Kanwaljit Soin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give a response to an exclusion in clause 2 (b) which amends section 10 to deem any maintenance payment received by a parent or a child under a maintenance order not to be income subject to tax.”
“Clarification, Sir. I realise that. But I would like to know what is the policy, what is the thinking, that you can allow a parent who gets maintenance not to have to pay income tax. A parent is an adult. But you do not give the same privilege or right, I would say, to a wife who gets a maintenance ordered by the court.”
“My point is no income tax is charged for maintenance payments received by parents. That is what the Minister said about clause 2. But yet when wives receive maintenance from their husbands, those maintenance payments are subject to income tax. Why is there a discrepancy?”
“So I would like to ask what is the Minister's thinking. Why is it that the maintenance of a parent is not considered income, because it is for the subsistence of the parent, while the maintenance for a wife which is for her subsistence is considered as income?”
“If the letter of authority is not stampable, then this may become a recourse of getting around the stamp duty and income tax rules affecting sub-sales. Another issue to be considered is the timing of the payment of stamp duty. With the amendment, this has to be paid at the time of the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.”
“Would the Minister have, in hand, figures to show how many Singaporeans who go abroad to study medicine come back to do their housemanship in Singapore for the last three years? Dr Aline Wong: I do not have the figures on Singaporeans who come back to do housemanship for the last three years.”
The complete record
Every one of 549 lines we hold for Kanwaljit Soin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“What is the need to allow topless shows even under controlled conditions? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we cannot go overboard in censoring such performances. We have to maintain a balance. The alternative would be to ban all such shows. But I think censorship in Singapore on the whole is generally loosening up. We allow this loosening up but subject to strict controls.”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that topless shows are allowed in Singapore? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am certainly aware of that, and I think I should be aware of that. Topless floor shows are generally not allowed except in a few well-established theatre restaurants-cum-night clubs. For example, at the moment, there are four such establishments which are allowed to have topless shows. Such shows are strictly controlled and the establishments concerned have to comply with very strict conditions. These include barring persons below 18 years of age from seeing the show. These shows are subject to preview by the police before a licence is issued.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that some students are being expelled for not doing well in school and not for disciplinary reasons? If he is, does he condone expulsion on those grounds?”
“Sir, with the increase in the income ceiling, there is going to be a greater demand. Would the Minister consider increasing the supply, otherwise the waiting periods are going to be longer?”
“May I make a clarification, please, Sir? I was just quoting the Prime Minister, Sir, when he spoke on 23rd March 1989 when he said that there was a provision to get people as Ministers. So I said, with that provision, why does he use that as a rationale for increasing the Ministers' pay altogether? I was not just suggesting nominated Ministers. I was just quoting what he said in March 1989 when he suggested that this make-up pay was to compensate people who came in from the private sector and inducted into political office, and with this make-up pay they would not have to suffer a financial sacrifice.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to clarify what Mr Shanmugam said about what I said. I did not ask Ministers to make a financial sacrifice. What I said was that the present batch of leaders only agreed to come in because of the feeling of service to the nation and money was not their consideration. Also, presently, Ministers are being paid reasonably well, so there is no great financial sacrifice. Then I went on to talk about how make-up pay will compensate for the financial sacrifice of private sector people becoming politicians.”
“" The crux of the matter, therefore, Mr Speaker, as implied by our former Prime Minister, is not that we cannot find enough good people to become Ministers, but that we cannot find enough good people to become MPs. Therefore, what we should be doing is not reviewing the salaries of Ministers, but trying to get at the reasons why people are not keen to come forward to become MPs and Ministers. Could one reason be the great affective divide written about so eloquently by Catherine Lim, one of our foremost writers? Should we be looking into this lack of bonding between the present leaders and the people, especially those with the potential but not the willingness to come forward for political office? Could another reason be that we have depoliticised our citizenry? Could yet another reason be that we do not have a responsive national framework to allow people to participate in the political arena? Whatever the reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that remuneration has little to do with the reluctance to come forward into the political sphere. To illustrate my point, I would like to quote from a parliamentary speech on 23rd March 1989, made by Mr Goh Chok Tong, then First Deputy Prime Minister, when he talked about the difficulties of recruiting political talent and giving examples of reluctant politicians [Hansard, Vol. 53, Col. 751]: `Do you know how many times I had to see Dr Richard Hu, Wong Kan Seng, George Yeo, Mah Bow Tan and Seet Ai Mee before they said "yes"? At least three times each and over many months.'”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister knows that many of us in Singapore would go a long way to give him our support. There is no question about that. But many of us feel, and I am reflecting what other Singaporeans have told me, that we would be neglecting our duty if we did not point out to the Prime Minister that we do not agree with him that the White Paper offers the solution that he is looking for. He has said that the formula dealt in the White Paper would head off the problem of weak leadership in future years. Sir, with due respect to the Prime Minister, the answer is not so simple and it may not be the answer at all. Let us ask ourselves a few fundamental questions: Why are able Singaporeans reluctant to take on the risks and public responsibilities of a political career? Is pay the main motivator? If we increase the remuneration even more from the present reasonably high level, will we be able to attract the right talent? By increasing the salaries of Ministers to what might seem astronomical levels to the person in the street, are we risking a possible political backlash? Let us go to the first important question: Why are able Singaporeans reluctant to take on the risk and public responsibilities of a political career? The White Paper proposes a solution to this problem, but let us look at the problem first. Before we can appoint Ministers, we have to look for MPs. Only after becoming MPs and showing their mettle and ability, can we follow up by appointing them Ministers. On 23rd March 1989, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore, said in this House, and I quote [Hansard, Vol. 53, Col. 805]: `To get good Ministers, you must have good MPs because they come from the MPs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Singaporeans can say with pride and certainty that we have had an honest and competent Government since the PAP came into power. Singaporeans can also say with certainty that we want to continue to attract people who will form an honest and competent Government. But how do we achieve this? That is the burning question. That is what we should be debating and not the formula or the benchmark or the various permutations and computations of it. But how do we get honest and competent people into Government? The problem that the Prime Minister faces and that all of us face in this country is how do we ensure that we will continue to have political leaders who are competent and honest people with vision, and the bureaucracy remains clean and effective. Although this is a national challenge, it is the Prime Minister who bears the most immediate and direct responsibility, and we all have to help him in his task, as Dr Tony Tan just said. However, this challenge is very complex and there is no single obvious solution. But it appears to me and many other Singaporeans that the White Paper seems to suggest that the answer lies in increasing the remuneration, and once this is done, the problem will be solved. I think this financial approach to a problem of human motivation is a unifaceted answer and even a little simplistic. I think my colleague, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, also talked about this. The Prime Minister in his speech said that he wants the most capable and most honest people in his team, and to ensure this, he has taken the pragmatic approach of offering higher financial rewards to Ministers and top civil servants. The Prime Minister has made an appeal to give him our backing.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that this is not a scientific experiment but one based on human behaviour? Would the Minister agree that using strict scientific criteria will not apply?”
“My question is: would the Minister consider instituting the two measures together, rather than one by one?”
“Sir, may I suggest to the Minister that the bidding price is so close to the strike price because most of the bidding is being done by the dealers who know the game, so to speak. I think it will be much more worth while, as some other Members have suggested, that you must combine the two systems - pay-as- you-bid and stopping the double transfers. Because if you just take one of them and you are not looking at the other one, then obviously it is not going to work, and you are going to come back to the House and say, "There I told you so." Mr Speaker: What is your question, Dr Soin?”
“Sir, would the Minister consider financial assistance? Would that be accepted? Or does he think it is not a wise thing to offer financial assistance?”
“Sir, what I would like to ask the Minister is not the location of fires but the detection of pollution in Singapore. Are we confident that we have the latest equipment to detect early pollution?”
“Sir, does the Minister feel confident that Singapore has all the advanced equipment to detect pollution from forest fires, for example, the laser sensor photo technology-type of equipment?”
“Sir, would the Minister give the rationale for Medifund giving less preference to a housewife whose husband contributes irregularly to Medisave compared to another housewife whose husband is a regular contributor to Medisave? This was said by the former Minister for Health in Parliament in May 1993. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I am not familiar with this particular detail of Medifund. The broad guidelines have already been given to the public as to the constraints within which hospital Medifund committees should operate. If the Nominated Member of Parliament were to submit a Question on this particular case, I would be very happy to answer.”
“Sir, would the Minister clarify which policy takes precedence and in which order: one, the ethnic quota; two, upgraders in the Joint Selection System; three, upgraders in the Multi-Tier Family Scheme; and, four, upgraders in the Third Child Priority Scheme? Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, the Minister has said that many people rush in for fear that the prices will continue to go up and that the Government has assured affordability. How is this affordability measured? Is there a formula whereby you can assure people who do not need a house now not to rush in? Because that will push up the demand. The Government's role, I believe, is to ensure that everyone has a roof over his head. The upgraders are actually rushing in out of need or out of the fact that there is a lot of money to be made. The Minister seems to be worried that satisfying the demand would bring down the prices in the resale market. But what is the problem? If we are satisfying the demand of the people, it is a one-off situation. Or is he worried about an over building situation? From the way we are going, there would be a day when we will have too many houses and too few people.”
“Would the Minister explain the rationale of subsidising upgraders? Would that not be considered a handout?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that it is the Government's responsibility to provide housing for first-timers and, after that, it should be left to market forces and that we should not subsidise upgraders at the expense of other taxpayers?”
“Sir, can I ask a point of clarification?”
“What do you do, sir?' If the Minister needs any further reasons to change the policy, let me also try to provide them. When our family planning policy was first enunciated in the second half of the 1960s, the slogan was "Boy or girl, two is enough". Countless Singaporeans heeded this advice and only had two children. Even if they came from traditional families and wanted sons, they enacted their part of the social contract and obeyed the Government's edict and did not go on trying to have sons even if both their children were daughters. Now, are we trying to tell all those parents who were responsible citizens that they cannot maximise the potential of their children if they happen to be daughters? That was not part of the bargain as far as they knew. Secondly, I am sure that the Minister knows that the medical quota is against our Constitution which is predicated on equality and equal protection of the law, especially when the matter concerns an institution, namely, the university, which is supported by the taxpayers. Not only does this practice offend the letter and the spirit of our Constitution, but it is also against our ethos of building a society based on justice and meritocracy. Here, I would like to quote the Minister for Education, Mr Lee Yock Suan, himself. This is what he said on 12th March, 1993 with regard to the admission of candidates into the medical course, and I quote: 'In the selection process, aptitude and suitability for the course as assessed by the interview are taken into account together with the "A" level performance. The selection is based entirely on merit.' I appeal to the Minister to consider heeding his own words and abolishing the quota which relies on sex and not on merit.”
“5% for males, an insignificant difference. In 1991, it was 4.7% for females and 2.6% for males, again, hardly significant. And in 1992, the female attrition rate was 5% and the male attrition rate was 3%. Hence, we see that the difference between the attrition rates of male and female doctors over four years is hardly significant, unlike the picture in 1979. Also, for the last 10 years or so, doctors have been bonded to work for the Government upon graduation. Singaporean doctors are bonded for five to eight years and scholarship holders serve a longer period. This is only fair as the Government spends about $300,000 on each doctor's undergraduate training and the bond is to ensure that the taxpayers' money is not wasted. If the doctor, male or female, wishes to have an early release, the applicant has to pay the outstanding sum of the bond back to the Government. Thus, the second argument that female doctors are wasting the taxpayers' money is also no longer valid and no longer true. In 1979, there was no bond and the female doctor could stop working. Now, she can only exercise this choice, like her male counterparts, if she pays back the bond. All the medical students are fully aware of this stipulation and know what they are in for when they apply to study medicine in NUS. Thus, the reasons for which the quota was instituted no longer stand, but the quota still stands. Is it not time for the Minister to review this anachronistic policy? I am sure that as a good policy maker, the Minister will understand the need for this change and abolish the quota. Here, I would like to illustrate my point with a story. When Maynard Keynes was criticised for changing his policy stand, he had this reply for his critic, and I quote: `When circumstances change, I change too.”
“The conditions which prevailed in 1979 and which prompted the institution of the quota have changed many times over and are hardly applicable today, but yet, unfortunately, we have not reviewed the policy. In 1979, the following reasons were advanced for imposing the quota: The first reason given was that female doctors shunned speciality training and preferred outpatient work and are thus considered less productive than male doctors. In 1979, nearly 85% of the outpatient doctors were females. Since then, this percentage has dropped tremendously and females are no longer concentrated in the outpatient sector. In 1992, 39% of the female doctors were providing primary health care as compared to 34% of the male doctors. So 39% females, 34% males. 32% of female doctors provided specialist care as compared to 40% of male doctors. 32% females, 40% males. 24% of the female doctors were medical officers under training as compared to 23% of the male doctors. 24% females, 23% males. So all these figures for male and female doctors are pretty close, signifying that there is not much difference in the career paths of male and female doctors now. Thus, the statement that females prefer outpatient work no longer holds. The second reason that was given in 1979 was that female doctors do not continue to work after graduation and thus are wasting the taxpayers' money on medical education. This is also no longer valid. In 1979, the attrition rate of female doctors was 15-20%. This was the figure quoted by Dr Toh Chin Chye in Parliament in March 1979. Today, the figure has changed completely. The numbers for both sexes are very comparable. In 1989, the female attrition rate was 3.4%, and for males, 3.5%, hardly any difference. In 1990, it was 5.1% for females and 3.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have laid claim to speak on the motion for adjournment today on a matter which many Singaporeans believe is of some importance. I ask for your indulgence and of the remaining hon. Members to prolong the sitting of this House. The matter, Sir, which I am referring to is the presence of a quota for female medical students, and I would like to make a fervent appeal to the Minister to abolish this quota. Since 1979, a quota of 33% for females has existed for entry into the medical school. This means that the intake of female medical students into the medical faculty is restricted to one-third of the total intake and no more. The total medical enrolment in 1993 was 771, of which 522 were males and only 249 were females. The female percentage therefore constitutes less than one-third of the total. In spite of this, the surprising fact is that out of 13 people, up to 1993, who obtained an MBBS (Hons) degree, which is only given for exceptional academic performance, seven are females and only six are males. Since 1979, a lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge. And as our Deputy Prime Minister has said, the world has changed. Our GDP has increased from $6,700 in 1979 to $22,000 in 1993. Our female labour force participation rate has increased from 42% to 52% in the same period. Singapore has gone regional and has become a successful hub city. Fifteen eventful years have gone by and each year, many disappointed parents and their intelligent and hardworking daughters have continued to be discriminated against entry into medical school and they have stood by in sadness, helplessness and anguish while being lectured on the advantages of living in a meritocratic society.”
“Would the Minister consider letting the applicants buy directly from the resale market and then subsidizing it, rather than going about in this roundabout way?”
“Sir, what is the average difference in price that the HDB buys the flat from the open market and then sells it to the low income families?”
“Would the Minister consider the non-transferability of COEs from motor traders to car buyers?”
“Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the suggestion about the bruises? I do not feel that just because a procedure has been done for many years we can exclude this important medical fact which will only help to make the police appear even more above-board. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We can consider that. INDUSTRIAL LAND LEASES (New rules) 9. Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, regarding the new rules on industrial land leases announced recently, whether he will provide further details on (i) how many leases of the Jurong Town Corporation, Housing and Development Board and Port of Singapore Authority will be affected by the new rules in the next 15 years; (ii) how much additional investments must be committed by a current lessee in order to obtain an extension to the lease; (iii) what is the formula for calculating the new rental rates for an extended lease; and (iv) what are the terms and conditions that allow a current lessee to assign an approved extended lease to another party prior to the expiry of the current lease.”
“5% of cases which have been complained against. Out of 18,000 arrests in a year, 96 complaints have been lodged. Out of these complaints, only 14 have been substantiated out of a total Police Force of 10,600. It is less than 0.2%. I hope we can all see this in perspective. Of course, we should always be open to see how the procedures can be improved. But having used these procedures over such a long time with a proven track record, let us be careful about implementing changes. Any change must be weighed against possible problems that may arise. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, firstly, will the Parliamentary Secretary please inform the House, of the 14 cases that were substantiated, what kind of action was taken against the Police officers involved? Secondly, whether any confessions that were extracted in those circumstances were used in prosecutions against the offenders? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Out of the 14 cases that were substantiated, one was prosecuted and charged in court. He was sentenced to one month imprisonment. The rest were departmentally dealt with. The range of punishment is very wide. It can vary from a verbal to a written warning, to the defendant appearing before the Police Disciplinary Board. The Board also has a range of powers, including the powers to reprimand and the powers to demote. I do not have the details as to how the 14 cases were dealt with. But given the complexities of each case, I think we can rest assured that the powers available to the IIS and to the Police Force, and how it deals with its Police officers who are subject to such investigations, give it that range where the punishment will fit the crime.”
“Sir, firstly, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider, instead of making the IIS completely independent, introducing an independent component into the IIS for the public perception that he spoke of? Secondly, in view of the fact that bruises take about 24-48 hours to develop and appear, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider having a medical examination 48 hours after the confessional statement, rather than directly after giving the statement? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The first question that the Member raises is whether or not we can introduce an independent component. I think we have to look at how the mechanics will operate. We need a unit which will continue to do its work fairly, thoroughly and efficiently. Within the IIS, the investigators are people who know what happens on the ground. In other words, they know what defalcations can take place. And that is why it is important that the input of these well-trained and well-grounded investigators is important. Ultimately, I think the input of the Police and the fact that the findings should be within the control of the Commissioner of Police is very important - to reinforce this element that he is in charge and in control. In serious cases where assault has been substantiated, the papers are referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. So there is a reference point and this has happened in the past. As I have mentioned just now, in a case last year, the defendant, a Police officer who was complained against, was, in fact, prosecuted. So it is not a closed door affair. On the second point, we are open to suggestions, but we have to weigh this very carefully. This has been an established procedure for a long time. It has worked well. As I have mentioned, it is less than 0.”
“He then explained clearly that he had waited for so long to tell the world about his parents because only with his new appointment did he feel he was qualified to do so and bring glory to his parents. A similar type of mentality, to a certain extent, still exists in Japan. I have seen in Japan, displayed along the roadside, slogans urging people to drive carefully because an accident would hurt the parents' hearts. This is exactly the meaning of his words when Confucius said, "Parents should be worried about the children's well-being." ( ). I think to develop this sense of responsibility towards one's parents so that one would try to do something one's parents can be proud of or at least not to do something one's parents would feel ashamed of is an attitude that we should consider to introduce in our education for the young.”
“This is something I cannot agree with. Filial piety is one of the cornerstones of Eastern civilisation and culture. We should not consider it to be irrelevant to a modern society and therefore discard it as one of those useless leftovers from the past. On the contrary, we should study what positive influence it has brought and what function it has performed in creating a better society in Eastern civilisation and contemplate in what way we can learn from it. In ancient China, one of the basic motivational forces for one to become a good man and make contribution to society and the country is a sense of responsibility he felt for his parents. This is well illustrated in the children's book which tells them to become a man of good repute and glorify the parents ( ). Confucius said: `The highest level of filial piety is to bring glory to one's parents; then followed by caring for them in their daily life, to maintain them is in fact the lowest. For we even feed and keep our dogs and horses. What is the difference, if we show no respect to them?' That is to say, just to maintain one's parents is not even good enough because we also keep cats and dogs. How is it that we do not even want to maintain our parents? The real meaning of filial piety and the highest level of filial piety is to glorify one's parents. Therefore, the renowned Northern Song dynasty minister, Auyang Siu, after he had become the Deputy Prime Minister, only then did he write an article to praise his parents which was carved on stone. In his article, he related how his mother became a widow when he was three and brought him up, educated him amidst great hardship and how his father behaved as an upright and uncorrupt junior civil servant.”
“Although I support the Bill, I have to confess that when the Bill does become an Act, it could be a mixed blessing. Therefore, I hope that the additional points that have been raised are taken into consideration and the Bill committed to a Select Committee. Finally, just before I sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express how happy and proud I feel that a fellow NMP has moved a private Member's Bill making this a historic occasion. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Kampong Glam GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. In the past two days, many Members of this House have spoken on this Bill. I do not wish to repeat what they have said. In supporting this Bill, I wish to give my views. To support one's parents is perhaps the fulfilment of the lowest of a man's moral standard. In fact, most people would react spontaneously in declaring, "To support one's parents is one's basic duty. No matter how poor one is or how difficult one's situation is, one must take care of one's parents." As such, there are actually very few people, with perhaps the exception of some special cases with special reasons, who would neglect their aged parents after receiving their love and care when they were young. Now, I have heard that there are people who oppose the passing of this Bill based on the argument that it is the duty of the Government to take care of the old, the sick and the weak. If it is a case that the children themselves have problems in looking after themselves, then it is both normal and acceptable for the Government or a voluntary welfare organisation or some kind-hearted people to extend to them a helping hand. However, this does not mean that one can shift the entire responsibility of looking after one's parents to the Government.”
“Besides Edusave and Medifund, this retirement fund could be another recipient of the prosperity of our healthy economy. Once this retirement fund has been set up and the criteria for eligibility drawn up, then needy elderly Singaporeans could apply to this fund for help. The present public assistance scheme is meant for every age group and only the really destitute qualify. The retirement fund would apply to the elderly only and would be specific to their needs with special criteria of eligibility. It would also take care of those who, for some reason or another, do not have children to support them or whose children have migrated and deserted their parents. This fund will not prevent parents from suing their children if they want to and need to, but would be another mechanism in place whereby we, as a community, are making it clear that the responsibility of supporting the aged is not only a personal responsibility of the children but also a community responsibility. Respect and concern for the elderly is both an individual and community duty. Without the community responsibility part, we will be leaving the aged to only their children and the courts. Most caring and thoughtful citizens are not comfortable with this abdication of communal responsibility. And I would therefore urge the setting up of this retirement fund to fulfil this need. If there is one thing we all have in common, it is the fact that we all have parents. And that is why there has been such a widespread reaction to this Bill, as we can all relate personally to the Bill. At the same time, like in all human relationships, there is no one uniform or perfect way to conduct these relationships, and this has accounted for the mixed reactions to the Bill.”
“This has been quite a problem in the case of monthly maintenance payment for wives and children, and this has been brought up by other hon. Members too. Very often, the husbands stop payment and the wives have to troop regularly to the Subordinate Courts to recover arrears of payment. In the case of old and possibly infirm parents, they will metaphorically and literally die carrying out this effort. To overcome this big problem, I would like to suggest the creation of a central support agency under a Government Ministry. This agency could make sure that maintenance payments from grown-up children and maintenance to wives and children from husbands will be paid regularly and on time. There could be an attachment order from the courts and the central support agency could act as a State agency to remit support payments to the recipients and then take it back from those liable to pay. Without this, the Bill will have the form but not the substance. In my understanding of this Bill, one of its main purposes is to send a clear message to our young that they have a personal responsibility to look after their parents. However, this message to our young should include the fact that there is also a community responsibility to care for our aged. We could send this message very strategically by setting a community example of filial respect and concern. This could be done by setting up a retirement fund for the elderly. All Singaporeans above the prevailing mandatory age of retirement would qualify for this fund. And this fund could be funded by two sources: one, every working Singaporean could contribute $1 per month from his or her CPF account on an opt-out basis to this fund; and, two, some money from Budget surpluses could be put into this retirement fund.”
“It is not desirable that even though a son or daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents should starve. To base the validity of the claim of the parent on how the child was treated by the parent is to unnecessarily allow the opening up of a whole lot of suppressed, repressed and painful memories and the recounting of real and imagined grievances by the child against the parent and the vehement denials by the parents. This aspect of psychoanalytical terrain is hardly the domain of the courts and thus should be prudently left out as this is one area where even angels would fear to tread. We, as a society, should accept that it is the duty of the children to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves and this duty should not be dependent on how the children were treated by the parents. I therefore am strongly of the considered opinion that these two subclauses be deleted. There are another two points which I would like to make and these have not been addressed in the Bill. First, the claiming for parent relief for tax purposes. Right now, the whole tax relief for each parent can only be claimed by one child. If the court orders parents' maintenance to be paid by a few siblings, then who will get the tax relief? Will it be shared by the siblings? If so, then are we going to extend this privilege of sharing tax relief to children who have been voluntarily supporting their parents? The Minister for Finance will have to give us his views on this matter. Another point that I would like to make is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and even if we have a very good Act for providing maintenance for parents, the biggest practical problem will be to make sure that the maintenance payments to the parents are kept up each month.”
“What guidelines can the court adopt when a child insists that the parent stay with him or her in a very crowded and noisy environment whereas the parents prefer to live on their own even if it is in spartan surroundings? This consideration does not apply in the maintenance of wives and children. A husband cannot ask his ex-wife to stay with him and not set up a separate household. What about parents who could downgrade into smaller apartments or take up reverse mortgages to become financially self-reliant but prefer to sue their children for maintenance? In the case of wives and children, one factor which is taken into consideration is the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the break-up of the marriage. We cannot apply such a criterion for the maintenance of parents and, therefore, I suggest that we fix an upper limit to the amount for each parent. In the Indian Bill for the maintenance of parents, the upper limit is Rp. 400. For Singapore, we could fix $500 as the upper limit for each parent. I am not suggesting a fixed sum for each case but only the upper limit so as to reduce the chances of frivolous action by well-off parents. Clause 5(3) and (4) states: `(3) If the court is satisfied upon due proof that the applicant abandoned, abused or neglected the respondent, it may dismiss the application ... (4) The onus of proving abandonment, abuse or neglect shall be on the respondent alleging it.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the claim of maintenance by the parent should be dependent on his or her having discharged parental obligations during the childhood of the children. There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents.”
“However, if the parents' claim appears proper and if the children are recalcitrant, then only should the case proceed to court. The proceedings in court should be heard at the District Court level so that that court can lend experience and maturity in the administration of the Act. The hearing should be in chambers and only heard in open court if cross-examination of the parties is entailed and then again such a hearing should be in camera so that a purely private family matter remains a private family matter. By following this procedure, many of the valid objections against the Bill could be overcome. Sir, I will now refer to some of the specific clauses of the Bill and make some comments. Clause 4 states: `A respondent may service notice ... on other persons liable to maintain the applicant joining them as respondents in the action.' Here, some difficulties may arise on a personal law problem. In some traditional Indian families, a married daughter, even if she is a wage earner, is supposed to "belong" to her new family (husband's family) and is not supposed to have any more financial obligations to her old family. In such a situation, if her brother joins her as a respondent, it will create problems between the two families and may make the married daughter's future life untenable even if she is not apportioned to pay any maintenance. Just the fact of having been named as a respondent and the public becoming aware of this will make her husband and in-laws lose face. Therefore, this clause needs to be changed. The respondent should not be able to lightly serve notice on the other siblings as co-respondents without the leave of the court. Clause 5(2)(a) looks at housing needs and costs.”
“Sitting in the House for the last two days and listening to the hon. Members, one may note certain recurring objections to the Maintenance of Parents Bill. These are the lack of conciliatory procedures, the adversarial nature of court proceedings with the presence of lawyers, and the accompanying shame and loss of face to the family when the case is brought to the court. To overcome these problems, various suggestions have been made by Members, for example, a special Commissioner or a Community Court or even a legal mechanism modelled after the arbitration court. Sir, there is no valid reason for creating these new channels or institutions and bypassing our present judicial system. We can achieve the same objectives of privacy, conciliation and non-adversarial procedures through our Subordinate Courts. Let me elaborate. What I am suggesting is that the legal procedure for implementing this Bill need not be by the usual forms of action, such as by a writ of summons and pleadings involving lawyers but should be by way of a sworn complaint by the parents in the Registry of the Subordinate Courts. The complaint should set out the means of the parents and the means of the child which the parents reasonably believe to be true. The Registry officials who will be involved in processing the claim could be given some training in the relevant family issues. After receiving the complaint from the parents, the Registrar should, in the first instance, send out a notice to the children to appear before the Registrar with a view to conciliation. If the child is amenable to a maintenance order being made against him or her at this stage, the matter can end there quickly. If the claim appears to be frivolous or vexatious, then the matter could equally rest before the Registrar.”
“Ideally, this care should include both psychological and material dimensions but emotional care cannot be legislated and thus the Bill deals only with financial maintenance. Although the principle of this Bill would be acceptable to many of us, though not all of us, it is clear that there are many grey areas in the interpretation and implementation areas and much is left to the discretion of our courts that have an adversarial system and have neither the time nor the resources to sort out the many potential problems. I realise that the similarities in the implementation of this Bill to relevant sections of the Women's Charter have been pointed out by Prof. Woon but there is one essential difference in the maintenance of wives and children and in the maintenance of parents. In the former case, there is only one spouse in the equation while in the latter case, the equation becomes very complex because of the many siblings, their various relationships to each other and their parents and the difficulty of assessing the needs of the aged - should these be basic needs or needs tied to a comfortable way of life. Many of the parents who will require maintenance from children will also require financial aid to press their claim. However, these parents may own a small flat but may not have disposable income. Being an owner of a flat may disqualify the parent from applying for legal aid and therefore the stringent qualifications for eligibility of legal aid may have to be reviewed for parents applying for maintenance under this Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I find myself in the same unhappy predicament as Dr Tan Cheng Bock was at the end of yesterday. I will start off by referring to a suggestion by the hon. Mr Peh Chin Hua who suggested that 2% to 4% of a working child's CPF be channelled to the parents' account to be divided between the father and the mother. This suggestion might provide the answer to our problem of declining birth rates. If each child has to put 2% to 4% of his or her CPF into the parents' account, this might be the best inducement for parents to have more children so that their old age financial maintenance is secured. Just as the peasants of farming families of old days used to have many children so that more hands could work on the farm and ensure the old folks' needs in their later life. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Maintenance of Parents Bill has had mixed reactions. Why has this been so? Because different people have different conceptualizations of family relationships. One idealised view is that the family is a warm, loving place where people are nurtured, cherished and cared for. According to this view, grown up children will automatically look after their dependent parents and thus there is no need for the Bill. The other view is that the family is an area where there is an abundant opportunity for potential and actual conflict and this Bill will bring all this conflict out of the private domain into the public sphere and will not add to enhancing filial respect but will actually worsen the situation. I personally support the spirit and principle of the Bill which is, that it is the responsibility of adult children to care for their parents.”
“Would the Minister have on hand the number of suicides by national servicemen in the last three years? I am just asking whether he has on hand the statistics.”
“Would the Minister consider following the example of the restructured hospitals which are costed, run and managed on a private basis but with subventions for the subsidised beds?”
“Sir, would the Minister confirm whether this regulation applies to employers of all foreign workers, or only to employers of domestic foreign workers?”
“Would the Minister tell me what would be the disadvantage? Because we are just making sure that the elderly spouse does not then become a burden on the community. What would be the disadvantage of making sure that the man who is working outside the home is looking after the wife who has stayed at home and has not worked and does not have even the Minimum Sum to cover her? I would think that this is in their ethos, responsibility for your family members, and not trying to be a burden on the state. I would urge the Minister that this would be something that is worth looking into.”
“Clarification, Sir. Maybe I did not make my point clear. I was not talking about nominating for the full CPF account. On that point, I said that a member could leave the nomination as it is where a member could decide who he or she wants to nominate. I was referring only to the nomination for the Minimum Sum amount, that is, after withdrawing the amount at 55, whatever is left by law for the Minimum Sum amount, that should, by legislation, go to the elderly spouse. From what I can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, by having subsection (6A), you are protecting a couple where both of them are working, but you are not protecting a spouse who is not working. If her husband is working and she is not working, she does not have an account and the one-and-a-half times do not apply to her. And she, in that case, may be left high and dry if that Minimum Sum does not go to her. I am not arguing about the rest of the CPF account which can be left to siblings or parents. I am only requesting for that amount in the Minimum Sum which by that time both spouses will be elderly. They will be just around 50. If the man is 55, the woman will be around 50 as well. So that is what I am urging the Minister to look into.”
“We cannot leave the responsibility of looking after the aged only on the children, but it should be shared, wherever possible, by a husband or wife who constitute a couple and have the means to do so through the Minimum Sum in the CPF account. If we do not institute this proposed amendment, then the following scenario is possible. Let us look at an example where only the husband is working and the wife is not working for a wage. He withdraws his CPF account at 55, leaving the required Minimum Sum behind. He then unwisely spends his money on the proverbial wine, women and song, and even takes out a mortgage on his home. He then dies an untimely death, after having named the mistress as the nominee to whom the Minimum Sum in the CPF account will go to. In such a case, would it be right that we institute a law, like the proposed Maintenance of Parents Bill, requiring the children to maintain their parents if we have not even ensured the responsibility of one elderly spouse to another? We therefore have a golden opportunity now to amend the CPF Act to ensure that the financial responsibility of looking after the elderly husband or wife is shared, wherever possible, by the couple themselves before expecting the children or the community to shoulder that responsibility. I would urge the Minister to agree to this amendment.”
“Sir, I congratulate the Minister for proposing the amendment to section 15 by introducing subsection (6A) which requires that if a joint account of a Minimum Sum is set up by a husband and wife, the CPF Board will permit that sum to be reduced to 1 1/2 times the Minimum Sum if they each execute a memorandum under section 26(1) nominating each other to receive the amount of the Minimum Sum belonging to either party on the death of the other party. I would urge the Minister not to stop here but to go one step further. I would like to propose that in all cases where a CPF member is married, he or she should be required to execute a memorandum under section 26(1) nominating the other spouse to receive the amount of the Minimum Sum belonging to the party on the death of that party. The procedure should be the same, whether only the husband or the wife or both parties are members of the Board, and whether or not there are one or two accounts for the Minimum Sum, or whether there is a joint account. In each case, the CPF member should be required to execute a memorandum nominating the spouse as the beneficiary of the Minimum Sum. If a member dies before the age of 55, the whole of the CPF account can go to his or her nominee, as the situation is at present. What I am suggesting is that after withdrawing the CPF account at 55 years of age, the law should step in to make sure that the entitlement to the Minimum Sum after the member's death should go to the remaining spouse and not to any other nominated person. This amendment would reflect the CPF member's personal responsibility towards the financial maintenance of the remaining elderly spouse.”
“Sir, the Primary 1 enrolment is definitely going to be different. There is going to be a difference of 9,000 more children coming into Primary 1, not the total primary school enrolment. So would the Minister please assure the public that this increased capacity for Primary 1 has been specifically looked after? And how is this going to be contracted for 1996 when there will be 9,000 less students going into Primary 1?”
“The question is: does the Minister think that there is no problem in spite of these statistics?”