| Inadequate to "just add more teeth" | |
| Today Online (March 29, 2010) | |
| Phillip Kwek |
I REFER to recent Parliament reports that Member of Parliament (MP) for Marine Parade GRC Seah Kian Peng will lead a team of MPs to review and re-arm the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA).
It is commendable that he is doing so, but it is not sufficient to just add more teeth to MPA. It is imperative to review 1) its need and relevance, 2) the basis on which the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents decides what the impoverished parent needs, and should be given, 3) whether there is any alternative avenue for the parent to receive help if MPA is not applicable or relevant, and 4) if there was any overzealousness to "go by the book" to obtain results?
Where family matters are concerned, it is seldom straightforward. Let me cite the following examples: There was a straightforward case where a successful doctor shied away from his mother as his wife found it demeaning to have a mother-in-law who works as a dishwasher and refused to take care, and provide for his mother. Following the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents' intervention, the son agreed to pay for his aged mum's upkeep.
However, there was a sad case where a brother was asked to share and pay for the upkeep of his aged mother by his sister.
He earned around $800 and had a sick wife and a handicap child to look after. He felt so bitter about the outcome that he ambushed his sister at the hearing and killed her.
Another was a philandering father with multiple families. He left his earlier families to live with his "new" one for 30 years. When he was old and incapable of taking care of his "new" family, this family - being familiar with the workings and functions of MPA - took their other siblings to the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents.
They were then asked, by the Law, to contribute. They rallied to pay and upkeep the "naughty" dad until his ripe old age but there were no contributions from the "new" family. Clearly, this is an abuse of MPA's good intent and processes.
I hope Mr Seah and team will address the complexity of human relationships and prevent abuse of the process.
Phillip Kwek
__________________
Mr. Seah Kian Peng replies:
I thank Mr Philip Kwek for his insightful and thoughtful letter on Maintenance of Parents Act dated 29 Mar 2010. It highlighted several stories of the complex relationships within families.
Over the past 15 years, the Maintenance of Parents Act has been a public policy attempt to solve a very private problem. At the same time, very little of its work is actually made public, with mediation and counseling forming a substantial and important part of its work. The intent behind the Act is essentially one that is conciliatory and non-adversarial. I agree with this approach.
Mr Kwek argues that “more teeth” do not solve the problem. I agree but only in part - more teeth alone do not solve the problem. But more teeth we do need, if we are to take the rights of parents seriously. At the same time, I recognize the need to respect the choices and circumstances of adult offsprings. Hence, what we are after is a sensitive, nuanced basis for the amendments, taking into account the 15 years of empirical findings and experience, and working within the sound jurisprudential foundation of the existing law.
Our workgroup comprising the ten MPs and NMPs has just met. We will be organising focus groups to get feedback as well. I welcome Mr Kwek and all interested Singaporeans to join my team in this journey. I have also set up a simple website www.mpa.sg and welcome readers to give their views via this channel.
Regards
Seah Kian Peng
MP for Marine Parade GRC