TEXT B
Family Matters This month
Singapore passed a bill that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to
support one’ s parents. Called the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it received the
backing of the Singapore Government. That does not mean it hash’
t generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament Opposed the measure as
un - Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem of the elderly poor believed it
a disproportionate response. Still others believe it will subvert relations
within the family; cynics dubbed it the "Sue Your Son" law.
Those who say that the bill does not promote filial responsibility, of
course, are right. It has nothing to do with filial responsibility. It kicks in
where filial responsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial
responsibility any more than it can legislate love. All the law can do is to
provide a safety net where this morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs
this bill not to replace morality, but to provide incentives to shore it
up. Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the
problems of an increasing proportion of people over 60 years of age. Demography
is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the turn
of the century, that figure will grow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is
projected to be 26%. The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of
economically active people to economically inactive people will
decline. But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism
will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means
to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety
net. Traditionally, a person’ s insurance against poverty in his
old age was his family. This is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely
Asian. Care and support for one’ s parents is a universal value shared by all
civilized societies. The problem in Singapore is that the moral
obligation to look after one’ s parents is unenforceable. A father can be
compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support
his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support
his or her parents. In 1989, an Advisory Council was set up to
took into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of
complacency that 95% of those who did not have their own income were receiving
cash contributions from relations. But what of the 5 % who arch’ t getting
relatives’ support They have several options: (a) get a job and work until they
die; (b) apply for public assistance (you have to be destitute to apply); or (c)
starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this
5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as society ages The
Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues
that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in
other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply to the
court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have the
discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust. Those who
deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits mixes the
point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court, If’ it
does indeed become law, the bill’ s effect would be far more subtle.
First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual’ s -- not
society’ s -- responsibility to look ’after his parents. Singapore is still
conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It rein-
forces the traditional values and it doesn’ t hurt a society now and then to
remind itself of its core values. Second, and more important, it
will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilities think twice.
Until now, if a person asked family elders, clergymen or the Ministry of
Community Development to help get financial support from his children, the most
they could do was to mediate. But mediators have no teeth, and a child could
simply ignore their pleas. But to be sued by one’ s parents
would be a massive loss of face. It would be a public disgrace. Few people would
be so thick - skinned as to say, "Sue and be damned". The hand of the
conciliator would be immeasurably strengthened. It is far more likely that some
sort of amicable settlement would be reached if the recalcitrant son or daughter
knows that the alternative is a public trial. It would be nice
to think that Singapore doesn’ t need this kind of law. But that belief ignores
the clear demographic trends and the effect of affluence itself on traditional
bonds. Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves most
successful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the first
place. At the end of the passage, the author seems to imply that success of the Bill depends upon ______.