The Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA), passed in 1995, allows Singapore residents aged 60 and above who are unable to subsist on their own to claim maintenance from their children. The MPA began as a private member’s bill, introduced by then Nominated Member of Parliament, Associate Professor Walter Woon, in 1994.

In the year the Act was enacted, Singaporeans aged 65 and above comprised 6.5% of the total population. Last year, in 2014, this figure was 11.2%. With rising life expectancy and shrinking family size, the family’s function in supporting the elderly is under greater stress today — a troubling prospect given that the family is regarded as the primary source of social support in Singapore.

The MPA has therefore gained greater relevancy now, as a mechanism to compel children to provide financial support for their parents. While admittedly a controversial piece of legislation — opposing voices in Parliament had feared that the Bill would effectively replace moral obligation with legal duty — amendments made to the MPA last year have placed the focus on conciliation and the potential repairing of family relationships.

Essentially, the MPA sends the crucial message that the family should always remain the first port of call in helping its elderly members. However, it is also suggested that the state’s role should not be overlooked.

 

A limited safety net

The MPA imposes legal liability on the child to maintain his aged and dependent parent, and in so doing aims to provide a financial safety net of sorts.

Under the MPA, a parent who is unable to maintain himself financially can apply to a tribunal for a maintenance order against his children. The parent’s interests is however subject to the child’s financial capabilities, and the tribunal will make an order only if the child’s own requirements and that of his children have been met.

One would therefore question the MPA’s adequacy as a safety net. Indeed, most cases usually involve children with little means, and it was highlighted by Parliament in 2010 that 40% to 50% of maintenance orders made actually awarded less amounts than the monthly payouts under existing public assistance schemes.

This focus on financial circumstance also excludes a plethora of factual situations from the MPA’s scope. One case involved a child applying on behalf of his stroke-afflicted father to claim financial assistance from his other siblings. As the child was already providing sufficient financial support to his father, the tribunal was unable to make an application against the siblings. Similarly, a parent of substantial means will find no recourse under the MPA against his children, no matter how debilitating his relationship with his children is. The tribunal is not empowered to order filial piety per se, but merely limited financial assistance for the dependent parent.

 

Negative implications

It is acknowledged that the MPA provides an essential lifeline to parents struggling to make ends meet. However, one must also consider if it is even desirable to impose legal liability in the first place.

Making a maintenance order under the MPA can be a humiliating experience for both parent and child. The imposition of legal liability only serves to increase family dissension and controversy, and destroys family ties at the very time they are most needed. The maintenance order, if any is obtained, is surely scant consolation if relations with one’s kin remain acrimonious.

Parliamentary debates over the MPA in 1994 had also expressed concern over the above. Critics of the MPA said that it would erode family values and link ties to financial obligations, instead of emphasising the less tangible aspects of familial relationships such as affection, harmony, responsibility and sacrifice.

Therefore, the MPA had to move away from the acrimonious aspects of the application process and instead concentrate on mending strained relationships.

 

A conciliatory approach

Hence, recent amendments to the MPA now place the focus on the repairing of family relationships before any imposition of liability.

Since 2011, parents must now strive for mandatory conciliation at the Commissioner’s Office first before filing an application to the tribunal. During such sessions, the Commissioner aims to help parents and children reach an agreement on the amount each is prepared to pay and accept without having to seek legal action.

The utility of such sessions cannot be underestimated. Indeed, the first conciliation session may be the first time that the parent and children are hearing each other’s side of the story. Ideally, both parties will also come to appreciate that what is more important is not the amount of financial contribution at stake, but the preservation of the family relationship.

Statistics from the Ministry of Social and Family Development are promising. Due to the now mandatory nature of conciliation, the number of cases dealt with by the Commissioner has increased from 17 cases in 2009 to 213 cases in 2014. Further, over 70% of the cases that came to the Commissioner’s Office reached settlement through conciliation in 2010, and the figure has since risen to 80% from 2011 to 2013. This has in turn resulted in a steady drop in the number of applications for maintenance, decreasing from 199 applications in 2009 to 55 applications in 2014.

 

Greater state support

Ultimately, Singapore’s demographic trends render it unrealistic for the family to bear the full burden of supporting its vulnerable members. In recognition of this, policies such as the Pioneer Generation Package and Silver Support Scheme have recently been implemented to provide for the healthcare and retirement needs of older Singaporeans.

These policies demonstrate the state’s willingness to run marginal deficits in the long term to meet the social needs of Singaporeans, even if they are not economically active. Such a shift in policy thinking is to be welcomed, as the state recognises that it must share in the increasing burden that families will face in future years.

Of course, such policies should never breed an entitlement mindset amongst Singaporeans. The state is also not replacing the family as the first port of call for help — the MPA remains in force to send a signal that the family remains primarily responsible for looking after its elderly members.

 

Conclusion

While mooting for the MPA in Parliament on 27 July 1994, Associate Professor Walter Woon candidly admitted that:

… I do not think that this will solve the problem of parents who are not maintained because the law is not a panacea. But with this in place, with education in place, and with the continuing emphasis on preservation of family values, I have every confidence that we may be able to preserve the family as the basic building block of our society…

Hence, the MPA merely serves as a safety net, and cannot and should not be regarded as the only solution for the preservation of family relationships. Instead, extensive governmental support is needed in other areas to help families in Singapore weather the challenges ahead.

 

Eugene Lee recently graduated with an LLB at the National University of Singapore. He recently completed an internship at IPS Social Lab.

Top photo from Thinkstock