Passed in 1995, Singapore's Maintenance of Parents Act is a filial support law
that requires adult children to pay a monthly allowance to their elderly parents.
Like many other countries in Asia, Singapore is aging extremely rapidly.
The government is working to avoid a concurrent surge in elder poverty.
Various societies throughout history have passed laws like these as a potential solution. In
this video, I want to look at Singapore's experience in legislating filial support.
## Getting Older
Singapore's population is one of the fastest aging in the world.
In 1957, less than 4% of the country's people were older
than 65 years old. By 1990, that number more than doubled to 6%.
In 2021, it has risen to 14%. Alarmingly,
the proportion has added 6 percentage points from 8% to 14% in the past 10 years.
And with the city-state's total fertility at 1.1 births per woman,
the elder population will rapidly continue to rise.
Current estimates find that by 2050 that number would be a staggering 40%.
Singaporeans live some of the longest lives in the world. In 2020,
the average expected life span at birth in Singapore was about 84 years.
Good for them. But we need to also acknowledge that as people age,
they require more intensive care while simultaneously losing much
of their earning capacity. How are we to provide for our elders as they age?
## Filial Policy Laws
This is not a Singapore-only problem.
Policymakers around the world are struggling to figure out how to
pay for the increasing costs of elderly care in a time of working-age population decline.
One idea that many countries have adopted are called "filial support" laws. These create a
statutory duty for adult children to support parents who cannot take care of themselves.
A modern westerner might find the concept of such laws a bit uncomfortable. I know I
certainly felt a bit weird about them. Yet laws exist obligating parents to take responsibility
for their younger children. Why not in the opposite direction?
Filial support laws are not an original idea. In fact, the West has been passing
them for centuries. Ancient Rome likely had such a law back in the third century.
And England and the United States have had these laws on the books back in
the 1600s. For instance, let's take the US state of Virginia:
> “It shall be the ... duty of all persons eighteen years of age or over, of sufficient
earning capacity or income, after reasonably providing for his or her own immediate family,
to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of his or her mother or father,
he or she being then and there in necessitous circumstances"
People back then had such a way with words, didn't they?
The Virginia statute allows the adult child to defend themselves if they can present
"substantial advance of desertion, neglect, abuse, or willful failure".
But as Western countries transitioned to government-provided safety nets like
Medicare and Social Security, these filial support laws have become less relevant.
England repealed their filial support laws back in 1948. In the 1970s, the Virginia law was amended
to reduce that responsibility if the parent is eligible for public benefits under Medicaid.
While many American states still have these laws in their books,
they are largely left unenforced. Furthermore, scholars have significant questions about
whether or not these laws can be even enforced under Western constitutions.
## Singapore
Singapore has generally sought to avoid creating a Western-style welfare state.
There are practical financial reasons for this. Just look at
how much it costs to maintain such a safety net in the United States.
That net cannot be maintained without higher taxes, which the Singaporean government believes
it cannot easily impose without damaging much of its attractiveness as a place to do business.
But Singapore's founding leaders also believed that Western-style welfare systems would
encourage laziness and sloth amidst their specific population. My Asian dad would nod in agreement.
How do the elders maintain a livable income? Most elders draw from a portfolio of sources:
First, salaries from jobs;
Second, corporate pensions or investments;
Third, transfers from their children or other close family;
Fourth, transfers from the government;
Singapore sought to encourage elders and future retirees to build up the first three income
sources such that to avoid the fourth one. Thus, a series of social programs reinforcing them.
First is the country's retirement savings plan - the Central Provident Fund Board or just CPF.
It is a compulsory savings fund that receives monthly contributions from working-age people.
For elders with bottom 20% low incomes,
the CPF offers a supplementary quarterly cash supplement - the ​Silver Support Scheme or SSS.
Second, Singapore's Housing and Development Board also offers a "Lease Buyback Scheme".
Eligible older Singaporeans can monetize their home equity and turn it into cash - a
big deal for most elders since most of their wealth exists in the form of their house.
Third, the government took steps to make sure that the elderly can
still earn their own money. In Asia, many elders work long past the age where many
Westerners retire - and their salaries are a critical anti-poverty measure.
In 1993, Singapore passed the Retirement and Re-employment Act,
which sets the minimum retirement age at 60 and later, 62.
This protects the elders from losing their jobs solely on the basis of age.
Employers are required to offer re-employment so the elders can
continue working up to age 67. Up to 55% of Singaporean elders continue working.
## Cultural Value
In 1984, the government set up a committee to study how
countries took care of their 60+ year old elders.
This committee noticed that Taiwan and Israel had filial support laws on their books,
and recommended that Singapore pass them too. It triggered a
significant debate between policy-makers.
One group felt that such laws would help resist creeping individualism in
the Singapore youths. There was concern that the youths would adopt the Western
approach to elder care - that the state is in practice solely responsible for it.
Despite some support for the idea, another committee believed that the
law was then unnecessary. In a 1983 survey, it was discovered that over
95% of the elders were receiving money from their children without the need for a law.
Very few parents who asked for such money were rejected. When surveyed, most children
say that they wanted to support their parents out of their own desire. Policy-makers were
concerned that this sentiment might change if there was a law in the books requiring it.
This second committee also brought up another issue that would be a consistent
point in the debate. Asia has filial piety as one of its cultural values,
and legislating such a squishy thing made a few people feel uncomfortable.
Would the passing of such a law be an indication of a breakdown
in family values in Singapore? Would it attract undue attention from the
West - inflicting damage to Singapore's image and implying a failure in society?
## Passing the Act
Some ten years later in 1993 however, policy support started to gather for
exactly such a law existing on the books. Interestingly,
it was not because of a surge of news stories on elder abuse or the like. It was because of a tax.
That year, the Singapore government was poised to pass a Goods and Service Tax. It would likely
affect a great deal of middle-aged elders, cutting into their income.
In Singapore, the President can appoint a few members to
Parliament - unaffiliated to any party. One of those members, Professor Walter Woon,
suggested a filial support law as a way to help the elders afford this new tax.
Woon's reasoning goes like this: Despite the high percentage of children already
giving an allowance to their parents, there inevitably will be some dodgy individuals.
The law needs to be able to handle those situations when they inevitably come up.
## Debate
Following Woon's reasoning, the Act specifically states that it
is not intended to promote filial piety or love.
It is instead about accountability and providing a safety net for the
5% or so of elders who do not receive financial support from their children.
In his words:
> "This Bill has got nothing to do with filial piety at all. The law cannot legislate filial
piety any more than it can legislate love between husbands and wives or
parents and children. The aim of the Bill is to provide a safety net if filial piety fails"
If you aren't a fan of your Asian parents - which I am guessing is not
uncommon - this law does not require you to love them. But you do have to support them.
The law also reinforces an aspect of Singaporean culture that the government
has repeatedly preached - self-reliance. Individuals should take self-responsibility
and if they were to fail in that the community will not be around to help them.
## Usage
As implemented in 1995, the Maintenance of Parents Act mandates that adult children
must pay a monthly allowance or lump sum to each Singaporean parent over the age of 60 - if needed.
A 2016 survey found that 74% of adult Singaporean children over the age of
25 gave an allowance to their parents. That proportion fell to 70% in 2019.
If the adult children refuse to do their duty, then the parent can sue their child
in a special tribunal. A third party was also set up to bring cases on the elder's behalf.
The case goes before a special mediator, who reviews the circumstances including whether
or not the parent in question "morally deserves" support. For instance, if the
parent has previously abandoned their child. Or abused or neglected their parenting duties,
then that obviously has to be taken into account.
Later in 2011, the law was amended to make it mandatory that the elder parents first
seek conciliation with their children at the Office of the Commissioner for
the Maintenance of Parents before they can go before the tribunal.
The act now being in the books, its usage has been relatively sparse. Prior to 2011,
about 170 cases a year went in front of the tribunal.
Adding the conciliation process helped steadily reduce the number of those cases to new lows.
Per the Ministry of Social and Family Development,
in 2021 110 cases were lodged with the commissioner.
This is up from 2020's low of 98 but a decrease in the annual caseload numbers from 2017-2019.
However, one should also mention that elderly Singaporean parents - even those
in financial hardship - are reluctant to take their adult children to court.
This means that the visible statistics might far undercount the actual number.
## More To Do
There is more to elder care than just the financial aspect. There
is also a lifestyle and health issue too.
Elders require more healthcare services than the youth. They are more frequently
hospitalized - often due to chronic diseases or conditions with no cure.
And when they do, they tend to stay in the hospital longer - 21 days or more. These
tend to create hospital bed crunches and spates of high occupancy rates.
Despite government initiatives to limit the cost and effort of long-term care,
family members rather than institutions are still first in line to bear the brunt of these changes.
Currently there is no filial support law handling these physical efforts,
and it is unclear whether Singapore would be able to legislate this.
## Conclusion
In the past 20 years, India, China, and Bangladesh have passed their own filial support laws.
It is a reflection of new needs in Asian countries for supporting the elderly
without layering on potentially back-breaking financial responsibilities onto the government.
Elder poverty is a very real thing. Living in Asia,
I cannot help but feel for all the elders I see here working labor-intensive menial jobs.
But at the same time, I do wonder if the filial support concept potentially
accelerates the societal aging process by robbing
Peter to pay Paul. It is something for other countries to consider.