure will be acute for those from one-child families, and who themselves marry spouses who are also the only child.

All in, these trends alert us to the inevitable – that as Singapore ages, we will find more elderly Singaporeans who will need the State’s help in their golden years. To prepare for this, we must ensure that we have in place an infrastructure that is elder-friendly. I am not asking for more handouts, or that we should reverse our stance towards promotion of self-sufficiency.

Rather, I am proposing that we apportion more resources towards building an infrastructure that supports gracious ageing: affordable healthcare facilities for eldercare needs, affordable housing options for older Singaporeans that are situated within communities which provide amenities and support older residents needs, and to have in place a support system which ensures that no elderly Singaporean will need to go without nutritious meals each day.

The hallmark of a great nation is one where her citizens, after tolling a life time, can age gracefully without fears or worries.

The very existence of the Maintenance of Parents Act is a barrier that may have stopped those in need from stepping out for help because they do not want their children to be implicated at needs assessment. I think it is a very sad occasion when a parent decides to invoke the Maintenance of Parents Bill to force support from their children. I cannot imagine the humiliation and pain such a decision will cause to both parties. I can imagine though that it may result in irreconcilable damage, social relations between the parents and child. I hope we can protect aged Singaporeans from having to make this decision and spare them from this torment.

An aged Singaporean should not be totally void of resources before the State steps in to provide for her well-being. What do we do when an aged Singaporean has no children to fall back on? We cannot invoke the Bill. So, do we then say we support the single elderly, but not those with children? Surely not, for that will result in serious ideological contradictions that the State should punish the very people who abided by the prescribed normal family ideology of getting married and raising children.

I did not support the Maintenance of Parents Act, and therefore, I do not support this Amendment Bill. But I want to place on record my appreciation to my hon. colleagues who have tabled this, for it forces us to debate on social issues that are critical for Singapore’s long-term stability. Mr Seah articulated that the Bill serves to reinforce values of our society. I would contend that a better way to set norms is through pro-family policies, for example, like the provision of tax incentives for parent care to encourage children to do the needful and do the rightful.

5.48 pm

(In Malay):[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Amendment Bill. I was part of the Workgroup that is proposing the amendment to this law.

Some years ago, as a Panel Member in a session of the Parents Maintenance Tribunal, I came across a case of a rather elderly woman who was claiming for maintenance from her only son. Actually, the son did give a monthly allowance to his mother but she wanted a higher amount. However, a few minutes later, after the session began, what we heard was that at that time, she was not concerned about money issues. She actually wanted the court to issue an order so that her son could visit her more often or at least call her over the phone if he was too busy. She lived alone and often felt lonely. This case is actually a story of a mother who wanted and craved the love and concern of her son. But the court did not have the authority to issue such an order other than advising the son to consider his mother's request. Under this Act, the court can take action to issue such an order so that the children provide maintenance to their parents. However, the court cannot issue orders for the children to display love, appreciate and take care of their parents. In other words, the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, some feel that this case showed that family relations are very complicated and should not be brought to court. In fact, some feel that finding resolutions through legal means can further damage family relations, and that by strengthening the law through this amendment, it may further weaken the institution of the family, as mentioned earlier by Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan.

These are not new debates since the same issues were voiced out in 1995 when this Bill was passed. I think that if we exist in a world where each of us are guided by noble values and fulfilled our obligations towards our parents, this Bill need not even exist. Unfortunately, in today's world, there are people who cast aside, ignore or are even willing to abandon their parents. We often see such cases during our Meet-the-People Sessions and during our house-to-house visits. At times, our efforts to solve family problems seem futile.

In one case that was heard by the Tribunal, a mother made a claim on her son who was working as a lawyer. The son, who had a salary amounting to thousands of dollars, rejected his mother's claim as his spending included overseas holidays with his wife and eating at expensive restaurants, and yet he was unwilling to help take care of his parents. Mdm Deputy Speaker, should we allow such a son to escape from his responsibility towards his parents? I certainly feel not. And the Tribunal at that time also felt that it should not allow this child – a lawyer with a salary of thousands of dollars – not provide any maintenance to his parents. The Tribunal at that time issued an order for this lawyer to provide maintenance for his parents.

And on the flip side, there were many cases in the Tribunal, where children who are not so well off, fulfil their obligations after being persuaded by the Tribunal. There are those who said that they can afford to give around $50 a month, and others who said that maybe they can afford $20 a month. But whatever amount that they provide, the presence of a Tribunal and a conciliation process provides them with a platform to get together and discuss with the whole family – maybe with their siblings and the courts as well – to think of ways to take care of their parents' basic needs.

So, Mdm Deputy Speaker, even though the law cannot set the level of a child's contribution towards his or her parents, we should, and in fact, must ensure that children fulfil the most basic obligations towards their parents, that is, to pay for their needs. For families without direct support from their children, their relation has obviously been severed. If there was love and respect, they will surely take care of their parents. This Bill will not worsen this situation. So, for those who really understand their obligations, this Bill is not necessary and it would not apply to them. However, this Bill is required for the small minority who totally do not feel any obligation towards their parents. And with the presence of this Bill, I cannot see how it can worsen the situation. In fact, is it not worse if we face a situation where needy parents are forced to get social assistance or assistance from other sources and not from their own children?

Which is more embarrassing – for an aged father or mother to obtain help through the Tribunal or other processes that are provided under this Bill, or for them to go to welfare homes or welfare organisations run by either the Government or self-help groups? I feel that having to obtain help from the latter is more embarrassing to them, as compared to trying to get assistance to claim maintenance from their children, either through the Tribunal or the conciliation process available.

An exemplary child who faithfully carries out his or her obligation towards his or her parents should not worry too much about this Bill. On the contrary, this amendment will make it difficult for the small minority, who completely do not feel responsible for their parents, to escape. The original Act provides an important framework to issue orders for a child to take care of his or her parents, but there are a few weaknesses that can be addressed with this Bill.

What has not changed here is the principle of reciprocity in the original Act. In other words, the court can still make a decision to reject the parents' claims if they fail to fulfil their obligations towards their children in the first place. They will be barred from using legal means as a way to force their children to take care of them. That would not be fair and parents must realise that if they want their children's support during their old age, they must fulfil their obligation as parents when they raise their children. In fact, this amendment through section 3(6) provides an avenue for the President or Deputy President to dismiss any claim that is found to be frivolous or wasting the court's time. So, it is largely possible that parents who do not qualify will find that their request will be wholly rejected if it is clear that their application is baseless.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments will not change the conciliatory approach of this process. On the contrary, it will enrich the mediation process by giving the Commissioner the power to issue orders so that both parties can resolve their problems peacefully at the application stage under this law. Hence, the approach emphasised is still to get both parents and children to find solutions that can be accepted cordially by both parties with the help of an officer of the court. I feel that the relation between children and parents is complex. At times, on their own, they cannot solve their problems in matters of maintenance. Maybe with the help of the court or through the conciliatory process under this amendment, they can further understand each other's situation. I feel that under this proposed amendment, this Tribunal also has the power to make the agreement reached as a joint decision. This is important in case their relationship is affected or worsened, and the children refuse to fulfil the agreement that was made.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill also paves the way for the court to obtain crucial information related to the address or income details of the child. Often, as a Tribunal member, I attended sessions where the child could not be contacted. This is unfair not only to the parents who refer the matter to the court but also to the other children who are contactable as it means that the court can order them to be present and the court order can be applied to them. The other children who remain uncontactable at all will not be held liable as they have never visited their parents who themselves do not know where these children live or work. Presently, due to the lack of information, many parents who qualify for assistance are unable to claim their rights. This shortcoming can now be overcome because the courts have a new avenue to obtain such important information. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I feel that this Bill is timely and much needed since our society is ageing, and more and more parents seek help at the Parents Maintenance Tribunal. But what is also important is for us to emphasise that a strong relationship between children and their parents is something that must be built from the start. As the Malay saying goes, "from a strand of thread a day, eventually you will create the textile", and that should be the way to build family ties. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

*Cols. 1823-1828.

Yes, Mr Sin.

Madam, if you would allow me to ask a point of clarification on the statement made earlier by the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament.

Yes.

In her earlier speech, she said that it was a waste of taxpayers'

resources to ask public servants, who would be using public money, to intervene in a dispute that was private in nature. So I am asking the Nominated Member whether or not she thought that a Family Court, staffed by public officers using public money, is a waste of resources when the Family Court is called upon to intervene in matters of a private nature or administer matters relating to the Women's Charter.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I did not say it was a waste of money. I merely questioned whether it is appropriate for State-funded public officers to be adjudicating what constitutes good parenting and what constitutes filial piety, and how much the parenting investment should be translated into dollars and cents for a maintenance order.

May I then ask the Nominated Member of Parliament how different is this in a situation where the Family Court is called upon to intervene in a family situation?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I clarify with him what exactly does the Member mean when he said, "intervention of the Family Court"? Can he give a specific example, like family violence? Is that what he is talking about?

Assoc. Prof. Tay, question to another Member should be directed to the Deputy Speaker and the responses accordingly should be directed through the Deputy Speaker as well. You may like to repeat your question.

Madam, may I ask if the hon. Member can clarify what exactly he meant when he said when the courts intervene in family matters?

Mr Sin, perhaps you could make your question clearer so that the Member can respond.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I mean what I said – the courts are often called upon to settle disputes relating to family matters, to decide on rights of custody of children and to intervene in family matters. In this regard, I cannot see how is it that she does not understand what the role of the court is in these matters. And I am just asking her how different is this when compared to a situation in the maintenance of parents.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am not a lawyer, I am a sociologist. I am not sure what happens in the Family Court, but I am very sure that in disputes involving divorce and child custody, those are not easy cases either. However, I think the nature of adjudicating a divorce proceeding is quite different from adjudicating how much a child owes his parents. Because notions of investment in child-rearing and notions of reciprocity in terms of love that the parent gives to a child and what a child should return are far more complex than that.

My point in the debate is simply to raise the concerns about the grey issues that we seem to gloss over in the debate of the Bill of this nature and, that is, when it comes down to the crunch of adjudication, the difficulty we face now really is how do you quantify and measure parental involvement in child-rearing? I do not think it is easy and that is why I raised it as a concern.

6.05 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate. I speak as a member of the Workgroup on the Bill.

Most of the substantive points on the Bill have been articulated quite ably by the Workgroup Chairman, Mr Seah Kian Peng, and the other members. I would like to reinforce two key arguments: the process as a legitimising factor and remaining faithful to the purpose.

First, the process – how it has been a legitimising factor. When the Maintenance of Parents Bill was tabled 15 years ago by the then NMP Walter Woon, I must admit I asked myself, "Is this necessary? Are we creating an issue when, perhaps, there isn't one? Are we opening up a Pandora's box for Government intervention into the citizen's private space? Would we end up sending the wrong signal to the public?" Much as I was impressed with Prof. Walter Woon's conviction and confidence in tabling the Bill, not just as a backbencher but as an NMP, I was also concerned with what we could possibly unleash.

So, I followed the proceedings then with more than casual interest, and was soon forced to rescind my misgivings. More importantly, I was heartened that the process catalysed what I saw as a reaffirmation of the importance of family values and filial piety – not only in this House but amongst a vast majority of people I met in society. What is paradoxical but true is that the very purpose in the very process of debating on an issue as emotionally charged and therefore controversial such as this, if conducted with honesty, sensitivity and transparency, serves to strengthen a collective reflex in support of the very underlying values. This is because the debate conducted over a period of time, throws up a multitude of aspects and sensibilities of the issue. This, in turn, forces us to acknowledge that:

the issue is multi-dimensional and therefore a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate;

just because there does not appear to be a problem in general, it does not mean that there are not specific instances where the problem does exist and in a significant way; and

when we address a complex issue such as this, we need to balance private sensibilities with public interest and pragmatism – a puritanical approach can be self-destructive in the longer run.

Common wisdom tells us that it is not organisations that persuade people; it is people who persuade people. So, just as how the debate on the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) serves us well, this time too, the process of developing this Amendment Bill, I feel, has forced us as individuals and as a people to ask inconvenient questions pertaining to filial piety, family values, the role of the State and the ideal approach to adopt. In particular, I found my colleague Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan's arguments, although I may not agree with them, forced me to think about important considerations. I do not think there is a clear black or white, neither should we move towards a litigious mode of arguing this. I think there needs to be mutual respect because individuals have the right to take a position, and I respect my colleague for having the gumption to articulate the point of view even though she is very aware that she is a minority.

As highlighted by Mr Seah Kian Peng in his speech, the various discussions on the issue at multiple levels on several platforms, involving thousands of people that were conducted over the last six months, have put us in good stead. I do believe that we are now a lot clearer about what we want to achieve through the MPA, and what we certainly do not. For example, we want a more conciliatory approach that respects and values the sanctity of family ties and the feelings thereof. Given the multitude of stresses of modern-day life today, there are many

families out there that I and other Members are aware of, that are going through on a regular basis, disputes and strife, often financial in nature, that are tearing apart the families – the very families we are talking about, here – and many of them are suffering in silence. So, the Workgroup's view is that mediation and the emphasise on mediation can be a welcome relief for these families and the Members. And our hope is that when the families come to mediation – which is now we are proposing to be compulsory – many of these cases would be settled there and the families could actually, if the mediation is conducted well by professionals, have a chance to discuss some of these issues openly and resolve some of them without having the case go to a Tribunal. That is an important point.

So, for the individuals and agencies tasked to protect the interests of parents who have been wantonly neglected, such as the Commissioner, the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal, they need to be adequately armed and empowered. Not only does this help them to do what they are required to do, but it also serves, in my view, as a deterrent where the very existence of the law and a system that has teeth can influence and shape behaviour positively. This is not dissimilar from the speed cameras that we have that we know can actually force us to slow down when we approach them. At the same time, we also know that we do not want the MPA – by its very existence – to artificially stoke demand for its intercession. It must be clear that the MPA, as a legal recourse, must remain the very last resort – that is, when all efforts within the family to seek reconciliation fail. It is to help ensure this that the Workgroup decided against a tough, punitive approach when dealing with recalcitrants. We feel that it would send the wrong signal which, in turn, could discourage families from trying hard enough to work things out through discussion and mediation.

I hope that what I just shared would help address the concern raised by my colleague, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, that the MPA, to quote her, "trivialises family ties". My view is that the amendments we are proposing serve to hold up family ties and values like filial piety, by increasing the focus on counselling and mediation to help families find solutions without affecting their ties.

Allow me now to move on to the second key argument: remaining faithful to the purpose of the MPA. When it was enacted in 1995, the Maintenance of Parents Act was intended to benefit parents – especially ageing or helpless parents – who were wantonly neglected by their children. These children were in a position to render financial assistance. It was not to become a lever for parents to abuse the system. Fifteen years on, this intent remains unchanged. The spirit behind the amendments we are seeking to introduce here today is to enhance the ability of society, which includes the State, to ensure that parents get the financial assistance they can rightly and reasonably expect from their children. The focus is on genuine cases based on the principles of fairness and justice. While there are legal and statutory provisions in the MPA and the proposed amendments, recourse is essentially through an all hands-on-deck approach. It is my assumption that in the event that the children are seen as clearly not being in a position to assist their parents financially, the State will step in to ensure that the needs of the parents in these cases will be taken care of. The MPA or the amendments thereof should not translate to an abdication by the Government of its responsibilities that have been highlighted by my colleague, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan. I do not believe that is the intention of the MPA nor the amendments that are being proposed. This is also a point that was reiterated by my colleague, Ms Denise Phua.

Mr Seah Kian Peng captured this aptly by calling it a "beneficiary-centric process" – where the various Government agencies such as the Commissioner's Office and the Tribunal, and other Government agencies will step forward with the relevant information when approached, and work closely with the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and other welfare providers, such as old age homes and nursing homes as well as family members, relatives, friends and even concerned neighbours, to help ensure we do the right thing. The operative word is the "right thing" – which is why the amendment seeks to provide greater access to critical information from many reliable sources, so that the Commissioner and/or the Tribunal can make the right judgement call that is fair – to all parties – and is enforceable.

It is for the same reason that the Commissioner and the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal are given greater latitude and power to make judgement calls – to ensure just and effective outcomes to all. This could mean the power to access critical information, to make conciliation sessions compulsory at the pre-filing stage, or to dismiss cases deemed to be frivolous or vexatious in nature.

Similarly, the Commissioner’s office is encouraged to work closely with the FSCs and other centres to bring to their attention genuine cases of neglect. This is to help ensure that such cases do not fall through the cracks because of a lack of awareness or other reasons. But even in such situations, the case will be processed by the Commissioner’s office only if the parents are comfortable and agreeable. There will be no coercion.

For the implementation and post-implementation stages, the proposed

amendments seek to ensure a less tedious and less stressful process especially at the application stage. The proposed amendments also seek to ensure close case monitoring afterwards to ensure prompt fulfilment of the Maintenance Order and to take into consideration material changes to the financial circumstances of the children.

Essentially, therefore, all proposed amendments are to enhance not just the Commissioner’s or the Tribunal’s ability, but that of the system as a whole, to ensure that genuine cases get on the radar screens and that parents find recourse in a fair and prompt manner, as far as possible, without affecting family ties.