SPEECH ON THE 2ND READING OF THE MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

In my speech on the occasion of the 2nd reading of the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill, I expressed my gratitude to being part of a workgroup led by Honorary Member Mr Seah Kian Peng to review the Maintenance of Parents Act to make sure that it remains fit for purpose of the foreseable future. I also elaborated on the workings of the provisions dealing with a key provision in the Bill that requires parents with records of abandonment, neglect, or abuse (ANA) to seek the Tribunal’s permission first before claiming maintenance from their children. I also discussed the involvement of children in proceedings, the appeals process, and the protection offered to children who face maintenance orders from parents with ANA records. My speech may be accessed below:

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1. Mr Speaker, I consider it an honour and privilege to be in Hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng’s workgroup that was tasked to review the Maintenance of Parents Act.

a. As hon Members know, it is not often that we get a chance to move a Private Member’s Bill in this House.

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

a. 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 1 year.

b. 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.

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

d. 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?

e. 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.

3. I think it is also appropriate to pay tribute to the then hon. Nominated Member of Parliament, Professor Walter Woon, who, almost 3 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.

a. When he tabled the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it generated some level of controversy in and outside this House.

b. Now, the policy underpinnings of the Maintenance of Parents Act (the “Act”) are received as wisdom.

c. He was indeed 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.

4. Sir, 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.

a. The Tribunal’s permission will be needed in the following 3 circumstances as provided for in the proposed Section 3B in the Bill:

i. First, where the parent’s declaration under S 3A states he has a record of ANA of the child;

ii. Second, where the Commissioner notifies the person that the parent has a record or purported record of ANA[i].

1. 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.

2. This screening requirement is independent of the declaration by the parent.

iii. 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.

1. 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.

2. As a result, the matter would head to conciliation as per the current process.

3. 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.

5. Under the proposed S 3(B)(3) in the Bill,

a. 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 3-member quorum should be convened to make a decision, which can include the referring President or Deputy President.

b. 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.

i. This promotes efficiency.

c. However, for cases where it is contemplated that permission will be refused, then a 3-member Tribunal must be convened to make such a determination.

i. This measure will safeguard the parent’s interest in ensuring that his case is adequately deliberated before a decision is made against him.

6. 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.

a. This is provided for in the proposed Section 3B(7) in the Bill.

b. In essence, it is provided that permission may be granted if there is a good arguable case at 2 levels:

i. First, that the parent did not commit ANA; or

ii. that child should maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds.

1. Why provide the 2nd level?

2. This is because a record of ANA involves not just a matter of fact, which is dealt with at the 1st level, but a matter of degree too, in respect of which the 2nd level is meant to address.

c. 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.

d. 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 that it is just and equitable that the child should maintain the parent.

i. The Tribunal’s grant of permission under the proposed Section 3B in the Bill is not intended to tie its hands in relation to its deliberation and decision on the ultimate issue.

ii. 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.

1. This is specifically referred to in the current Section 5(4) of the Act.

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

a. 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.

i. 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.

b. 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.

i. 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.

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

8. In the event the Tribunal gives permission to allow for 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.

a. The current amendments are not meant to detract from the “conciliation-first approach” adopted by way of amendments to the Act in 2010.

b. 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.

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

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

i. Otherwise, the decision of the Tribunal is final, as is the case now.

a. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. This position also applies in the situation where the child was originally informed and involved in the application for permission before the Tribunal.

iv. 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.

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

a. 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.

b. This Bill offers stronger protection against this.

c. So what is the recourse for such children who receive orders to maintain their parents even though the latter have records of ANA?

i. The Bill provides a procedure for them under the proposed Section 8 in the Bill.

ii. They may make an application to rescind or vary the maintenance order on the basis that their parents have records of ANA.

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

11. Finally, Sir, 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.

a. This is provided for in the proposed Section 14A in the Bill.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. 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 as a record of ANA.

g. 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.

12. Mr 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.

13. First, that there remains a tie between a child and his parent, one is which 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.

14. 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. And 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.

15. 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 — housing, healthcare, food and a certain quality of life.

16. Sir, 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 it 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. Thank you.

[i] Aide Memoire for me:

So what are the records that are being contemplated to be prescribed?

i. They will include orders under the Women’s Charter including protection orders to prevent family violence under Section 65 of the Charter;

ii. Orders under the Children and Young Persons Act including an order by the Youth Court against the parent to protect the wellbeing of the child or young person under Sections 54 & 56 of the said Act.

iii. Orders under the Vulnerable Adults Act, including an order by the Court to protect a vulnerable adult under said Section 14 of said Act.

iv. Convictions of criminal offences involving ANA committed against the child;

v. Investigations by the Child Protective Service or Adult Protective Service of the MSF.

vi. Volunteer care agreements under the CYPA.

vii. Removal of child or young person from the care of a parent under Section 11 of the CYPA