Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

3.25 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Some 12 years ago, I led a workgroup and tabled the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill 2010. After more than a decade, it was timely for another review. I thank my fellow workgroup members for working with me on this review.

I would also like to thank the members of the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships – in particular, Ms Hazlina, Dr Mathews, Ms Long Chey May, Mr Jasper Yap, Mr Abdul Karim, Mdm Zulaiha and Mr Arthur Ling – for their partnership with my workgroup in conducting the focus groups and survey, and in contributing their views on the amendments.

I would also like to thank members of public, partners and stakeholders who had given so much of their time to provide us with their views. This includes more than 200 participants at our focus group discussions, over 1,000 survey respondents, and the people behind the responses to our public consultation paper.

The last key amendment in 2010 was to advocate for the "conciliation-first" approach. This has been effective in reducing the number of cases that have to be put before the Tribunal for resolution. As I mentioned at my Second Reading speech on 9 May, the number of elderly parents who applied to the Tribunal had dropped significantly from 183 in 2010 to 110 within the first year of implementation and the number of applications has since stabilised at about 30 cases a year.

The world has changed quite significantly in the last 12 years. We have also learnt more about the way the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) works. So, having reviewed it, our Workgroup opine that it is time for more changes. At the same time, it is important to note what endures and will endure. My workgroup's recommendations are guided by the principles of the MPA.

First is "family as the first line of support". The MPA is not intended to legislate or enforce filial piety, but to ensure that children provide for their needy elderly parents at a basic minimum level.

MPA is a necessary last resort to provide legal recourse for neglected parents to get maintenance from their children for their basic needs. It respects the duty of an adult to his parents, and requires that each of us carry this duty, rather than pass it onto our fellowmen, in requiring that the state provides this private care.

Second, is the principle of reciprocity. The obligation imposed on children to maintain their parents is not an absolute one. In circumstances where the parents had abandoned, abused or neglected their children, then it may not be just and equitable for them to be ordered to maintain their parent. Here, where there is no private duty, there is a public one.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, from a survey of over 1,000 respondents that my workgroup commissioned in January to February last year, it is clear that family values remain strong among the majority of Singaporeans. The survey, which is statistically representative of national demographic proportions, found that four in five agreed with the principle of reciprocity, that it is important for the children to repay the care received during childhood to their parents. Similarly, seven in 10 agreed that children have an obligation to care for their elderly parents.

These findings are consistent with other studies, such as those conducted by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), that the vast majority of Singaporeans hold strongly to family values and agree that it is their duty to take care of their parents regardless of their qualities and faults.

However, we are also aware of the view held by some, that children did not ask to be born and therefore owe nothing to their parents.

There is obviously a gap in the argument since the duty to care for one's parents does not arise from an exchange of promises – a baby cannot ask to be born, just as he cannot make a promise to care for his parents. My own position is that this duty exists as a social fact, from the existence and the living out of a family relationship, not from an exchange of promises.

But this is mere personal philosophy. As a matter of public policy, I want to say that the Act remains as a pillar of our society's position on the role of the family in supporting one another. It serves as a signal to those children who neglect their needy parents who had previously cared for them, that the law holds them liable for maintenance.

The current amendments before us require us to strike the right balance in strengthening provisions for parents, while introducing measures to prevent misuse. That is, we propose to amend the MPA to first, enhance Tribunal/Commissioner's powers in ensuring neglected elderly parents are adequately supported and to put in place new processes to prevent misuse of the MPA by those who did not fulfil their parental duties. This represents an even-handed recalibration for both parties.

We recommend four key amendments to achieve this vision. These amendments have been developed with careful deliberation and fine-tuned after many consultations with citizens, stakeholders and professionals from social and legal sectors.

The first round was conducted in January 2022. Through 13 focus group discussions with more than 200 participants, 1,000-over survey respondents on our preliminary ideas and after deliberating the various views with relevant stakeholders including the Tribunal and Commissioner, we landed on four key and three operational amendments.

We made changes to our proposals along the way, taking in the feedback from the first round of consultations. By the time we reached the second round, feedback was generally positive for all the amendments.

The first key amendment involves parents with records of abandonment, abuse or neglect against their child that they must now first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with their claim.

Over the years, Commissioner and Tribunal have observed cases of parents filing for maintenance claims against the children whom they had abandoned, abused or neglected. This had caused severe and undue distress to their children and it violates the principle of reciprocity and fairness that I had outlined earlier.

We want to put in place processes to prevent those who had abandoned, abused or neglected their children from misusing the MPA and to spare their children from unnecessary distress.

For abuse victims, the mere experience of going through the proceedings under the MPA can be distressing because it involves facing the parent after years of avoidance and recounting the experiences that they had tried to forget.

Indeed, the experience of the parent's abandonment, abuse or neglect has a serious impact on a person's life. Research on adverse childhood experiences showed that even decades later, exposure to reminders of the original event can trigger severe reactions and adult survivors of child abuse may relieve their trauma almost as if the incident were occurring again.

I have talked to and I have listened to adults recounting their childhood experiences that their parent inflicted on them: it was painful and heartbreaking.

Currently, about one in four cases at the Office of the Commissioner and one in three cases at the Tribunal involved persons who alleged abandonment, abuse or neglect by their parent when they were young.

For the cases that eventually came before the Tribunal for a hearing, the majority were dismissed as it was not just and equitable for maintenance to be granted. Section 5(4) of the MPA currently provides for the Tribunal to dismiss any claim for maintenance or order a lower amount if it is satisfied upon due proof that the parent had abandoned, abused or neglected the child.

However, having to go through the proceedings may have already caused significant distress and re-traumatisation to the person. Some might even just have given in to the parent's demands for maintenance in order to avoid further distress.

Let me cite one actual case. Bella, not her real name, is in her late 20s and was subject to a maintenance application by her father. She had suffered from physical abuse and neglect from her father since she was a child. She and her mother had a personal protection order (PPO) against him after an incident which left her with injuries on her knee and her wrist.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in the end, but only after the proceedings which involved having to provide written accounts of the abuse. And then, there was a conciliation process, the mediation and a full hearing with all the parties.

My workgroup proposes that we require parents with records of abuse, neglect or abandonment against their child to first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with their claim. Specifically, the new process would entail:

One, parents to declare whether they had records of abuse, neglect or abandonment against the child whom they are claiming against.

Two, the Commissioner to screen against official databases for prescribed records of abandonment, abuse, or neglect. And examples of such records could include PPOs, Care and Protection Orders, Orders under the Vulnerable Adults Act, criminal convictions where the offence was committed against the child and investigation records from Protective Services under MSF. Where records are present, Commissioner would refuse or terminate conciliation. The parent would have to go before Tribunal for permission to proceed with the claim.

Third, the Tribunal may grant permission if the parent showed a good arguable case that they did not abandon, abuse or neglect the child or that the child should maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds. If permission is granted and the case proceeds to a Tribunal hearing that includes the respondents, the Tribunal can still make a finding that the parent had abandoned, abused or neglected the respondent child based on the evidence as provided by the respondent and dismiss the case.

The general approach would be to not notify and involve the child in the hearing at this stage.

A new section 3A will introduce a new requirement for the parent to declare at the time of making the claim, whether the parent has any record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of the child.

Section 14A(1) already allows the Tribunal and the Commissioner to obtain information, records, documents or articles from prescribed agencies for the purposes set out in subsection (2), which presently includes supplementing the information provided by the parties.

Subsection (2) will be expanded to enable the Tribunal and the Commissioner to obtain records to verify the truthfulness of the declaration made under new section 3A and to use these records to fairly determine the case.

Some of the information or documents might be subject to gag orders or statutory prohibitions against publication. The amended section 14A(1A) will enable the Tribunal or the Commissioner to obtain these records but only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the parent has a record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of his or her child. These records will obviously have to be treated very carefully after they are obtained. The other amendments to section 14A introduce special safeguards and protections for such information or documents.

In both rounds of public consultation that we conducted, a sizable number of participants had asked for protections to be extended to children who have been abandoned, abused or neglected by their parents, but who do not have official records because the incidents were never reported.

We considered this and we too wish that this was possible. However, where there are no records in official databases, it is necessary for the child to be called upon to provide the accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect, which would otherwise be unknown to the Tribunal.

Moreover, we have to balance between protecting the child and ensuring that the elderly parent have fair access to justice. We need to be fair to both sides.

We hear the concerns and would like to assure Members in this House that the Tribunal and the Commissioner have trauma-informed practices in place to sensitively manage and to minimise distress to the children.

Our second amendment concerns the dismissal of frivolous or vexatious applications.

When I reviewed the MPA in 2010, one of the key thrusts was to ensure that the administrative processes behind the Act are beneficiary-centric, so that any additional or unwarranted stress put on the families should be minimised. At that time, we proposed to give the President and Deputy President of the Tribunal powers to dismiss frivolous or vexatious applications under section 3 of the Act, that is, for "fresh" applications.

In the same spirit, and also recognising the distress that can be caused to children as a result of these proceedings, we are further enhancing the powers of dismissal for frivolous and vexatious applications.

Currently, the Tribunal has existing powers to dismiss variation applications under section 14(7)(a) of the Act, but a Tribunal quorum is reached only where there are three members present. And this can cause potential inefficiencies and delays. So, we propose to allow frivolous or vexatious variations to be dismissed by the President or a Deputy President, similar to fresh applications.

We propose to also allow the Tribunal, as well as the President or a Deputy President of the Tribunal to dismiss an application that is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious without informing or involving the respondent. And this can be done where it is already clear from the existing evidence that the application is without merit, for example, where the applicant is clearly financially able to maintain himself or the child clearly has no means to maintain the parent because he himself is receiving long-term financial assistance. Another example would be the application is one that had been previously dismissed and there is no change in circumstances.

One individual who participated in our second round of public consultations had raised the concern that improving the ease of dismissal would deter genuine applications.

I would like to assure him that applicants with genuine cases need not fear that their application will be struck out. The President and Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal, being experienced legal professionals, are well qualified to determine the merits of the case.

Here, the balance is between ensuring that the case is fully considered, with efficiency considerations. There is no doubt that the former is more important than the latter, but there is also no need for an overly onerous process which benefits neither party.

The amendments I have surfaced thus far aim to protect children from potential misuse of the MPA. Let me now turn to our efforts to enhance the MPA to protect neglected elderly parents.

Under the Destitute Persons Act, destitute persons can be admitted into welfare homes if they are unable to support themselves and lack family support. Before admission, family members are engaged and they are encouraged to care for the destitute person. However, representatives of welfare homes who attended our focus group discussions observed that there are destitute parents, albeit a small number, who have children with the means to maintain them but do not do so. Some even refused contact with them.

Although the MPA empowers such needy parents to claim maintenance from their children, they often choose not to, due to fears of further straining the relationship. In some cases, the parents have lost contact with their children and the welfare homes are unable to locate or contact the children.

Despite repeated attempts at persuasion, the welfare homes are often unable to get the children to give maintenance or persuade the parent to apply for maintenance under the MPA. In such cases, there is nothing the welfare homes nor the authorities can do to get the children to fulfil their obligations to the parent who had raised and cared for them. As a result, such children effectively leave their parents to the care of the state when they can well afford to maintain them. This, in our opinion, is an unfair use of public funds.

Our initial proposal was to empower the Commissioner to apply for maintenance on behalf of such destitute parents, even without their consent. However, we received mixed reactions. One-third of survey respondents were of the view that the parent's wishes should be respected. Some focus group participants also raised concern over the emotional distress that the Commissioner's application might cause to the parent, since it would be going against his wish.

We have accordingly moderated the proposal, to only empower Commissioner on his own motion, that is, not at the parent's behest, to have their children attend conciliation at the Commissioner's Office so that care arrangements for the parent can be discussed and the children can be reminded that they have the legal obligation to support their elderly parents. The proposed section 12B empowers the Commissioner to do this.

This softer approach will still uphold the principle that children have the obligation to maintain their parents and allow the Commissioner to hear the children's side of the story and encourage the child to support the parent, where appropriate.

To ensure that we do not unduly cause distress to the child, the Commissioner will only exercise this power where the Commissioner finds that the parent does not have any record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of the child.

The Commissioner, in exercising his current powers under the Act to identify and locate the child, will also assess his ability to maintain the parent using information from prescribed agencies under the current section 14A of the Act. The Commissioner will only initiate conciliation proceedings if, from the information obtained, he reasonably believes that the child is able to provide maintenance for the destitute parent.

I would like to highlight that in order for the Commissioner's powers of mandatory conciliation to be used, the parent must either be already residing in a welfare home or be under investigation for admission so that he is there on a temporary basis. It is in this sense limited to cases where the abandonment of the parent is especially egregious.

Our fourth and final key amendment is to empower the Tribunal to make non-monetary directions.

Maintenance cases before the Tribunal are often acrimonious and involve deep underlying issues that are not solved by only a monetary order. Indeed, the Tribunal has observed cases where non-monetary directions could help to address fundamental issues in the family. Addressing these issues will also go towards promoting the durability and sustainability of the maintenance order.

One clear example is when the parent has issues with problem gambling. There have been multiple cases where the children were unwilling to pay maintenance simply because they were aware of the problem gambling-related issues in the parent and are worried that the parent would gamble away the maintenance they received.

We thus propose to allow the Tribunal to make any non-monetary direction that it deems fit, if the direction is one that furthers one of the purposes under the new section 6(6), which include the exercise of financial responsibility by the parent or child and the management or resolution of conflicts between the parties.

In cases where the Tribunal finds that the parent has issues related to problem-gambling, it can require the parent to attend gambling counselling. Similarly, if the Tribunal finds that the children's complaints against the parent's behaviour is valid, it can require the parent to cease performing that act which causes harm or suffering to the children. And for highly acrimonious cases with underlying relational issues, family counselling is a potential order that can be made as well.

With regard to enforcement, the Tribunal will be able to order that the maintenance payments that is due to the parent under an order of the Tribunal that they be withheld from the parent, until the parent complies with the non-monetary direction.

I am aware that this is a paradox – mending family ties requires us to go beyond money, but going beyond the ordering of maintenance leads down, some would say further down, the road to paternalism. It is indeed a road which I am reluctant to tread on, so I would like to say that this amendment is probably the furthest I would go in this direction and I would leave personal relationships to the personal realm.

One individual wrote a Forum letter that counselling is not always enough to ensure a real change in the behaviour of a problem gambler. We also had feedback from our public consultations that the child should not have to pay if the parent fulfils the counselling order but returns to gambling later on.

We agree with these views. If the parent returns to the same behaviour later on, the child can apply to the Tribunal for a variation of the maintenance order and the Tribunal can consider whether that is fair depending on the facts of the case.

Some options the Tribunal could take up would be to change the mode of payment, so that the child pays the maintenance not in cash but through direct payment in areas such as utilities, medical care or groceries.

There is certainly no one-size-fits-all approach. There may be cases where the Tribunal could make other directions such as stopping harassment or giving a child access to visit his parent. The amendment will give the Tribunal more options to help and address the specific issues of the families involved in the claim.

In the course of our review, we are also proposing various operational amendments to enhance efficacy of the Act and to streamline processes, and these are as follows.

We clarify the definition of "child" in section 2 of the Act as adult children aged 21 or above, and this is to prevent minors from being subject to claims. Minors below the age of 21 remain under parental authority and control on a wide range of matters and so should not be subjected to the proceedings under this Act, which has always been intended to impose the obligation on adult children to support their parents.

New section 12C makes conciliation proceedings confidential and disallow legal representation, similar to current Tribunal proceedings.

New section 20A serves to protect conciliation officers and mediators from personal liability in carrying out their statutory functions, if they had acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that the MPA is not about legislating filial piety. The law is not the appropriate vehicle for inculcating family values. The effort in promoting family values starts from families themselves, and flows out to schools, and the community and ethnic groups and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). I hope that as a society, we can continue to uphold family values of mutual support for each other. After all, the family is the basic building block of society.

The MPA is needed so that there is legal recourse for the needy elderly parents who struggle with unfilial children who refuse to support them. It also sends out a clear signal of what we as a society stand by.

I had said that I would leave personal relationships to the personal realm. In fact, I would not even have ventured this far, had it not been the fact that public funds would have to be otherwise expended due to the problems within these private relationships. And that is, the MPA also serves to send a strong signal of what we stand against. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

3.53 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I consider it an honour and privilege to be in the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng's workgroup that was tasked to review the Maintenance of Parents Act. As hon Members know, it is not often that we get a chance to be directly involved in the conceptualisation and, if passed by this House, the passage of a Private Member's Bill.

The remit of the workgroup was to improve the workings of the Act and to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose for the foreseeable future.

This Private Member's amendment Bill represents the culmination of a stupendous amount of work put in by the workgroup, its partners and stakeholders over the past two years. Insofar as ideas for improvement were concerned, we started from a clean slate – meaning we looked at all aspects of the current law and its practice.

Together, we organised focus group discussions, ran surveys and issued a public consultation paper. Through these platforms, we gathered public feedback on the Act, identified areas for improvement, brainstormed and formulated proposals that were then stress-tested with the participants and thereafter reviewed once again.

Finally, the accepted proposals had to find expression through the words in the Amendment Bill.

It is heartening to note that many fellow Singaporeans from all walks of life stepped up to provide their valuable views at every stage of the consultation. This Bill is a testimony of the inputs and deliberations that the workgroup received in its distilled form. It derives its strength from our collective ideas and our pursuit of common values, and the sense of justice for all parties. As can be seen in the rest of my speech, these are not easy issues – to what extent is a person entitled to rely on his children for support, to what extent a person's freedom to use his own money as he sees fit, is constrained by his duty to his parent, and finally, to what extent is the state responsible for a man when even the most intimate ties of family fail?

I would like to join hon Member Mr Seah in expressing sincere thanks and gratitude to each and every person who have been involved in this journey. I think it is also appropriate to pay tribute to the then hon Nominated Member of Parliament, Prof Walter Woon, who, almost three decades ago, in 1994, mooted the need for this House to legislate maintenance of parents by their children as a last resort in certain circumstances. When he tabled the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it generated some level of controversy in and outside the House.

Now, the policy underpinnings of the Maintenance of Parents Act are received as wisdom. Prof Woon was ahead of his time. It is a visionary piece of unsentimental legislation – one which spells out the obligations of a child to his parent, and more importantly, as we shall see today, the limits of such obligations.

Madam, in my speech, I will elaborate on the proposed mechanism in the Bill requiring parents with records of abandonment, neglect or abuse, which I will refer to collectively as "ANA" in my speech, to first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with the claim without informing or involving the child.

The Tribunal's permission will be needed in the following three circumstances as provided for in the proposed section 3B in the Bill.

First, where the parent's declaration under section 3A states he has a record of ANA of the child.

Second, where the Commissioner notifies the person that the parent has a record or purported record of ANA. This is a consequence of the new requirement under clause 15 of the Bill that vest with the Commissioner the power to ascertain if the parent is believed to have a record of ANA of the child. This screening requirement is independent of the declaration by the parent.

And third, where a conciliation officer discontinues any conciliation in respect of the child's maintenance of the parent upon noting that the parent has a record or purported record of ANA of the child. Here, we are dealing with a scenario where the parent did not raise any record of ANA in his declaration and the Commissioner did not detect any record through his screening. As a result, the matter would have headed to conciliation as per the current process. It is contemplated that the child may raise facts suggesting that the parent has a record of ANA. Hence, we provided that the conciliation should stop in such circumstances and the parent should get permission from the Tribunal before it may resume.

In short, the parent, the Commissioner and the child are all possible sources of notice of ANA.

Under the proposed section 3(B)(3) in the Bill, the President or Deputy President may grant permission, but if he or she is of the view that there is a significant possibility that permission should not be granted, then a three-member quorum should be convened to make a decision, which can include the referring President or Deputy President.

The policy intent here is to allow the President or Deputy President the power to act singly to give permission for the parent in question to commence proceedings in straightforward cases. This promotes efficiency.

However, for cases where it is contemplated that permission will be refused, then a three-member Tribunal must be convened to make such a determination. This measure will safeguard the parent's interest in ensuring that his case is adequately deliberated before a decision is made against him.

I now come to the important issue of threshold upon which the President, Deputy President or Tribunal will have to decide whether permission should be given. This is provided for in the proposed section 3B(7) in the Bill. In essence, it is provided that permission may be granted if there is a good arguable case at two levels: first, that the parent did not commit ANA; or second, the child should still maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds.

Why provide the second level? This is because a record of ANA involves not just a matter of fact, which is dealt with at the first level, but a matter of degree, in respect of which the second level is meant to address.

What is meant by a "good arguable case"? Here, we adopted the reasoning in a 2018 Court of Appeal decision and intend that it means that the applicant should have the better of the argument. This threshold is more than a "prima facie" case, but lower than that of a balance of probabilities.

What this also means is that the decision of the Tribunal at this stage is not dispositive of the ultimate issue at the hearing, which is whether, under section 5 of the Act, it should make a maintenance order against child if it considers it just and equitable that the child should maintain the parent.

The Tribunal's grant of permission under section 3B in the Bill is not intended to tie its hands in relation to its deliberation and decision on the ultimate issue. Whether or not, as a matter of fact, the parent has abandoned, neglected or abused the child will continue to remain relevant at the hearing – relevant but not determinative. This is specifically provided for in the current section 5(4) of the Act.

I now move to the circumstances in which the child may be allowed to participate in proceedings on the application for permission.

As can be seen from the proposed section 3B(2) in the Bill, there is only a narrow exception to the rule that the child is not to be informed nor involved in the proceedings. This is because the policy objective is to prevent the child against whom the parent had a record of ANA from being subject to distress.

Where, however, in a situation where the application for permission is filed arising from the discontinuation of conciliation, where information of the parent's record of ANA surfaced, the child would already be informed of the parent's claim. As I mentioned earlier, it is probable that the child would be the one who surfaces information pertaining to the parent's record of ANA.

Here, in these specific circumstances, it is provided that if the child so wishes, he will be informed and he may be involved in the proceedings. This will enable him to lead evidence on matters pertaining to the parent's record of ANA that he surfaced at the conciliation. This must be so as a matter of fairness.

In the event the Tribunal gives permission to allow the parent to claim maintenance from the child, then under the proposed section 12A(4) in the Bill, the matter should be referred for conciliation as per the current process. The current amendments are not meant to detract from the "conciliation-first approach" adopted by way of amendments to the Act in 2010.

Since 2010, conciliation has been proven to be more successful in addressing and resolving the core issues between the parties and also has resulted in the savings of significant time and resources.

I now deal with appeals against the decision of the Tribunal to the General Division of the High Court.

Under the proposed section 18(3A) in the Bill, it is provided that an appeal may be brought against the Tribunal's decision not to grant permission to the General Division of the High Court.

Whilst not expressly stated, this also means is that, subject to the High Court's powers under written law, including sections 16 and 17 of the Act, there is no appeal contemplated against the decision of the Tribunal where permission is granted for a parent to apply for maintenance. In addition, any appeal under the proposed section 18(3A) must satisfy the conditions in the current 18(2) of the Act, in that the appeal must involve a question of law or of mixed law and fact. Otherwise, the decision of the Tribunal is final, as is the case now.

Also, unless the High Court directs otherwise, the appeal documents should not be served on the child. The appeal is also to be heard and determined without informing or involving the child. This is again consonant with the aim of the Bill, which is to spare the child who has been subject of ANA by his parent the distress of being informed and involved in the appeal proceedings. This position also applies in the situation where the child was originally informed and involved in the application for permission before the Tribunal.

The appellant's interest is nonetheless safeguarded since the High Court has powers to issue directions requiring the child to attend the hearing of the appeal in appropriate circumstances as it sees fit.

How about cases where there are existing orders made in favour of parents even though they have records of ANA against their children?

As was mentioned by the hon Member Mr Seah in his speech, the sense is that in the past, there may have been cases where the children may have decided to just give in to their parents' demands for maintenance so as to avoid traumatisation and distress. This Bill offers stronger protection against this.

So, what is the recourse for such children?

The Bill provides a procedure for them under the proposed section 8 in the Bill. They may make an application to rescind or vary the maintenance order on the basis that their parents have records of ANA.

When such applications are made, the Tribunal, under the proposed section 14A in the Bill, will have powers to conduct screening against the parents and obtain the necessary information on the parents' records of ANA too. The Tribunal, should it be satisfied that the parent has a record of ANA that was not previously considered at the time when the maintenance order was made, will have the power to vary or rescind the maintenance order.

Finally, Madam, I would like to elaborate on the reasons why bespoke provisions dealing with the disclosure of information that was originally subject to gag orders by the Court are necessary for the purpose of establishing whether the parent has a record of ANA. This is provided for under the proposed section 14A in the Bill.

Typically, the Court imposes gag orders in circumstances where it is necessary to protect identities of minors or victims of criminal offences, especially victims of sexual crimes. There could be situations where gag orders are imposed, preventing the disclosure of information on the identity of accused persons because their identities can lead to the establishment of the identities of the victims. This is particularly so where the accused persons could be the victims' parents.

In a situation where the parent whose identity is protected by a gag order, subsequently applies for maintenance from a child, it is necessary to provide the Commissioner and the Tribunal, which are quasi-judicial bodies, access to information that may be relevant to establishing if the parents have records of ANA.

On the other hand, there is a need for safeguards to be in place so that the rationale behind the imposition of the gag order is not thwarted.

For these reasons, safeguards have been provided to limit the purpose of access to information protected by the gag order to only for the purposes of ascertaining if the parent has a record of ANA. In addition, there is a strict prohibition against disclosure to any other person save for the Commissioner, the Tribunal, the parent and the applicant for permission.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have said that this law deals with difficult questions. However, these amendments provide us with not easy, but practical answers. They are a response to these questions which rests on our collective values. I think it is worth spelling these out so that the policy intent is clear.

First, that there remains a tie between a child and his parent, one which is born of the bare fact of the relationship rather than the quality of such relationships. That alone allows us a basis to consider cases as falling under this law. This underlines the importance of the family in the Singapore context.

Second, such a tie, however, may or may not entail specific duties. Here, the law is quite clear that the moral basis for the existence of such duties rests on whether the parent has fulfilled a minimum level of care. Here, the test is a purely negative one. As long as the parent has not abused the child or treated him poorly, a duty is born.

Again, this makes no pretence about the quality of parenting as a requirement, merely the minimum providence of some basic needs for a child. In short, one does not have to be a good parent, merely not a very bad one, to be able to make claims on a child.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, this law does not circumscribe the Government's commitment to a citizen, which has a fairly neutral lens in relation to his parenting profile. That is to say, a man may be a terrible father but he is still a citizen and one does not have to be a good citizen – however this is defined – to benefit from the state's provision of resources towards one's welfare, which includes housing, healthcare, food and a certain quality of life.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this law underwrites a fact of public life, one which obliges us to use our tax dollars to maintain a man who has abused his children and so, in this instance, it can be said our obligations to each other, at least in dollar terms, exceed that of even a child to his father. I see this as a strength – that this law both limits the obligations of a child towards his abusive parent and spells out our obligations to each other as fellow citizens.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

4.09 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.

It has been a privilege to be part of the workgroup led by my hon colleague Mr Seah Kian Peng in reviewing the Act and engaging the public and key stakeholders during the process. I join the hon Mr Seah in thanking the Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships, self-help groups, social workers, legal experts and fellow Singaporeans who have so generously shared their feedback and opinions with us.

In addition to our meetings with the Tribunal President, Deputy Presidents and the Commissioner, 13 focus group discussions and public consultation held over REACH's online portal, we also conducted a survey with 1,000 respondents to understand the prevailing broad values towards supporting parents in their elderly years, opinions towards the proposed amendments and general awareness of and familiarity with the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Through the review, I have learnt much from the rich conversations we have had with the various stakeholder groups. Given the extensive speeches by my hon colleague Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Murali Pillai earlier, allow me to speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since young, my mother has taught me the importance of showing gratitude, and I have witnessed how my father took care of my grandmother after my grandfather's passing, until she passed away when she was 100 years old. So, I have always believed that the maintenance of parents is my responsibility.

However, as I grew up, I realised that the world is actually very complex. For example, in Macpherson, where I have served for 12 years, I have come across lonely seniors who are neglected by their children.

Once, when I visited a block of rental flats, I met an elderly resident. She was very friendly, and she needed to buy a medicated patch for pain relief, so that she can walk, but was afraid that she could not afford it, and there was nobody to help her buy it. We agreed to buy the patch for her, and she was very happy, genuinely happy.

During our conversation, I learned that she has a daughter who has a good job and lives in a condo. The resident was full of pride when she talked about her daughter. But when we asked if her daughter visits her or takes care of her, she was unwilling to tell us more.

After we left, I kept thinking about why her daughter lives in a condo, yet she was living in a rental flat? Why is it so difficult to even buy a medicated patch? What happened between them?

Later on, I met another elderly resident who wanted to apply for maintenance from his children. He was rejected in his previous application, and he was very angry, and he wanted to reapply again years later.

Subsequently, I looked at the documents he brought and found out that he was jailed for some offences several years ago, and his children were brought up mainly by his wife. He was also suspected of molesting his daughter, so his children did not want to have anything to do with him.

Both residents face maintenance issues, but their situations are different, and it prompts us to think deeply about the issues.

Today, we debate the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill in Parliament. This Act came into force in 1996, with the objective of helping seniors who do not have means to support their basic living expenses by providing a legal avenue for them to obtain maintenance from their children.

The amendments we are debating today aims to strengthen the existing mechanisms, so that seniors neglected by their children can be taken care of, while avoiding abuse of the Act to protect the interests of the offspring.

Since the Act came into force, close to 2,500 applications have been received. In 2010, amendments were introduced to incorporate mediation into the process, and results have been encouraging so far. Around 90% of the applications were resolved through mediation, avoiding further acrimony between the elderly and their offspring.

It has been more than a decade since the last amendment, with our ageing population and changes in the family structure, the current review and amendments bears significant meaning.

After months of review, we came to a few conclusions:

Firstly, the scope of the Act must be broadened to include non-monetary means to improve relations between the elderly and their offspring and encourage them to re-connect. We found that some of these relationships soured because of certain reasons. Therefore, the Commissioner or Tribunal should be further empowered or have greater flexibility to help these families reunite.

These include seniors who are living in welfare homes or applying to live in one, according to the Destitute Persons Act. They may have fallen into destitution due to various reasons, but if they are responsible parents, then their contributions should be repaid.

This amendment Bill empowers the Commissioner, even without the agreement of the destitute elderly, the Commissioner can contact his/her children for mediation. If his/her children still refuse to pay maintenance, at least attempts to re-establish contact is made.

Currently, there are few seniors in this situation. The workgroup initially considered the option for the Commissioner to apply for maintenance on the parents' behalf. After all, if the parents did take care of their children, and their children do have the means, they should pay for some living expenses. This is reasonable.

However, during public consultation, some members of the public are concerned that this will deprive the parents of their autonomy or may lead to greater hostility towards the parents on the part of the children.

After rounds of deliberation, the workgroup believes that amendments are necessary to protect our family values, and empower the Commissioner to contact the children, but solely for mediation purposes, not to ask for maintenance, so as to preserve the relationship. Of course, the Commissioner must first assess if the parent did take on child-rearing responsibilities, and if his/her children do have the capacity to pay for maintenance.

In addition, some parents may have bad habits that cause family relations to sour. According to data from the Tribunal, around 10% of cases involve a parent with gambling problems. For such cases, the children's refusal to pay maintenance to avoid feeding the bad habit is understandable.

Therefore, this amendment Bill will authorise the Tribunal to issue non-monetary Court orders, or approve the maintenance application with conditions, for example, requiring the parent to go for mandatory counselling. If he/she is non-compliant, then his/her children will not be obligated to pay maintenance.

Second conclusion, adult children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents should be better protected.

During our consultations with experts and the public, we found that these children grow up to live seemingly normal lives, but they may not have put the trauma behind.

When these children receive notices to demand for parent maintenance, some may go to Court. Although they are able to prove that they have been harmed or their parents did not fulfil their child-rearing duties, the process will undoubtedly cause old scars to resurface.

Once, I witnessed a Court proceeding where a parent was applying for maintenance from the children. Even though the daughter is now a mother, the sight of her parent was enough to induce fear, to the point that when the parent came near, she immediately ran away to hide, and was even trembling in fear. It is clear that the trauma is still there.

Last year, a survey involving more than a thousand people also show that most Singaporeans agree that there is a need to protect people who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents. And most agree that it is necessary to prevent their parents from obtaining maintenance. After all, filial piety should be based on parental love in the first place.

Therefore, this amendment Bill will empower the Commissioner to access Government files, to check for records of child abuse by the applicant. If there are such records, the applicant must prove that he/she had fulfilled child-rearing duties and must obtain approval from the Tribunal before applying for maintenance.

Without the Tribunal's approval, the affected offspring will not be notified. If there are no records of abuse, they will be notified, and the application will proceed as normal to be fair to both parties.

The third conclusion, the Act must help parents who have taken on child-rearing responsibilities but are in destitution due to neglect in their twilight years. But the Act should not become a tool for parents to attack their children.

The Commissioner and Tribunal members observed that a minority of parents do not qualify to obtain maintenance. Despite being rejected, they continue to reapply repeatedly, intentionally causing frustrations to their children.

Therefore, this amendment Bill will empower the Tribunal to directly reject applications under certain circumstances. To ensure that this will not deter seniors in real need from applying, the amendment Bill stipulates that this only applies for applicants who do not fulfil the original conditions, or who are self-sufficient, where the children can show proof that they cannot afford to pay maintenance, or applicants who have been rejected by the Courts before.

I have just covered the key amendments of this Bill. During the review, the workgroup has actually considered a suggestion for grandparents to apply for maintenance.

I believe that fellow members have encountered situations during Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), where the parents were absent, and children were brought up by their grandparents.

For such cases, the grandparents who have brought up the child may deserve maintenance more, as they are older and have a harder time bring up the child.

However, after public consultation, we believe that if we allow this, then we have to include other family members who have brought up the child too, for example, uncles, aunties, etc. This requires further studies, so the workgroup decided not to adopt this suggestion.

In the long run, I think we need to consider how an ageing population and the increase in smaller families will impact the meaning of family in our future society, and how Asian traditional values will be affected.

During MPS, I often meet seniors in financial difficulties approaching us for help. They struggle to pay for daily expenses but are unwilling to ask their children for help.

I once spoke to an elderly resident, who said her children are getting on quite well. When I asked if her children visit her or give her an allowance, she sadly replied that they have their own families. She said that bringing up children is a parental duty, if her children are filial, they will give her an allowance voluntarily and it will not be necessary for her to ask for it.

Obviously, deep inside, she hopes that her children will provide for her and show concern. But maybe because of pride, or due to maternal love, she never asked for anything from her children and chose to suffer silently.

This is not the only case that I have seen. As an Member of Parliament, we will definitely do our best to help them with their daily lives.

But I feel that if parents had genuinely cared for their children, then their children should provide some support. Even if they are unable to pay for all the living expenses of their parents, they should shoulder some responsibilities. If not, what will become of filial piety?

Here, I would like to emphasise that filial piety does not mean that one should expect children to pay for their parents' living expenses regardless of circumstances. After all, as the age-old saying goes "Filial piety is a virtue to be held above all else, but what is important is the heart and not the action, if one only looks at actions, then there will be no filial sons."

If the children face genuine financial difficulties, of course, the Government will have to step in to provide assistance. But we have to safeguard against irresponsible children who believe that the Government will not deny help to their parents, those who wilfully abandon their parents and expect others to shoulder their responsibilities.

Of course, moral values cannot be legislated. One will not become filial just because of the Maintenance of Parents Act, but the Act will allow deserving parents to obtain maintenance and provide estranged family members with a chance to reconcile. At the same time, it re-affirms society's emphasis on family values, while ensuring that children who have been harmed are fairly treated.

This amendment Bill is the result of more than 20 years of experience, and a synthesis of collective wisdom. After considering the pros and cons, I believe the amendments will lead to a fairer legislation and ensure that deserving parents are protected. I support this motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.23 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am really privileged to be part of this workgroup chaired by Mr Seah Kian Peng and I thank everyone who has participated in the focus group discussions.

I want to focus my speech on the issue of trauma-informed practices.

In recent rounds of public consultation, we have received feedback regarding cases where children alleged they were abused but whose cases had no official records as they went unreported. How do we strike a balance between protecting these children from claims from their parents and ensuring fair access to justice for elderly parents in cases where no records exist?

We recognise the importance of recognising the trauma faced by these children, but we also acknowledge the need to ensure fairness and due process for the elderly parents who may face allegations without substantiated evidence. Striking this balance is crucial to uphold our principles of justice and compassion.

In our pursuit of a solution, we have explored various avenues, and one key aspect we have delved into is the implementation of trauma-informed practices within the Tribunal and Commissioner. Now, what exactly do we mean by trauma-informed practices? Let us take a moment to understand this concept, as it forms an essential part of our approach.

Trauma-informed practices are an evidence-based framework that acknowledges the prevalence and impact of trauma on individuals' lives. This approach recognises that children who have suffered abuse or neglect often bear the invisible scars of their experiences, which can significantly affect their emotional, psychological and social well-being. By adopting trauma-informed practices, we aim to create a supportive and safe environment for these children within the justice system.

The Tribunal and Commissioner, responsible for overseeing the maintenance of parents, have implemented trauma-informed practices to manage and minimise distress for the children involved. These practices involve training and educating the staff on trauma-sensitive approaches, ensuring they have the necessary skills and understanding to respond to the unique needs of children who may not have official records, and promoting collaboration between relevant agencies to protect all affected parties.

I want to emphasise that our commitment to trauma-informed practices does not absolve parents from their responsibilities. We firmly believe that parents should be held accountable for their actions. However, through trauma-informed practices, we strive to strike a delicate balance, protecting the child while ensuring that the elderly parent also has fair access to justice.

As a fellow contributor to this amendment Bill, I would like to emphasise the enormous efforts we have made to guarantee a comprehensive and inclusive process. We have meticulously conducted discussions and engagements, soliciting opinions and perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders. These efforts have aided in the development of the legislation under consideration today.

Several key issues were highlighted during these meetings, such as cases of grandparents requesting maintenance from their grandchildren. This was seriously taken into account, as was the possible influence on both grandparents and grandchildren. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that broadening the scope of support claims to include grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members would pose practical challenges, as also highlighted by my hon colleague Ms Tin Pei Ling.

To safeguard the legislation's feasibility and legality, a line ought to be drawn. While grandparents seeking maintenance from their grandchildren is a legitimate concern, extending their purview to include such claims may result in an inundation of claims from other members of the extended family. This might make the legislation's execution and enforcement more difficult, burdening the system and causing undue hardship on families.

We have covered a wide variety of viewpoints and taken into account the different demands of persons affected by the law during the consultation process. While we must accept the limits that we may still face today even with the amendments to the Bill, our objective is to build a framework that is fair, practical and effective. The decision to draw a line in this case illustrates our commitment to preserving clarity and making the legislation as effective and viable as possible for all parties concerned. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As one of the members participating in this amendment, I would like to emphasise, that we have made great efforts in the process to ensure comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. We seriously discussed and engage with the public, asked for their opinions and perspectives. The discussion process highlighted several key issues, among them is whether grandparents can claim maintenance from grandchildren. This is reasonable but to expand the scope of the claims under the Bill may result in claims from other members of extended families. After much consideration, we decided not to expand the scope because that would create practical challenges and could make it more difficult to enforce the Act, burden the system and create trouble for families.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

4.30 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for the chance to share my view on this Bill. As a member of the workgroup on this Bill, I would like to share my thought process and concerns regarding two amendments in the Bill and how it evolved along the way.

Firstly, amendment one, the one that concerns what I call the "peeling open old wounds".

I am heartened that a trauma-informed approach underpins this proposed amendment to prevent abandoned or abused children from being approached at all, if there are records of such treatment that the state is aware of. After all, if someone is still nursing or hurting from the hurts and the wounds of childhood ill-treatment by their parents of neglect or abandonment, the last thing he or she needs is to go through any process that suggests that they are being unfilial. It would unnecessarily induce damaging feelings of self-doubt, guilt or worsen feelings of resentment, when they may have spent years trying to heal or to move on.

Hence, we have put up this amendment that seeks to protect these children from an unnecessary and harrowing process only to have the case dismissed in the end.

In the initial stages of developing this amendment, I had one concern for the children who may not have reported the incidents of abuse or neglect and hence, do not have records within the state system. Given that many cases of domestic abuse or neglect still go unreported now despite increased awareness and education efforts in recent years, we must assume that, in the past, there are likely many cases of abuse or neglect that have gone unreported and recourse therefore must be provided for children who have suffered ill-treatment by their parents.

I am glad that amendment one, as proposed in its current version, still allows for respondents to present evidence to the Tribunal and have the case dismissed.

While some may argue that for someone who has been abused before, to be approached to present evidence can itself be an experience that opens old wounds and be stressful and we should avoid that altogether, it is, unfortunately, something we cannot avoid.

In this matter, I fall back on my own knowledge and experience as a transformation and healing coach, having worked with many adults to process and heal from their emotional and childhood wounds. I am assured myself, having witnessed and facilitated many on their healing journeys, to give the public the same assurance, that not all "reminders of past bad experiences" are harmful. In fact, for true healing to take place, one often needs to confront the negative experiences of the past in order to see it through a new and empowered set of lens for our hearts to heal. In psychologic terms, it is called reframing.

Whilst I understand the preference of many to avoid dredging up "old skeletons in a closet", I also know that with good therapeutic support in place, it can catalyse an important and liberating healing process that has long been put off.

In raising my concern during the Workgroup meetings and in talks with MSF on our proposed Bill, I understand from MSF colleagues that counselling and therapy services are, in fact, available and provided if needed, to support respondents who are asked to come forward to give their account and to share their stories to the Tribunal. I hope that the Ministry will continuously look into adequate resourcing to ensure this support is there.

Next, is amendment three that empowers the Commissioner to initiate conciliation without consent from the parent.

My initial reaction to this amendment when it was first raised in our workgroup was one of like "Really? Do we really want to allow the state to request maintenance from children without the consent of the parent? Is this something that we really want to step in on?"

I am born in the 1980s. I belong to the millennial generation and I am probably one of many from my generation who hold the following attitude. Whilst many of us believe in filial piety and that it is a right thing to do to provide for and care for our parents when they are old, we do not place the same expectations on our children to do the same.

The old Chinese saying "养儿防老" is commonly a phrase I used to hear from my mom and other adults around me as I was growing up. I remember feeling rather disturbed as a child and a teenager hearing this; and sometimes, it made me wonder if the value of "me" was just to be an insurance for my parents when they grow old. It did not help with building up a strong sense of self-worth and it made me doubt if my parents really do love me for who I am. "Love" at that time felt rather transactional.

I am not ashamed to admit those were my thoughts as I was growing up. And I believe there could be youths and teenagers out there today who may wonder about this at times too. Do my parents love me only because I do well in school and make them look good and because they need someone to look after them when they are old?

I have a friend, grown up, who recently got married and she is deliberating about whether to have a child. She has gone to have her eggs frozen but has not yet made a decision. When we talk about it amongst our women friends, she speaks about having a child as an "investment". When we hear people around us talk about having children in those terms, we cannot help but wonder if even parental love is conditional.

On top of that, there are various values that were taught to us as kids. The Chinese talks about filial piety; Malays have "ketaatan kepada ibu bapa" and our Indian friends probably have something equivalent. To a young person, "being filial" can feel like a set of obligations we must adhere to in order to be seen as a "good person". In this way, love can feel like a duty, smelling distastefully to some like "obligation".

During one of the public consultations I attended, a young person expressed this: "The child did not ask to be born. Why do adults make these decisions and then impose these obligations on their kids?" I was a little shocked. It was a provocative statement, but also valid. It gives us food for thought.

Perhaps, I am the idealistic sort, pursuing an ideal notion of love, for it to be unconditional and without obligation, to be given freely and reciprocated if the recipient feels so moved to reciprocate. It will be nice if my children want to contribute to my maintenance when they grow up and I grow old, but it is also all right if they do not.

Is maintaining parents really something we want the Government to intervene on or to mandate?

I am very grateful that Mr Seah Kian Peng invited me to be a part of this workgroup proposing these amendments, for it helped me to understand these issues more deeply and to gain perspectives beyond my own.

Through the many rounds of discussions we had with fellow workgroup members, the Commissioner, members of the Tribunal and the focus group consultations we had with the public, I began to discover that my personal idealism for "unconditional love" is indeed just an ideal and not very practical when we consider what it means for the larger society, especially if one is not in a comfortable financial position to afford such idealism, such as the old and frail ones staying in their destitute homes, unfortunately finding themselves relying on state subvention to upkeep their remaining days.

I realised that this matter is not about whether the state is so stingy that it is unwilling to support the upkeep of those who are vulnerable and destitute, but a matter of "fairness" that needs to be addressed because a government is a steward of public resources that come from the people, to be used for the people. The question of "fairness" is a valid and legitimate one for many citizens who have a stake in how the finite resources of a country should be used.

Often, I hear resentment from loving people, giving people, the volunteers at our many charity distribution activities, when they see elderly residents come and take a ration goodie bag or a goodie bag or a bag of rice. And then, they see the same elderly folk being driven around by their children in expensive cars around the neighbourhood. They wonder and sometimes they grumble out loud, "These elderly do not need. Why should we give them? Then, someone else who needs this more is deprived of it."

And indeed, this question is asked not because charitable hearted people are being stingy or calculative, but because with finite resources, someone else's well-being could be the opportunity cost of over-generosity.

In my role as Member of Parliament whom residents come to for help, I have seen how despite the old Chinese adage of "养儿防老", which is having children to safeguard one's old age, what I saw in reality is that many elderly parents prefer not to impose this burden on their children, often when their children have the means to support them and especially so when their children do not have the means.

Many elderly residents continue to plan on leaving their assets to their children, for example, in the low take-up rates for the Lease Buyback scheme for their HDB flats, so that they have something to leave behind for their children even when they pass on.

Others will ask about financial support from the Government when they are experiencing financial hardship, preferring to apply for welfare support, rather than to ask for their children's support.

In many cases, parents are caught in a "give and give" mindset. They hardly ever want to take from their children. These encounters showed me that in many cases, parental love does not ask for returns. Love often is indeed unconditional.

And whilst the idealist in me delights in observing such unconditional love, the pragmatist in me, wearing the hat of a steward of public resources feels torn. Is this fair to other Singaporeans?

It is not an easy thing for the Government to have to balance. Do we respect the elderly parents' wishes who do not want to approach their children, or do we go ahead and claim, in consideration of fairness in the allocation of resources?

The original proposal for amendment three allows for the Commissioner to claim maintenance from financially able children on behalf of the neglected and destitute parents and it presents exactly this dilemma.

It is fortunate that the workgroup, upon discussion with the members of the public, were able to come up with a "win-win" solution that I felt comfortable and satisfied with.

I am also thankful for Chairman Mr Seah Kian Peng's empathy and openness even as he passionately leads the charge on this Bill, to allow for alternative approaches to the original proposal, so that we get to balance. The outcome and revised proposal – to empower the Commissioner on his own motion and not at the parent's behest to have the children attend conciliation at the Commissioner's Office so that care arrangements can be discussed and their children can be reminded of their legal obligations – is a great balanced approach.

In considering that preserving a good relationship between parent and child is the utmost priority in the elderly parents' minds, we have to ensure that we do no harm. Hence, what we really need to ensure is in the implementation, that the communication to children being asked to come forward for conciliation, knows that the request is being made by the Commissioner and not by the parents. This helps to achieve the balance needed, for fairness to fellow Singaporeans and also respects the relationship priority of the elderly parent.

The other two amendments which allow for the Tribunal to give non-monetary directions for cases and for the Tribunal to dismiss frivolous and vexatious applications are relatively straightforward to me. They are enhancements to the Act made with 12 years of experience in consultation with the relevant agencies since it was last reviewed. So, I am satisfied that they are appropriate enhancements made in the spirit of fairness to both parent and children as well as to ensure that public resources are not frivolously frittered away.

Given that my concerns for amendments one and three have been adequately addressed in our workgroup's development of the Bill, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

4.43 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Deputy Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendments to the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill. I have had the privilege of being part of the private Member's workgroup led by hon Member Seah Kian Peng, my long-time partner in service, like 13 years old, 2010 and now, in 2023.

First, the history of the Maintenance of Parents Act, or MPA. The MPA, which was passed in 1995, was the brainchild of ex-Nominated Member of Parliament, Prof Walter Woon. It was a significant step forward in recognising the social responsibility of adult children to care for and support their parents who are financially dependent or vulnerable.

The MPA was last amended in 2010 to enhance its effectiveness. One of the pivotal provisions which was introduced then was that of conciliation before parents could file for maintenance orders. This ensured that seniors and their children attempted to kind of resolve their differences amicably before resorting to legal measures. And consequently, the number of applications at the Tribunal significantly reduced to about 30 per year, signalling the success of this approach.

However, there is still room for improvement.

Two key developments have come to light, which is why this latest review of the MPA is conducted.

First, it has been reported that one in three cases seen at the Tribunal involve allegations that the parents had previously abused, abandoned or neglected their children. This situation not only causes trauma to the adult children but also raises the question on whether it is fair to obligate them to provide maintenance to parents who have mistreated them.

The second development was that there have been cases of errant children who leave their elderly parents in care facilities, expecting the facility management to care for, to raise funds and to bear the financial burden of their parents' maintenance. We feel that such behaviour is unacceptable and calls for correction.

So, the latest round of proposed amendments aims to address these key issues and also introduce ways to improve effectiveness of the MPA. They include provisions that require records of abuse, abandonment or neglect to be considered before parents can seek maintenance orders, it also involves dismissal of frivolous and vexatious applications; and directions of financial and/or non-monetary measures; amongst others.

I would like to raise three commonly posed questions that often linger on the minds of Singaporeans whenever the issue of maintenance of parents is broached; and then to share my own reflections. One, is the MPA still relevant in Singapore society today? Two, can matters of familial relations be addressed through legal provisions? And three, can the MPA address the issue of retirement inadequacy for elderly parents in need?

Question one - is the MPA still relevant in Singapore society today? Supporters of the Act argue that it reflects the enduring value of filial piety deeply rooted in our Singaporean culture. They believe that adult children have a social responsibility to care for and to support their parents, especially when parents are financially dependent or vulnerable or needy. These proponents contend that placing this responsibility on children prevents burdening the public welfare system, which is funded by other taxpayers. So that is for the supporters.

On the other hand, opponents of the Act emphasise the importance of individual choice and agency. They argue that adult children should have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to provide financial support to their needy parents. Some even highlight that while parents choose to give birth to their children, the children themselves did not ask to be born. Others then contend that they are already financially supporting their own families and have their own expenditures to cover, and should not be legally obligated to support their parents.

But what does the current landscape inform us? An MSF report published in 2022 is called "Ageing Families in Singapore, 2010-2020". This report highlights that families remain a key source of physical, emotional and financial support for the elderly. A majority of elderly individuals aged 65 years and above cited that they could rely on their married children, 90%, and unmarried children, 83% of them, for financial support in times of need.

Additionally, the 2018 the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Sample Household Survey reveals that 74% of HDB residents aged 55 and above received regular financial support from their children in 2018, a five-percentage point drop from 79% 10 years ago in 2008. So, still quite a substantive number.

Nevertheless, expectations of filial piety – as very articulately explained or described by Ms Carrie Tan, my hon Member friend – expectations of filial piety norms are shifting across generations. My young adult friends remind me that there are alternative ways to express filial piety beyond solely financial support, such as paying for dinner outings, birthday gifts or spending family time together. This evolving trend suggests the need for each generation to plan for their own well-being to avoid over-reliance on their children.

However, changes in society norms take time to fully materialise. While the landscape continues to shift, the MPA which obliges children to provide basic support to their parents in need, remains, in my mind, still relevant. It acknowledges the possibility that without legal intervention, some elderly parents may face challenges in receiving the necessary care and support from their adult children. It, therefore, serves as a safety net to ensure the well-being of these elderly parents.

Question two – can matters in familial relations be addressed through legal provisions? Family dynamics and circumstances vary greatly from one family to another; and so it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the legal system in resolving familial conflicts and dynamics.

Let me share a few cases to illustrate this point. In one case, a woman – she is a professional executive – had a physically and verbally abusive father who had caused her immense trauma since young. This woman, who wrote in to me and Member Seah Kian Peng, spent many years of her life, 40 years, running away from the father, even to the extent of changing her legal name and at one time, living overseas to escape his threats. The father stalked her and even resorted to social media to threaten her. To this day, this woman is still receiving medical treatment. When he filed a claim for maintenance from her, she pleaded to the Ministry to protect her identity and whereabouts.

This case highlights the challenges of enforcing legal provisions when issues of abuse and safety are concerned.

Furthermore, in other cases, even when faced with similar circumstances, family members also can respond differently. At a Tribunal session I sat in to observe as a workgroup member, a pair of adult siblings responded quite differently to their mother whom they claim had abused them when young. The brother chose to forgive the mother, while acknowledging her shortcomings. The sister was re-traumatised, being even in the same room as the mother and shared that she is now seeing a counsellor again.

And then, in other families, there are parents who refuse to file claims against their errant, able children for financial support, even when they are abandoned or neglected in eldercare facilities.

These variations in responses in families just show the complexity of family relationships and the need for individualised approach; not cookie-cutter solutions. The work of the Commissioner and Tribunal in conciliation and in issuing directives, is complex and challenging. The provisions in this Bill that grant more flexibility and space for them to consider and conclude are, therefore, very essential.

Hence, I fully support any provisions in the Bill to grant more flexibility and space for the Commissioner and the Tribunal to consider and conclude.

Finally, moving on to the third and final question frequently raised about this Act – can the MPA in Singapore address the issue of retirement inadequacy for elderly parents in need?

Most of us know that by 2030, approximately 22%, or at least one in five of the resident population will be 65 years and above, with nearly one in three elderly persons in Singapore forecasted to require eldercare services. We found out that many who regularly provide for their elderly parents can only afford a monthly allowance of $500 or less, this quantum is also reflected similarly in maintenance orders. From 2016 to 2020, 82% of awards that are granted by the Tribunal had a monthly quantum of less than $500.

It is, therefore, unlikely that family allowances alone will be the main source of elderly support, whether or not they are covered by the MPA. Hence, the Act will not totally address the issue of retirement inadequacy for elderly parents in need. A slew of Government and societal provisions has been introduced to meet these needs, and work is still in progress. These include: raising of Retirement Age so that those who wish to continue to work can choose to do so; CPF Life Annuity Scheme; Silver Support Scheme; CareShield; HDB's Rental Scheme, Housing Leaseback Scheme and Assisted Community Care Apartments and Public Assistance Scheme for seniors who qualify for long-term financial assistance from MSF.

Unfortunately, though, many Singaporeans are still unprepared for retirement. To address this, more proactive education should be in place so that every Singaporean has a clearer idea of their own Individual Retirement Adequacy Plan, and to also have their own Retirement Adequacy Plan. The MPA then, is just one of the tools available for a small target group of seniors within the broader framework of retirement adequacy planning measures for Singapore's elderly.

In conclusion, Madam, the MPA is not a silver bullet and there are potential problems that may continue to arise. For instance, what if documented records of abuse or neglect are not available? How do we handle cases of children based overseas who refuse to comply? And what if non-monetary measures directed by the Tribunal, such as family counseling, do not yield positive results? These are questions we will continue to have to ponder over.

Nevertheless, the principles of family being one's first stop for support, reciprocity and filial piety that is enshrined in the MPA are still worth retaining. It is crucial for us legislators to stay vigilant about ageing trends, evolving expectations of parents and children, and to also draw lessons from other legislations. This will ensure the relevancy of the MPA and protect the well-being of our elderly through a balance of legal obligations and evolving cultural norms. With these considerations in mind, Madam, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

4.56 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the traditional concept of filial piety, deeply ingrained in our Asian culture, faces new challenges today. This amendment Bill has sparked discussions about the changing social dynamics in our society. We are compelled to question the extent of financial responsibility that children should bear toward their parents as we navigate through the complexities of a rapidly ageing population and evolving family structures.

With increasing life expectancies, how can children support their parents through a longer period of old age, even as they strive to provide for their families and their own retirement, is becoming an issue of concern. We must find a delicate balance that upholds our cultural values while addressing the financial realities faced by families today.

First of all, though, the fundamentals. How can we instil in our children from a young age the values of responsibility and care for their elders, the moral aspects of a good citizen "好公民"? Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Chinese saying "caring for the elderly and the young as if they are our own parents and children" reflects our values of filial piety and collective responsibility in Chinese culture. Life is, in itself, a cycle, our parents pushed our strollers when we are infants, we push our parents in their wheelchairs when they are aged and sick.

(In English): There is a traditional Chinese saying about caring for the elderly and the young as if they are our own parents and children, which reflects the values of filial piety and collective responsibility in Chinese culture. Life is, in itself, a cycle. Our parents pushed our strollers when we were infants. We push our parents on their wheelchairs when they are aged and sick.

I advocate for leveraging the Ministry of Education (MOE)'s curriculum to incorporate the teachings on the importance of filial piety and the moral aspects of being good citizens. By integrating these values into our educational framework, we can nurture a sense of social responsibility and compassion in our younger generations.

I propose an integrated curriculum where MOE can work with relevant stakeholders to include teachings on filial piety and family values into a variety of disciplines, at various grade levels. This strategy guarantees that students obtain a well-rounded education that emphasises vital moral and social ideals. Education should be made holistic, in addition to academic courses, the curriculum should include character and citizenship education.

We can cultivate well-rounded individuals who appreciate the need of helping their parents as they age by adding teachings on empathy, respect and responsibility toward family and elders.

Education plays a pivotal role in shaping the moral compass of our society. By embedding the principles of filial piety and family values into our curriculum, we can promote an understanding of the significance of caring for our parents and elders. Through age-appropriate lessons, children can be taught the value of financial planning, the challenges of aging and the importance of supporting their parents in their later years.

Additionally, we must acknowledge the importance of community engagement and support systems. It is not solely the responsibility of children to shoulder the financial burden alone. By fostering a sense of community care and establishing support networks, we can share the responsibility and ensure that no family or child is overwhelmed by the financial obligations of supporting ageing parents.

Furthermore, we should encourage open dialogues amongst family members to discuss their financial situations, expectations and concerns. This transparency can foster understanding, empathy, and a shared commitment among siblings to provide support according to their means. Such conversations should be approached with sensitivity, recognising the unique circumstances and financial capabilities of each family member.

Hence, I support the amendment to the Act to boost the powers of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents and the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents so that neglected elderly parents are adequately supported.

As for the amendment to prevent parents who have abused, abandoned or neglected their children in the past from misusing the Maintenance of Parents Act, I have a question. What happens if a parent had supported the child for a number of years before moving out of the child's life? In some relationships, the interactions might be a combination of both care provision and abuse, or partial care and financial support in some years followed by abandonment or neglect in other years for a variety of reasons, such as conflict with the other parent, family problems, health or mental illnesses, and so on and so forth. Would the Ministry accord the parent some partial support from his children?

Another question I have is regarding the child from whom the parent seeks support. What if the parent has a few children but only seeks support from a particular one? For example, the parent may choose to ask only – may only ask help from a child who happens to be unmarried with no children of his own. With or without children, everyone has an equal responsibility to support his or her parents. Will the Ministry help to mediate for fairness?

In conclusion, the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill provides us with an opportunity to address the changing social dynamics in Singapore. I believe in taking a proactive approach by working with MOE to integrate teachings on filial piety and family values into our educational system. By nurturing a sense of responsibility and care for our elders, we can shape a society where the financial responsibility towards parents is shared, while upholding our cultural values. Let us engage in meaningful discussions, seeking input from all segments of society, to craft a legislation that respects our traditions, recognises the evolving nature of our families, and ensures a fair distribution of financial responsibilities.

Thank you and may we work together to build a compassionate and harmonious society for all Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.03 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill will allow the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents to take into account a history of abuse, neglect or abandonment when making a maintenance order.

It will also empower a Tribunal to better deal with frivolous or vexatious applications. The Bill will also allow the Commissioner and Tribunal to engage children of destitute parents and to facilitate conciliation where appropriate.

I have three points of clarification.

Madam, actually I should say I had three points of clarification. I left my speech on my chair and I think Member of Parliament Murali Pillai must have read it because he has addressed most of the points that I am about to raise but he said it, he felt that the points were pertinent ones, and he has foreseen that someone will raise it and that he will address it earlier on in this debate.

Madam, my first clarification is on the involvement of children in applications for maintenance with records or purported records of abandonment, abuse or neglect of the child. Under the new section 3B(2), the application for permission must be dealt with without informing or involving the child, except where the child was already involved in any prior conciliation and is agreeable to participate in proceedings.

I understand the need to avoid re-traumatising a child who may have been previously abandoned, abused or neglected, as Member of Parliament Murali had raised. However, the child may wish to have the opportunity to decide whether or not to participate in the application for permission.

The Commissioner or Tribunal may grant permission for a maintenance application if they find that there is a good arguable case that the parent did not abandon, abuse or neglect the child. Or there is a good arguable case that the child should maintain the parent on just and equitable ground. How can the Commissioner or Tribunal determine whether there is a good arguable case if the child does not even know that the application for permission has been made?

Has the Member considered whether it might be traumatic as well for a child who was not involved in the permission application to suddenly be told that he or she now face a maintenance application because the Commissioner or Tribunal found that there was no abandonment, abuse or neglect? And this finding was made without hearing from the child? How will the communication to the child be managed in this case?

All the more so if the Tribunal found that there was a good arguable case that there was no abuse. Can the Member further share the rationale behind not even informing the child of the application for permission?

My second set of clarifications is about allowing applications for permission where there are records of abandonment, abuse or neglect. Member Murali had addressed my clarification on when the application for permission would be granted at the President or Deputy President and when it would be referred to the Tribunal for decision.

Beyond that, under the new section 3B(7), permission may be granted if there is a good arguable case that the parent did not abandon, abuse or neglect the child or that the child should maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds.

Can the Member clarify what is required evidentially to show a good arguable case? Given that suffering and abuse are contextual and subjective, can the Member share what guidance will be provided to the Tribunal to ensure consistency in decision-making? Can the Member also share if a child will have the opportunity to challenge the Tribunal's decision to grant permission for the maintenance application?

Lastly, my last clarification is on the definition of record or purported record of abandonment, abuse or neglect. This is defined as any record against or relating to the person that is prescribed to be a record or purported record of the person's abandonment, abuse or neglect of a child of the person.

However, we are aware that there is a potential problem of underreported child abuse cases. MSF's data showed a sharp increase in child abuse cases over the past decade. In 2014, 381 cases were investigated by MSF's Child Protective Services. In 2021, this figure soared to 2,141, the highest in a decade.

MSF explained that the number of cases has increased since 2015 when MSF introduced more rigorous screening tools and training for professionals. MSF stated that this helped to sharpen the ability of sector professionals to pick up safety concerns for a child and seek appropriate intervention.

I am glad that we are now investigating and detecting more abuse cases. However, this also suggests that there may have been a significant extent of under-reporting of child abuse prior to 2015. Can the Member share whether the standard of proof for pre-2015 child abuse cases be adjusted to take into account the potential issue of under-reporting?

Madam, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.08 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in our Asian culture, we are mostly brought up to honour our parents. When our parents fall into needs, most of us would naturally want to help them and fulfil our filial piety duties.

When parents take the responsibility of bringing up their children well, most will agree that it is right for their children to take care of them when they are no longer able to support themselves. However, where parents have abused or neglected their children when they were young, and subsequently seek maintenance support when their children become adults, this may lead to significant distress and re-traumatisation of childhood abuse or neglect during the maintenance claim process.

I am privileged to be part of the workgroup led by the hon Mr Seah Kian Peng and my Parliamentary colleagues have shared extensively on how distressing emotionally and mentally it can be for adult children to be reminded of the abuse and neglect experienced when they were young and how the amendments will help to protect the abused victims with a fair process.

I would like to speak more on cases where parents had sought maintenance support from the adult children, but the money was mostly used to feed addictions or problematic behaviours. In the process of the workgroup review, we were brought to understanding several cases such as one where a mother had problem gambling behaviours and her son opposed the application, citing her gambling habits as the reason. The application was dismissed and the Tribunal encouraged her to attend counselling. As this was not mandatory, the mother only attended one session and the relationship between her and her children remain broken.

For cases that involve behavioural issues like problem gambling, alcoholism or drug addiction, adult children are often reluctant to pay maintenance as they are concerned that their parents would waste the money, entrench their problematic behaviours further and result in a worser outcomes than when they did not have the money. The Tribunal also shared that they often encounter families having deep-seeded conflicts and complex family issues that needed more professional intervention such as counselling.

Without addressing the underlying factors that cause a deep strain between parents and adult children, even if maintenance support is approved, non-compliance after a period will rise due to loss of trust and further breakdown in the relationships. When addressing such cases, there needs to be non-monetary orders especially professional interventions, beyond just addressing the living expenses through maintenance payments. Professional counsellors or social workers can help the parents and adult children better understand the underlying problems and deal with root causes.

Currently, the Tribunal is only empowered to make orders on maintenance payments for the purpose of defraying the costs and expenses of the parent. With the proposed amendment, the Tribunal will have two additional powers.

One, the Tribunal have the discretion to give direction for appropriate non-monetary orders according to each family's unique circumstance where necessary; and two, the Tribunal will be allowed to subject the maintenance payment to compliance with the non-monetary order or with other specified conditions, such as attendance or completion of counselling sessions.

These amendments will allow the Tribunal to have more options to address fundamental family issues to improve approval and compliance of the maintenance orders.

Counselling can provide a safe space and facilitate process for both parents and children to express their emotions and concerns. For elderly parents struggling with addictions like gambling, counselling can allow them to discuss their challenges, and the underlying issues that contribute to their behaviour in a neutral setting, a support that they might not have had access to in the past. Uncovering root causes of addictions and bad habits, which are often associated with deeper emotional or psychological issues such as stress, depression, loneliness, or a desire for excitement, is important for a conciliatory approach, to help develop healthier coping mechanisms.

Through mandatory counselling, elderly parents can learn effective coping strategies to deal with the triggers that lead to their addictions or bad habits, which strain family relationships, leading to conflicts, trust issues and financial problems. Counselling can rebuild trust, establish healthy boundaries, enable forgiveness and foster a supportive environment for recovery.

The intent of this amendment is not for adult children to avoid maintenance payments but to ensure that the root cause of the problem that leads to adult children not maintaining their parents can be addressed holistically. The aim is to benefit both parents and adult children to bring about better outcomes and resolutions. Mdm Deputy Speaker, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill tabled by the workgroup aims to formulate measures to protect children from abuse, neglect or abandonment and to prevent parents from abusing the laws and disturbing their children's lives and mind unnecessarily.

In my English speech, I mentioned a case whereby a mother with gambling addiction applied for maintenance from an adult child. Although her application was rejected and the Tribunal also recommended that the mother undergo counselling, the mother did not continue after one visit. This will also make future conciliation between the two sides difficult.

Many addiction problems are longstanding, causing family tensions and distrust between parents and children.

Hence, the amendment Bill will give the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents and the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents greater powers to compel addicted parents to undergo counselling and to mend their family ties through counselling.

The workgroup believes that through counselling, the root of the problem can be addressed. It can help addicted parents get rid of their addiction and repair family ties effectively.

In addition, the amendment also enables the Commissioner and the Tribunal to order non-monetary maintenance to allow children to maintain their parents without being exploited.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I conclude my speech, I would like to again express my gratitude to the leadership of Mr Seah Kian Peng as well as the teamwork from the workgroup that has done this review of the Maintenance of Parents Act and make the tabling of the amendment Bill today possible. I would also like to thank members of the public as well as key stakeholders for raising their feedback and concerns through Focus Group Discussions, surveys and REACH consultation.

Madam, reciprocity underpins many relationships. Society must continue to balance between ensuring elderly parents having access to justice and care while protecting abused children from facing distress and having to deal with their traumatic childhood experiences due to neglect from their parents. The MPA amendments aim to achieve such a balance. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.16 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Madam, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to update the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA). This Act was last amended in 2010 and, during these past 12 years, we have gained more experiences and insights on the operationalisation of the MPA.

The Bill's proposed amendments will therefore serve to better ensure that neglected elderly parents are adequately supported while placing safeguards to prevent the misuse of the MPA by those who did not adequately fulfil their parental obligations.

Before I start, I declare my interest as a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Social and Family Development and that I was part of the workgroup that helped to review the MPA.

Members of the workgroup have spoken on why they support the proposed provisions and my speech today will touch on why I think it is of utmost importance that we ensure that the MPA remains relevant.

Madam, the issue of ensuring that our elderly residents are well cared for, is a topic that is close to my heart. Especially as my constituency, Radin Mas, has many seniors and I interact with many of them on an almost daily basis. Occasionally, my grassroots leaders and I would come across cases where a senior would seek financial assistance and other means of assistance, as they were not adequately taken care of by their family members. In such cases, we rely on the MPA as an avenue of last resort to provide a legal recourse for neglected seniors to receive a basic maintenance, in terms of financial support, from their children.

The responsibility of caring for our seniors must fundamentally lie first with the family. The Government can support with broad-based financial and social support but the Government can only do so much. With Singapore on the path of becoming a super-aged society, where more than 20% of our population are 65 years old and above, it is timely that we review the MPA to ensure that this legal avenue of last resort remains effective.

One of the key amendments of the Bill is to empower the Commissioner to locate the children of destitute parents for mandatory conciliation without a need for the parent to put in a formal application. This is particularly important in cases where the parent has lost touch with their children, or in cases where the destitute parent is unwilling to contact the children for fear of further straining the relationships.

As the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng mentioned in his speech, the workgroup had initially wanted to empower the Commissioner to apply to the Tribunal for a Maintenance Order for the destitute parent, even if the parent did not provide consent. This would allow us to ensure that financially able children would fulfil their obligation to maintain their parents.

However, during the public consultation process, we received significant feedback that the wishes of the parent should be respected. The Bill now takes a more balanced approach, where the Commissioner is empowered to locate the children of destitute parents and require them to attend conciliation so as to hear the children's side of the story. I believe that this is a good balance as it enhances the chances of conciliation between parties. As the proportion of seniors in our society increases, we should do all we can to try to mend relationships, so that our elders can have the fullest support from their children as they age.

Madam, as the Chinese saying goes, "家家有本难念的经". Loosely translated, it means that every family inevitably have their problems and issues. There have been cases where the children refuse to pay maintenance for their parents due to certain underlying issues.

In the past year, I have attended some of the Tribunal's hearings as an observer as part of the workgroup. One common argument put forth by the children was the physical abuse they had suffered under the parent when they were young. Often, these hearings were highly emotionally charged.

Another common argument was the parent's serious gambling addiction, which often led to unresolved debts. So, no matter how much money is given to the parent, it is always "钱不够用" or "money not enough".

Currently, the Tribunal is only empowered to make orders on maintenance payments and does not have legal standing to address and help resolve some of these underlying, non-monetary issues.

The Bill therefore proposes to give the Tribunal the discretion to make non-monetary orders if it is in the interest of the parent at hand. The Tribunal will be allowed to set conditions on the payment of maintenance and if the parent does not comply with the non-monetary order, then the children will not be obligated to pay maintenance. I fully support this, as it would help to address squarely some of the underlying reasons why certain parent-child relationships had deteriorated in some of these cases.

In conclusion, the MPA is a legal recourse of last resort, designed to ensure that neglected and destitute parents receive some form of maintenance support from their children. As Singapore ages rapidly, we are likely to see more of such cases with issues potentially becoming increasingly complicated. The proposed amendments in this Bill are timely and necessary but would certainly not be the last. We must continue to review the Act periodically to ensure its effectiveness and relevance. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling

5.23 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Deputy Speaker, while we rally as a nation around the very noble intent of "A Singapore Made for Families", it is timely that as a nation, we too, take stock of how our families have been impacted by COVID-19 and to adjust and update the safety nets we have to put in place for our families and the vulnerable through the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Indeed, the spirit of the Act in this amendment Bill is aligned around the clear axis and that is to create clear, protective safety nets for seniors and our vulnerable when their families fail them. I welcome the updates and amendments to the Act, an Act which has served many vulnerable families well for the past three decades. Given the pressures placed on families during COVID-19 and the many parent-children "break-ups" I have witnessed in my constituency, it is timely that we look to expanding the Maintenance Bill to include more downstream safety nets for conciliation and the continued transformation of the Maintenance Act into a platform for trust and reciprocity.

As the Chinese saying goes, "相见容易相处难". It is easy to get along when you are meet each other once in a while, but it can be hard if you have to live together. During COVID-19, I met with quite a number of troubled seniors and their family members who have found it impossible to get along. While each case was unique, the circumstances to how the situation developed to be so ran similar invariable scripts.

Child intends to get married. Child asks Mom and Dad to sell their current home to help fund the child's new marital home. Parents oblige and even gift their life savings to Child. Child promises to look after Parents into their golden years. Fast forward a few years, living together brought much heartache to all parties involved. Parents decide to move out but realise their very limited options given that they have no more savings or assets.

Mdm L is a widow in her 70s and she has been seeing me at Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) asking for a rental apartment from the HDB. She has three married children – a son and two daughters. She stays with her son and his family and has very, very strained relations with her daughter-in-law who suffers from suspected Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

In order to avoid her daughter-in-law for fear of putting her son in a difficult position, Mdm L wakes up at 3.00 am in the morning and is out of the house by 4.00 am. She sits by herself at the Seniors Corner for hours until 8.00 am, after which she leaves for her daughter's home to look after her two grandchildren. She returns home close to 10.00 pm after her daughter-in-law has returned back to her room. Her children have all come to see me and tell me that they are unable to house Mdm L for various reasons. Mdm L is stuck as her life savings – and that of her late husband's – are invested into her son's home and she is unable to afford another home. Rental is her only option, but she does not qualify as her children are home owners and have viable careers. They are technically able to look after their mother. In the meantime, as she awaits her rental appeal, Mdm L's 3.00 am, 4.00 am, 8.00 am life runs like a nightmare Groundhog Day.

Another resident, Mdm C, a widow in her 80s, came home one day to find that her son had changed the locks to their home and her belongings left outside of her home. When she confronted her son about the matter, he said that his new wife could not bear living with her and he would like her out of the home; the home which she and her late husband had bought together for their son after selling their own home.

Having no place to go and no savings, Mdm C sought refuge with her daughter and together, they came to see me at our pro-bono legal clinic service. Despite receiving advice that she should file a maintenance order against her son, Mdm C hesitated on doing so as she felt that she could not bear the shame of putting her son through a tribunal Court. Mdm C's daughter had shared that she was unable to house her mother in the long term and now she is on the waitlist for a HDB rental or long-term lease apartment and is considering putting up in a welfare home in the interim.

Like many before them, for both Mdm L and Mdm C, the 2011 expanded amendment to include a conciliation process with a trained and neutral mediator could have been a useful step in alleviating the vulnerable situation both parties found themselves in. For Mdm L, a conciliation process could have bettered the relationship between her daughter-in-law and herself. For Mdm C, a conciliation process could have circumvented the sting of a Court tribunal settlement.

It is heartening to note that the conciliation process has achieved a 90% resolution rate since its implementation. Given that issues typically centre around finances and housing, could we also consider the following to strengthen the conciliation process?

One, train mediators in financial counselling so that they can equip children on sustainable maintenance payments. Two, create a direct appeal line to the HDB on expedited rental or long-term lease alternatives via the conciliation platform. And three, I note that one of the proposed changes is to allow the Tribunal to introduce non-monetary orders such as requiring parents with addictions to attend counselling. Could we also allow the conciliation platform to introduce such remedies, albeit conciliation not being a tribunal, being short of an order? In the spirit of reciprocity, the introduction of such remedies could also extend to children and whole family facing such issues.

Over the years, the Maintenance Act has changed the trajectory of life for many of our vulnerable parents and with the upcoming amendments, it will seek to protect an even expanded group of vulnerables. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.

5.29 pm

Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the hon Member of Parliament Seah Kian Peng and his team of hon Members of Parliament of the workgroup for the opportunity to join in the debate of the amendment to the Maintenance of Parents Bill.

In Singapore, the family is the bedrock of our society and the basic principle is that parents bring up children in a loving and positive family environment and the children, when they grow up, are responsible for supporting their parents.

This principle stands on the value system of filial piety, which Asian societies hold dear, which Singapore holds dear, and which is universal across multicultural, multi-religious Singapore.

The different faiths practised here promote the same regard that children need to have for their parents through to their old age as long as they both are living. All also teach the same about how parents ought to treat their children and bring them up in a positive, loving family environment, providing and caring for them in their growing years until they are economically independent.

For Singaporeans, filial piety is a value which have seen us grow and prosper in the past six decades since Independence and has been part of the foundation of our families and our society for continued happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Most of us would recall the ritual of handing over a percentage of our pay cheque – later on, GIRO standing order – to our parents as part of our contribution to household expenses and for the maintenance of their well-being when we started our first job. It is a moment of pride, both for the child who has come of age and is independently earning a salary after years of depending on the parents for everything, almost, and for the parents who have arrived at a milestone of parenthood.

This practice is a visible sign of filial piety and of the universal value of "honouring your father and your mother" that is practised across religious beliefs and traditions of the way of life such as Confucianism.

Financial contribution is but one way to practise filial piety. Even more important is the practice of giving time to accompany our parents, to listen to their stories, to share with them our aspirations, to show them care and concern and to journey with them as they age. And if God willing, the parents may live to a ripe old age, blessing the next generations with their wisdom and sage.

But alas, in a world with shifting values, legislation like the Maintenance of Parents Bill had to be put in place to protect the elderly parents from being abandoned by their children. It is equally unfortunate that there are cases where the parents have treated the child or children badly and have abused their children or even abandoned them, leaving the children to grow up with traumatic, deeply wounded experiences in their childhood.

Under such circumstances, requiring the children who have been abused or abandoned to submit to the maintenance orders by the Tribunal must appear to be unjustified.

The amendment accords the Tribunal the discretion to deny the parents of the Maintenance Agreement's eligibility for support if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the parents have abused the children. And I guess that is only fair.

It is very good that the amendment Bill has also set out a framework to step up reconciliation as the first step. It is also important that in the implementation of the maintenance order, the Tribunal can require the beneficiaries, that is, the parents, to undergo counselling if the parents are found to have, for example, gambling habits.

On the balance, the amendment also gives the Government the discretion to directly reach out to children who have the means to provide and care for their parents' basic needs but have abandoned their parents to destitute homes, expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

In speaking with social workers on this issue, I understand from their experiences that the complexity of family relationships is very high. Many of the parents who are destitute or homeless, either on the streets or in shelters, have been living this way by choice and over a long period of time. The reason in almost all cases is that they are estranged from their spouse and the children and more often than not, they are the ones who walked out on the family and abandoned the children. Most of them do not wish to even start the process of conciliation as they do believe that they were the ones at fault and that there is no reason for their children to take them back.

Often, when they go to the social service agencies, they will ask help to get government support for a rental home, shelter, financial aid, but shy away from asking for conciliation. Moreover, they do not wish to bring the Government into their complicated family matters as they do not see how it could do anything to improve the already estranged relationships.

There are, of course, also cases whereby unmarried children, the singles, are left supporting their elderly parents even if other siblings can afford to weigh in. Still, very often, like many of the hon Members who have spoken before me have shared, many of the parents are too shy to put their children in the hands of legislation.

The social workers have seen all these things happen often enough. Still, in Singapore, we have this law to provide the abandoned elderly a last resort for support, fairly and justly.

I do have a few questions for the hon Member Seah Kian Peng and his team.

How many cases have been handled since this Bill passed into law in 1995? Based on the past cases, how many would have been dismissed if the amendments being debated today were taken into consideration? Do other countries have similar legislation?

Finally, my last question of clarification. From the experiences of the social workers, the elderly who need help would probably approach the social service agencies first and the social workers will always propose conciliatory engagement with the family even as they help the elderly with ComCare or Silver Support where appropriate.

Will the amendment processes recommended engage the family service centres to attempt conciliatory efforts first before taking amendment 3, involving the Government directly reaching out to the children of the destitute parents without consent?

I echo Member Carrie Tan's caution to be sensitive in the communications' approach and the language used with the children to ensure that we do not do more harm to already estranged relationships.

Let me conclude my speech with the following reflections.

Firstly, we will do well to remember that each of us is a son or daughter to parents. We did not give ourselves lives but we have received our first great gift of life from our parents. As a Catholic, I have been taught from young, "Children, obey your parents for that is what is expected of you. Honour your father and your mother and it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on the earth."

I am sure that my friends of other faiths have similar teachings. All the major religions and philosophies of life teach more or less the same thing in this regard. Children are to honour their parents, which includes actions of care, assistance and support, especially when parents become elderly and/or are not financially independent.

Likewise, parents must fulfil their responsibilities for having brought their children into this world. Abuse and abandonment are not acceptable acts. It is sad when such cases occur and are symptoms of deeper issues in society that need to be resolved.

One's family is the gift we have been given. We did not choose them. For those who may have been gifted, unfortunately, with a family that has been a "living hell" for them, I can only pray and hope that they may find closure and conciliation. It was quite heartening to hear one of the hon Members share a story whereby one of the siblings forgave the parents who were asking for maintenance.

Finally, as a community, "we must reawaken the collective sense of gratitude, of appreciation, of hospitality, which makes the elderly feel like a living part of the community." This, I quote from Pope Francis' teaching in his book, The Joy of Love. Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.39 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the importance of filial piety is deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness. Throughout the ages, captivating tales of filial devotion have been woven into the tapestry of our cultural heritage. They serve as powerful reminders of the importance of honouring and caring for our parents.

One of the most famous stories about filial piety comes from the classic teachings of Confucianism, known as the Twenty-Four Filial Exemplars.

One of the teachings involved a man named Jiang Ge, who lived during the Eastern Han Dynasty. As a young boy, he lost his father. He was brought up by his mother, whom he became extremely devoted to. During a period of war and chaos, Jiang Ge fled his hometown, carrying his elderly mother on his back all the way. They encountered bandits several times. These thieves intended to kill them. But upon witnessing Jiang Ge's filial piety, the bandits could not bear to harm the mother and son, and even pointed out a safe route to him.

Jiang Ge and his mother eventually found safe refuge and he worked hard and lived simply. This was to ensure that his mother had everything she needed until the end of her days.

Jiang Ge's story is a powerful example of filial piety, where a son's unwavering commitment to his mother's wellbeing in the face of adversity is recognised and honoured, even by crooks. It also epitomises the very essence of filial piety – the importance of caring for and respecting our parents, regardless of the challenges we may encounter.

It mirrors the sacrifices that parents make to raise their children. It illustrates the reciprocity inherent in the bond between parents and offspring. This captivating story, much like others within the Twenty-Four Filial Exemplars, vividly illustrates the ideal relationship between parents and children.

This Bill that we are discussing today ultimately revolves around this concept of filial piety. However, life is often not so simple. Families face a myriad of unique issues, ranging from instances of parental abuse and neglect to cases where the children themselves endure these hardships inflicted on them by their own parents.

It is precisely because of these complexities and the need to address such diverse situations that we find ourselves gathered here today.

I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, my first clarification is regarding clause 4 of the Bill. It is important to consider that many of these cases date back to a time when the adult children were themselves young and vulnerable. It was uncommon for children of that age to speak out or report their parents' actions.

In the past, conflicts within families were typically treated as private affairs. These were often resolved or not talked about beyond the household without formal reports.

As a result, access to family counselling was limited. The idea of foster care or shelters then was also felt to be primarily catered to children who had lost their parents. It is only in recent years where there are more government initiatives to raise awareness that domestic abuse has begun to be taken more seriously.

Considering these circumstances, it raises the question of what additional services or processes are available to assist these individuals in providing evidence of such neglect or abuse. Without a Police or social welfare report, how else can they substantiate claims of ill treatment?

Furthermore, it is critical that we clarify what constitutes sufficiently serious abuse to exempt an individual from the responsibilities outlined in this Bill. For instance, let us consider a situation where a child's basic needs were met but he endured frequent verbal abuse or witnessed his mother being subjected to abuse due to their father's infidelity, gambling addiction or alcoholism. These circumstances had a profound impact on his upbringing and mental well-being. In response to this toxic environment, the child made the difficult decision to estrange himself from his family as soon as he was financially capable. Should this child be expected to resume his responsibility to financially support his parents?

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, clause 4 raises important questions regarding the circumstances that led to the parents' destitution. What if the parents' financial hardship is a result of their own financial mismanagement or previous instances of family abuse? Additionally, how many of these destitute parents have willingly chosen this path despite having the means to provide a roof over their own heads?

Also, in doing so, are we inadvertently perpetuating the notion of children being seen as a retirement plan, a concept that is progressively being questioned by youths today? Should individuals who have suffered severe abuse at the hands of their parents, to the point where attending mandatory conciliatory sessions would trigger them and reopen old wounds, be forced to participate in these sessions?

Third, we must consider how the Tribunal will determine a reasonable amount to support these parents, particularly to prevent any potentially excessive claims. This becomes even more significant when considering the sandwich class, who may already face challenges in raising their own children. It is important to strike a balance that ensures adequate support for the parents while avoiding any abuse of the system.

Finally, will statistics be shared to shed light on the number of instances in which the law has been unfairly used against children? Sharing such data can help identify any patterns or discrepancies, enabling us to make informed decisions and address any issues that may arise.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the story of Jiāng Gé that I shared earlier is not unique. The virtue of honouring parents stands as a golden rule that has been ingrained in various religions and cultures throughout history. It is a universal teaching.

Nevertheless, we have to recognise that complex dynamics interplay within families. The reality is that no two families are the same and perfection is often elusive. Each family faces its own unique set of challenges and problems.

During my interactions with residents at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) in Yio Chu Kang, I have witnessed numerous cases typifying these complex dynamics. Sibling rivalries and disparities in wealth between the children's families often place a significant strain on the division of caregiving responsibilities for their parents. It is not uncommon for unmarried children to shoulder the primary burden of caregiving for aged parents, leading to feelings of resentment and imbalance. Furthermore, the introduction of spouses into the equation further complicates matters. Hence, the notion of "perfect families" where the responsibility of supporting aged parents is equitably distributed is a rarity.

This legislation may be perceived as an unfortunate necessity, acknowledging the sad reality that extreme cases of elder neglect or abuse do exist in Singapore. In such distressing cases, the state needs to provide avenues for justice for parents who have selflessly devoted themselves to raising their children. Similarly, the state also has the responsibility to provide justice for the individuals who have suffered at the hands of their parents, which some of the amendments in this Bill addressed. However, it is important to recognise that this Bill does not address the underlying issue at its core, the weakening family ties and the diminished perception amongst children regarding the importance of reciprocating their parents' love and care.

How then do we tackle this issue?

One key focus area must be the reinforcement of education from an early age to honour parents and for parents to understand that love and respect are bi-directional. Responsible parenting plays a significant role in shaping children into model citizens. Parents should actively engage with their children, spend quality time with them and provide emotional support. They should be good role models by treating their own parents and their children's grandparents with love and respect. By strengthening the bonds between parents and children, we can build a foundation of trust and love within families. In doing so, we reduce the likelihood of strained relationships that necessitate legal intervention in the likes of the Maintenance of Parents Act.

When love becomes the driving force within families, familial duty comes naturally. This is an intrinsic expression of affection and care, rather than being perceived as a burden or legal obligation. This is how we support families in Singapore, by building a resilient society that values family well-being and supports caregiving. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Fahmi bin Aliman.

5.49 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am privileged to be part of this Workgroup led by the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng to address the important matter of the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA).

The MPA, which governs the financial support and maintenance of elderly parents, warrants our attention due to its profound implications on society.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the MPA is a significant legislative framework that addresses the financial support and maintenance of elderly parents in Singapore. Under the MPA, children who are capable of providing support but neglect their duty to do so can be legally obligated to provide financial maintenance to their parents.

In 2022, a total of 110 cases were submitted to the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents (CMP). This figure has dropped from 303 cases in 2012, the highest level over the past decade. Our elderly also receives more support from the Government through schemes, such as the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation packages, which, among other things, offer additional subsidies for healthcare.

The MPA recognises the importance of upholding the values of filial piety and social responsibility, which are deeply rooted in the fabric of our society. It serves as a means to safeguard the well-being and dignity of elderly parents who may be financially dependent or vulnerable. By providing a legal mechanism, the MPA aims to ensure that elderly parents receive the necessary support from their children to meet their basic needs and maintain a reasonable standard of living.

In a nutshell, the MPA stands as a legislative pillar, reflecting the core values of our society. It serves as a poignant reminder of our responsibility that adult children bear towards their ageing parents. It encapsulates the cherished belief that filial sons and daughters should provide unwavering care and support during their parents' golden years.

Amidst the ever-evolving nature of our society, we must not allow ourselves to lose sight of the intrinsic values of respect, love and care that permeate our cultural fabric. It is incumbent upon us to foster an environment that encourages the nurturing of these values within our communities. By doing so, we empower Singaporeans, particularly the Malay/Muslim community, to preserve the sacred tenets of filial piety while adapting to the demands of contemporary life.

Education and awareness programmes must take centrestage, enlightening individuals about the fundamental significance of fulfilling their duties towards their parents. These initiatives should delve beyond mere financial obligations and focus on the emotional and psychological aspects of caregiving. By fostering understanding and empathy within families, we can facilitate meaningful conversations that bridge generational gaps and strengthen familial bonds. Furthermore, we can harness the power of community resources, such as counselling services and support networks, to assist individuals facing financial constraints while ensuring their parents' well-being. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Addressing destitution as a "last resort" option. Nonetheless, as we navigate the complexities of caregiving and familial responsibilities, we must acknowledge that exceptional circumstances may arise, leaving families in dire straits. These are instances where parents, through no fault of their own, find themselves destitute and without adequate support. It is during these moments of profound vulnerability that we, as a compassionate society, must step forward and consider this "last resort".

This safety net, designed as a compassionate response, aims to ensure that the basic needs of these vulnerable parents are met. It is essential that we approach this option with utmost sensitivity, empathy and an unwavering commitment to maintaining the dignity of those in need. Collaborative efforts between Government agencies, social service organisations and community leaders are crucial to establishing a robust support system that offers financial assistance, housing, healthcare and social services for destitute parents.

Moreover, as we explore this "last resort" option, we must also emphasise the importance of preventative measures. By investing in early intervention programs, financial literacy initiatives and comprehensive social support networks, we can empower families to overcome potential challenges before they reach a critical point. These proactive measures can help alleviate the risk of destitution and ensure that families have the necessary resources and knowledge to fulfil their filial duties without resorting to extreme measures.

Furthermore, fostering a culture of compassion and understanding within our communities is essential. We must encourage open conversations and eliminate the stigma surrounding financial difficulties and caregiving challenges. By providing a supportive environment, we can create avenues for collaboration, shared experiences and the exchange of knowledge and resources. Together, we can collectively work towards alleviating the burdens faced by families and ensure that destitution remains an absolute last resort.

In conclusion, while the Maintenance of Parents Act serves as a guiding principle in reinforcing filial responsibilities, we must recognise that destitution can present unique challenges that require our attention.

By implementing a compassionate "last resort" option and investing in preventative measures, we demonstrate our commitment to upholding our cultural values while safeguarding the well-being of vulnerable parents. Let us continue to foster a society where no parent is left behind, where the bonds of family are cherished, and where compassion and empathy prevail. Verily, paradise lies beneath the feet of mothers.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

5.56 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken earnestly on this Bill, reflecting on the importance they place on this social issue.

Let me begin with the family. Singapore thrives when families are strong. With strong families, many societal challenges we face today will become much more manageable. Today, strong values hold us together as a family, as a society. Upholding these values are important as they underpin our way of thinking and our way of life.

From MSF's 2019 Survey on the Social Attitudes of Singaporeans, 93% of elderly respondents stated that they have a close-knit family and 96% aged between 15 and 64 agreed that it is their duty to take care of their parents, regardless of their qualities or faults.

Similarly, from HDB's Sample Household 2018 survey, 71% of elderly aged 65 and above were able to rely on their married children for physical support, 95% for emotional support and 90% for financial support in times of need. Likewise, for their unmarried children, 82% were able to rely on them for physical support, 91% for emotional support and 83% for financial support in times of need.

So, clearly, Singaporeans continue to hold the family as a fundamental bulwark of our society – family members caring for and supporting one another. This is the hallmark of Singapore society. It makes us different and it helps us think beyond ourselves. Around the world, there are other models. Some societies regard the individual as supreme and triumphs over the family. To be sure, this affirms the dignity of every person and allows individual potential and special talents to flourish. But such an individual is likely to also attribute his achievements to his own capability and may not stop to look at his family, his community and society which provided the conditions for his success. As each generation feels it had made it solely on its own steam, mutual care and support across generations weaken. In Singapore's case, however, we believe that strong families empower its individual members to thrive and to flourish, which is why strong families make for a resilient Singapore society.

And this will be increasingly crucial as Singapore ages. By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be 65 and older. An estimated 83,000 seniors will live alone and some 100,000 seniors will need help with at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL).

Families are, therefore, crucial as the first line of care and support, and taking care of our parents must continue to be the norm. The MPA reflects the accepted values of most Singaporeans and upholds what we value as a society. Recent ForwardSG engagements and these MPA amendments have affirmed that Singaporeans today continue to hold strongly to the principles of "self-reliance" and "family as the first line of support".

I agree with Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Janet Ang, along with Members of the Workgroup, on the need for more upstream efforts. We are strengthening the Families for Life movement, which aims to inculcate family values, working with schools and community partners, as well as to promote family bonding, including across generations. Values education starts at home and I hope parents will also role model the type of families that we want our next generations to have.

That said, legislation is still important and relevant. The MPA is meant to be applied for a small minority of children who neglect their responsibility when their parents cannot support themselves adequately, and they have the means to help. In 2022, slightly over 100 elderly parents sought a maintenance order under the MPA. Most of them managed to resolve their maintenance disputes with their children at conciliation. Only a very small number proceeded to bring their dispute to the Tribunal. Yet, one is one too many, and there is room for improvement.

Mr Don Wee raised a point on the sharing of responsibility so that no child is overwhelmed by the financial obligation of supporting his parents alone. For the elderly and families who do not have enough financial resources, the community and the state will step up to play a bigger role. We are invested in supporting and strengthening families and will continue to help lower-income elderly who do not have family support, or whose children lack the means to support them. This includes support schemes such as: (a) the Pioneer Generation Package, which provides healthcare benefits for life for all Singapore Citizens born before 1950; (b) the Silver Support Scheme, which provides quarterly cash supplements to Singaporeans who had low incomes throughout life and who have little or no family support in old age; (c) ComCare, which supports lower-income households with their basic living needs; (d) the Community Network for Seniors, which involves Government agencies and community partners teaming up to reach out to seniors, especially those who are lower-income or living alone, to help them stay active, socially engaged and connected to support and health services; as well as (e) the Senior Mobility and Enabling Fund, which provides subsidies for assistive devices, transport and home healthcare items for seniors to age in place within the community.

At the same time, there is support for families to care for their elderly members. As part of Singapore Made for Families, there will be more caregiver support, such as respite services and enhanced Home Caregiving Grant, as well as counselling and mediation support.

MSF supports the thrust of the amendments raised by the Workgroup, which seeks to enhance the powers of the Tribunal and the Commissioner in ensuring neglected elderly parents are adequately supported. At the same time, safeguards in the MPA will be strengthened to prevent its misuse by those who did not fulfil their parental duties. The amendments are very much in line with the spirit and intent of the MPA and build upon previous work to make the legislation even more fit for its purpose.

At this juncture, I wish to give a more detailed response to some of the key amendments.

First, on the power of the Commissioner concerning destitute parents. The MPA provides a last resort to compel maintenance from children who neglect their duty towards their elderly parents. But as the Workgroup rightly pointed out, it is of no use if the parent refuses to initiate the process. We know of a few destitute parents residing in state-funded welfare homes who had children they could have relied on in their old age. But the children exploited their parents' reluctance to file a claim and shunned their responsibility when they clearly have the means to maintain their parents. The many attempts to persuade the children were futile. Hands were tied and nothing else could be done to take them to task.

I agree that in such glaring cases, the Commissioner should be allowed to act without needing the parent to initiate the process. This will plug the gap.

Mr Yip Hon Weng has asked how many destitute parents have willingly chosen this path despite having the means to provide a roof over their own heads. To clarify, people who have the means to provide a roof over their heads would not meet the criteria for being destitute under the Destitute Persons Act. Only those who are unable to support themselves and lack family support can be admitted into welfare homes.

Some may think this is an attempt to transfer the burden of caring for our needy elderly from the state onto the children. This is not the case. The Workgroup has emphasised that the amendment is intended for the Commissioner to intervene only as a last resort, after the welfare home has exhausted all other options and only if the Commissioner reasonably believes that the parent has no records of abandonment, abuse or neglect, and that the children can afford the maintenance.

So, only a small number would meet the threshold for intervention. For the few that do, it is important that the Commissioner can call the children down for conciliation and discuss their parent's care.

My next point is on the making of non-monetary directions. Our families have remained strong, but they are also getting smaller and seeing their resources stretched with fewer working members supporting the young and the old.

For cases before the Tribunal, often the underlying cause of maintenance disputes is strained relationships. This amendment empowers the Tribunal to make non-monetary directions, such as imposing counselling orders to address behavioural or emotional issues that strain family relationships, and help disputing family members take steps to repair their relationships.

Gambling addiction is another reason cited by the children refusing to maintain their parent. To resolve maintenance disputes in such cases, we need to address this root cause.

My Ministry works with the National Council on Problem Gambling to adopt a multi-pronged approach in tackling problem gambling. Specifically, we have implemented preventive measures through public education and to encourage problem gamblers to seek help. We also have social safeguards, such as "the exclusion and visit limit" regime, to mitigate the problem. Finally, we have remedial measures through help services, such as counselling and treatment, for problem gamblers and their families.

The Workgroup's amendment here further complements the Council's work in nudging problem gamblers to seek help. With this, the Tribunal may order that maintenance payments are conditional on the parent attending, for example, counselling for gambling addiction.

Lastly, the Workgroup also proposes to protect survivors of abuse from being put through unnecessary distress and painful memories, often triggered when they had to face their parent who abused them.

We have just had an extensive debate on the Family Violence Amendment Bill. That Bill touched on how survivors are empowered to better protect themselves, the Government's ability to intervene in family violence cases, and empowering the Court to make additional rehabilitative orders, raise penalties and strengthen enforcement against breaches. This Bill, on the other hand, deals with the long-lasting effects of childhood abuse, which can linger on for many years.

Perpetrators can cause direct harm to their family members through physical or emotional abuse and harassment, but they can also cause indirect harm by using institutions and legal processes.

Effects of childhood abuse can be long-lasting, and research has shown that the effects of exposure to reminders of the past abuse can sometimes be as bad as when it first happened. Let me cite a case that my Ministry handled, of a survivor in her 20s. This young woman experienced emotional and physical abuse by her mother and stepfather since she was very young. She was told that she was useless and had things – physical objects – thrown at her. When she was not even 10 years old, her stepfather started to sexually abuse her, and MSF was alerted of her case a few years later. After receiving therapy, I am glad to note that she was able to complete her Polytechnic education and find employment in life. However, the long-term effects of abuse are still manifest in her daily life, such as her fear of loud noises, low self-esteem and, occasionally, self-harm and suicidal tendencies. Till today, communication with her mother often evokes strong reactions, such as feelings of fear and anxiety.

For families and individuals who have experienced abuse or violence, my Ministry will continue to strengthen protection and provide support for these survivors. Where there are records, these survivors will no longer be retraumatised by their perpetrator through the MPA. This amendment thus builds on our efforts in this area.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, Singapore's system of social security is based on self-reliance, strong families and strong communities, with the Government as the final safety net.

Yes, parents must exercise individual responsibility. But where that is not enough, the family stands as a key pillar of support. On that note, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I begin my closing address, could I request your permission to allow a key member of my Workgroup, hon Member, Mr Murali Pillai, to address Mr Louis Ng's queries, and then I will come back to address the rest?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Okay, I will allow it. But Mr Murali, remember clarifications only.

6.12 pm

Mr Murali Pillai: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence. Maybe before I start my speech, I just want to respond very quickly —

Mdm Deputy Speaker: No speech. Just clarifications, please.

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, certainly.

In relation to what Mr Louis Ng said about his case theory – I had read his speech which he left on his chair while he was away – I think Mr Ng may have overrated my ability to speedread his speech and write a 12-page speech which I delivered just moments ago. But I will take some credit for being prescient enough to have noted some of the points that he wanted to raise in his speech.

The hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, argued for the child to participate in the proceedings initiated by the parents who have had records of abandonment, neglect or abuse (ANA), to get permission to apply for maintenance from their children. He pointed out that the child may wish to have the opportunity to decide whether or not to participate in the application for permission.

He also wondered how the Tribunal would be able to determine if there is a good arguable case to grant permission without the child's involvement since he or she would have been a victim of the parents' abandonment, neglect or abuse.

He further postulated that it may be traumatic for a child who was not involved in the permission application to be, quoting his words, "suddenly told that they face a maintenance application", as the Commissioner or Tribunal found that there was no abandonment, neglect or abuse, without hearing the child.

In response to the hon Member, it may be useful to remind ourselves about the starting point today under the Act.

Under the Act today, where a parent commences an application against his child for maintenance, the child is drawn in immediately. There is no prior screening conducted against the parent to establish if he had a record of abandonment, neglect or abuse of the child. The child will have to undergo a compulsory conciliation process before the matter heads to the Tribunal. The conciliation process alone can take – off the top of my head – about six months. Should the case not settle at conciliation, it is then referred to the Tribunal.

At the hearing before the Tribunal, the child may give evidence of his or her parent's abandonment, neglect or abuse (ANA), which the Tribunal is bound to consider before making a decision on whether it is just and equitable to order that the child pays maintenance to the parent.

What is proposed here is that where there is objective evidence in form of official records of ANA, then the parent cannot commence action against the child unless he gets permission of the Tribunal. The policy objective here is to prevent the child from being re-traumatised in situations where it is plain and obvious that parent would not be granted an order of maintenance on just and equitable grounds because of his record of ANA.

It is worth emphasising that in the focus group discussions that were organised, almost all participants who came from troubled family backgrounds were of the view that it would be better for them not to be told of their parents' application for permission at this stage. The professionals who deal with family violence cases also told us that children in such circumstances would probably suffer from significant emotional pain triggered by past events involving their parents. It is a point that was echoed by several Members who spoke in favour of this amendments just now.

Where the parent is established to have an official record of ANA, it is not as crucial to have the child's involvement to enable the Tribunal to make a decision whether permission ought to be given.

The hon Member Mr Ng asked what is required evidentially to show a "good arguable case". I explained in my earlier speech that the standard of proof that the parent has to discharge is not low. It is higher than a "prima facie" case but lower than a case made out on a balance of probabilities.

I wish to also add that, ordinarily, the records should speak for themselves. Contrary to what the hon Member suggested, there should not be too much subjectivity involved when it comes to perusing and understanding the contents of the records.

Furthermore, the Tribunal consists of persons with a wealth of experience. The President and Deputy President of the Tribunal, who heads each Tribunal, have the qualifications of a District Judge. The Tribunal is well equipped to make evidential assessments and determine in each case whether the parent has discharged his burden.

The hon Member may then ask why give the parent who has an official record of ANA the right to ask for permission to apply for maintenance from his child. The reason is really to ensure fairness and justice for the parent. He should, for example, be allowed to argue that the document providing details of his case does not objectively suggest that he has a record of ANA or that it does not present a full and accurate picture.

The hon Member invited me to provide guides, some guidance to the Tribunal on how it should proceed with its duties in assessing whether or not to grant permission.

Respectfully, I would demur. I mentioned that the Tribunal consists of experienced people who are more than qualified to make determinations without such assistance. In fact, the policy objective is quite the opposite. To give the Tribunal wide latitude to determine what is just and equitable having regard to the circumstances of the case.

As was mentioned during my speech earlier, there is one narrow exception to the rule of not involving the child – where the Commissioner learns about the parent having a record of ANA during conciliation proceedings with the child. Here the issue of wanting to prevent the child from re-traumatisation would be moot because he was already being put on notice. It is specifically provided in the Bill that the child in these circumstances would have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings to get permission —

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali, can you keep it brief, please.

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes. Where the Tribunal grants permission, or where there is no official record of parents' ANA, then the process that will follow is, in essence, equivalent of the current system.

I would, therefore, not characterise the proposal in the Bill to provide for a sieving mechanism that I described as making it more traumatising for the child as suggested by the hon Member.

It is noteworthy that, by this point, the parents with official records of ANA would have been excluded unless they obtain permission from the Tribunal. We would have succeeded in protecting the children of these parents from being re-traumatised.

The hon Member asked if the child may challenge the Tribunal's decision to grant the parent permission to proceed with the application to apply for maintenance. The short answer is no. By the time the permission is granted to the parent to bring a maintenance application against his child, the sieving process would have ended. The child's rights as they exist under the Act today are preserved. As is provided for in the current system, he or she will be able to adduce evidence of the parents’ ANA of him or her in opposition to the parent's application for maintenance. The Tribunal's decision to grant the parent permission to apply for maintenance does not impact on the ability of the child to oppose the maintenance application.

Finally, the hon Member raised issues pertaining to a possible underreporting of abuse cases in around 2015. He asked what recourse does a child who is affected by this have.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments do not take away from the child the ability to lead evidence on the parents' ANA independent of any records of ANA that the parent may have. The Tribunal will be able to accord appropriate weight to such evidence and decide in accordance with what is just and equitable in the circumstances.

That is all, Mdm Deputy Speaker. And I apologise if I almost outstayed your welcome.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Yes, you did. Mr Seah Kian Peng.

6.20 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. My sincere thanks to all who have spoken. At this point, a lot of key comments and questions have been dealt with and in these closing remarks, I hope to reiterate why the proposed amendments are needed.

But first, let me thank my workgroup members comprising Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Denise Phua, Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Fahmi Aliman and Mr Melvin Yong. All of them have played an important part in putting together this Bill. We did not initially agree on everything, and many of the issues discussed today had also been debated internally.

I also want to thank all of them for speaking in this debate today to further explain the different perspectives, articulate their own views and how we eventually landed on these recommendations in this amendment Bill.

There were also many others who journeyed with us over the last one-and-a-half years as we deliberated, as we listened in to the focus groups, as we analysed the surveys, as we talked to various stakeholders – and the list goes on. This piece of legislative work is very much a result of their efforts for which I am eternally grateful to all of them.

I also wish to thank Mr Murali Pillai for helping me address some of the queries which Member Mr Louis Ng has raised but I do agree it was a bit long [Laughter.]. And to also Member Ms Tin Pei Ling for spearheading the workgroup's public outreach and feedback process.

The policies behind the Bill have gone through rounds of revision, containing the collective wisdom of all Singaporeans and professionals who had given us their views. Indeed, those in Parliament who have spoken in this debate, they have all unanimously supported the amendment Bill. I want to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua, for his support and for his endorsement of our proposals too.

If the Bill is passed today, the baton will now be handed over to MSF to ensure that the amendments are implemented effectively.

Let me quickly address some specific queries which Members have raised.

Mr Don Wee asked what if the parent has a few children but only seeks support from particular ones. To be sure, any parent who makes a maintenance application can choose which child or children he wishes to file the application against. Yet, if I am one of the children at the receiving end of a maintenance claim, the MPA allows me to join my siblings to the application. After doing so, those siblings whom I have joined will be co-respondents, and the Tribunal may order any or all of them to contribute maintenance, depending on the facts of the case.

This was built into the Bill right at the beginning of the history of the MPA by then Assoc Prof Walter Woon, who saw that it was not fair that only one child should bear the burden, to the exclusion of others.

Mr Don Wee also asked what happens if the parent supported the child for some years but later moved out of the child's life. For such a case, if there are official records of abandonment, abuse or neglect, then the parent will have to first obtain the leave of the Tribunal if he wants to proceed with his claim. At the leave hearing, the Tribunal will consider the specific facts and the degree of the abandonment, abuse or neglect. If the parent is able to show a good reason why he is nevertheless still deserving of maintenance, the Tribunal may allow him to proceed if it is just and equitable. And if leave is granted and a maintenance order is eventually made, the quantum will be set at a just amount, taking into account the above factors.

Ms Janet Ang also asked whether other countries have similar legislation. Actually, maintenance of parents legislation is not unique to Singapore. Not many countries but some of the countries that have it include India, Israel and France.

Let me move next to deal with the question on why it is timely for this review to be done and these amendments made.

The issue of destitute parents with children who have means, needs addressing. We have heard the view that children do not owe anything to their parents since they did not ask to be born. We need to reiterate clearly what we as a society expect of children, regardless of whether the parents have the desire to claim against their children or not.

We have specifically scoped this amendment to allow the Commissioner to initiate conciliation for the children whose parents are in welfare homes or are undergoing assessment for admission. These are the cases where the abandonment is the most egregious. These parents are left without a roof over their heads and without means of sustenance. And meanwhile, the children remain uncontactable.

It is time for such children to be called upon to fulfil their obligations.

Mr Yip Hon Weng was concerned about calling in the children for conciliation when the parents became destitute on account of their own financial mismanagement, or when they previously abused their children. Likewise, Ms Janet Ang observed that for many destitute parents, it is not the children who have abandoned their parent, but the parent who first walked out of the family.

I would like to assure the Members that if the Commissioner has any reason – any reason – to believe that there was abandonment, abuse or neglect on the part of the parent, he will not conduct conciliation. This does indeed mean that for a good many destitute parents, this amendment will not apply to them. Like the MPA as a whole, it is only for those few cases where it is the children, holding on to the mindset that they owe nothing to those who have tirelessly brought them up and blatantly abandon their parent.

But cases where the parent had cared for the child and later become destitute due to financial mismanagement, they are different. The parent may have made financial mistakes in the past, but if there was genuine care for the child, then my view is that the child should provide at least some support and there should not be total abandonment of his or her parent.

This amendment will not compel the child to give any particular sum of money. It only allows the Commissioner to call the child in so that a discussion can take place. I think that is reasonable and appropriate. Through such discussion, it could even lead to an improvement in ties between child and parent – and that is something that I hope will, in some cases, happen.

Ms Janet Ang also asked if cases can be initiated by social workers. The MPA does allow applications to be made on the parent's behalf by persons who have the parent's authorisation. This is for cases where the parent is unable to make his own application due to an infirmity.

Ms Ang also asked if we would consider conciliatory efforts by social service agencies, before the Commissioner reaches out to the children of destitute parents. This is indeed what our workgroup has recommended. The Commissioner will only act as a last resort, when the attempts of the welfare homes and social workers to reach out to children do not succeed, or when they cannot be located or contacted. It is in such cases that the Commissioner's powers of identifying and locating the children for the purposes of conciliation are helpful, and the Commissioner can then call them in to hear their side of the story. Indeed, if the concern is on conciliatory efforts, there is no better place for this than in the Commissioner's office, given its long history and good track record in terms of resolution rates.

The amendments to prevent the misuse of the Act are certainly timely.

Many of those who responded to our public consultation paper felt that it was about time this issue was looked into, to help what one respondent described as the "broken children trapped within an adult body". Their only qualm was that it would not be enough, since only those with official records of abandonment, abuse or neglect will benefit from this amendment. This is echoed by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng in the House today.

I want to assure Members that both the Commissioner and Tribunal are mindful of unreported cases and they will adopt a trauma-informed approach in sensitively supporting them through the whole process. Where appropriate and with consent, they are also assisted by referrals to help services and counselling so that they can find healing.

From my own observation of Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal will hear all parties and consider all circumstances of the case, including the form and extent of abuse or neglect, to determine whether it will be just and equitable for the child to maintain the parent.

Evidence that can be furnished to the Tribunal is not limited to official records. It can also consist of oral or written recollection of the abuse incidents from the viewpoint of the child. As I had mentioned before, one in three cases at the Tribunal involve such accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect. The majority were dismissed.

But the fact remains that where there are no official records, the abuse would be unknown to the Tribunal until it is surfaced by the child. In such instances, the child would have to be involved in the hearing. And our proposed process to deal with the claim without involving the child will not apply.

So, we cannot do away with this requirement of official records. But as society becomes more aware of family violence and more willing to report it, this may benefit more people.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the statistics on the number of instances the law has been unfairly used against the children. About one in three cases at the Tribunal involve accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect. The majority were dismissed.

Ms Janet Ang asked about the number of cases that have come under the Act since it was first passed. There have been around 2,500 cases under the MPA since 1996. She also asked about the number of cases that will come under the new amendment and whether these would be dismissed if the amendments were in force. We do expect that a sizable proportion of cases will not have official records of abuse, neglect or abandonment but many of them would likely be dismissed subsequently by the Tribunal when it hears the parties. But for the few that do, it certainly makes a big difference for them.

Some of the amendments are of the kind that also arise from experience.

The Act, when it was first passed, was to solve the practical problem of maintenance for needy elderly parents. That is very much still the core of the Act today, but time and experience have revealed how often this practical problem cannot be resolved in isolation from other issues in the family relationship.

The power to make non-monetary directions is new, but it is one that will be given to a Tribunal that has a long history and experience with adjudicating maintenance cases and well-developed institutional practices. It is a Tribunal that knows how to use this legislative tool to make families better off.

With regards to Ms Yeo Wan Ling's query if non-monetary directions could in some sense be introduced at the conciliation stage, the answer is, of course. As noted by Ms Yeo herself, the Commissioner is not able to issue orders to the parties as this lies with the Tribunal. However, the Commissioner can and does refer the parties for counselling and other social services, with their consent.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude.

The Maintenance of Parents Act is an Act that is enacted for the small category of needy and neglected parents, but in its effect, it touches everyone one way or another because we are the children of parents and many of us are parents ourselves.

As mentioned by Ms Carrie Tan, many today do not wish to burden their children and will not come to them for help. Yet, where possible, it is better for the parent to teach their child from young to have a caring heart for the family and by extension, for the wider community.

To this end, I am in full agreement with the Members who have raised the key focal area of education, like Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng. As Mr Yip mentioned, this issue is not addressed by this Bill or the MPA. Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters.

This is, of course, not just for the sake of the parent, but it will help the child to grow and to walk an honourable path in the community, being generous to others, instead of in isolation or individualism. This is the hallmark of a truly great society, one which we can all be proud of as we also continue to refresh and to strengthen our social compact. With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you. [Applause.]

6.45 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Seah Kian Peng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.