Past in 1995 Singapore's Maintenance of Parents Act is a failure of support law that requires adult children to pay a monthly salary or 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 failure support. But first, the Asianometry Patreon. Early access members get to see new videos and select the references for those videos before they release to the public. It helps support the videos and I appreciate every pledge. Thanks and on with a show.
Singapore's population is one the fastest aging in the world. In 1957, less than 4% of the country's people were older than 65 years old. In 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's total fertility at 1.1% 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? This is not a Singapore only problem. Policy makers around the world are struggling to figure out how to pay for the increasing costs of elderly care in the 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, but 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 18 years of age or over of sufficient earning capacity or income after reasonably providing for their his or her own immediate family to assist in providing for the support and maintenance of us 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, quote, substantial advance of discernment neglect abuse or willful failure. End quote. But has 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 our 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, legal scholars have significant questions about whether or not these laws can even be enforced under Western constitutions.
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 not 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 critical anti-poverty measure. In 1993, Singapore passed the Retirement and Reemployment 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 that the elders can continue working up to age 67. Up to 55% of Singaporean elders continue working.
In 1984, the government set up a committee to study how countries took care of their 60-plus-year-old elders. This committee noticed that Taiwan and Israel had failure support laws on their books and recommended that Singapore pass them too. It triggered a significant debate between policymakers. 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 isn't practiced solely responsible for it.
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 failure, piety, has one of its cultural values, and legislating such a squishy thing made a few people feel uncomfortable. With the passing of such a law be an indication of a breakdown in family values in Singapore, it attract undue attention from the West, inflicting damage to Singapore's image and implying a failure in society. Some 10 years later in 1993, however, policy supports 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 attacks. 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 filio support law has 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. Following Woon's reasoning, they 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 anymore 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 preach, self-reliance. Individuals should take self-responsibility, and if they were to fail in that, the community will not be around to help them. Has 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 refused 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 elders behalf. The case goes before a special mediator who reviews the circumstances, including whether or not the parent in question, quote unquote, 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.
例如,如果父母以前曾经弃儿或虐待或忽视了他们的育儿责任,那么这显然必须被考虑在内。
Later in 2011, the law was amended to make a mandatory that 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.
To act now being in the books, its usage has been relatively sparse, prior to 2011 about 170 cases a year when 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 case load numbers from 2017 to 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.
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.
然而,当这些病人被收治后,通常需要停留更长时间,21天或以上。这往往导致医院床位紧张和高入住率。
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 familial support law handling these physical efforts, and it is unclear whether Singapore or any country would be able to legislate them.
In the past 20 years, India and China and Bangladesh have passed their own familial support laws. It is a reflection of new needs in Asian countries for supporting the elderly without layering on potentially backbreaking financial responsibilities onto the government.
But at the same time, I do wonder if the familial support concept potentially accelerates the societal aging process by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is something for other countries to consider.