This month Singapore passed a bill that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to supportone’s parents. Called the maintenance of Parents Bill, it received the backingof the Singapore Government.

That does notmean it hasn’t generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament opposedthe measure as un-Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem of the elderlypoor believed it a disproportionate response. Still others believe it willsubvert relations within the family: cynics dubbed it the “Sue Your Son” law.

Those who saythat the bill does not promote filial responsibility, of course, are right. Ithas nothing to do with filial responsibility. It kicks in where filialresponsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any morethan it can legislate love. All the law can do is to provide a safety net wherethis morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs this bill not to replacemorality, but to provide incentives to shore it up.

Like many otherdeveloped nations, Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion ofpeople over 60 years of age. Demography is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of thepopulation was in this bracket. By the turn of the century, that figure willgrow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26%. The problem is notold age. It is that the ration of economically active people to economicallyinactive people will decline.

But no amount ofgovernment exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem ofold people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fallthrough the holes in any safety net.

Traditionally, aperson’s insurance against poverty in his old age was his family. This is not arevolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care and support for one’sparents is a universal value shared by all civilized societies.

The problem in Singapore is that the moral obligation to look after one’s parents is unenforceable. Afather can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can beforced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legalobligation to support his or her parents.

In 1989, anAdvisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its reportstarted with a tinge of complacency that 95% of those who did not have theirown income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the5% who aren’t getting relatives’ support? They have several options:（a）get a job and work until they die;（b）apply for public assistance（you have to be destitute toapply）; or（c）starve quietly. None of these options is sociallyacceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as societyages?

The Maintenanceof Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have sofar kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in otheraffluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply to the courtfor maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have thediscretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust.

Those who deridethe proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Onlyin extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeedbecome law, the bill’s effect would be far more subtle.

First, it willreaffirm the notion that it is each individual’s—not society’s—responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is stillconservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. Itreinforces the traditional values and it doesn’t hurt a society now and then toremind itself of its core values.

Second, and moreimportant, it will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilitiesthink twice. Until now, if a person asked family elders, clergymen or theMinistry of Community Development to help get financial support from hischildren, the most they could do was to mediate. But mediators have no teeth,and a child could simply ignore their pleas.

But to be suedby one’s parents would be a massive loss of face. It would be a publicdisgrace. Few people would be so thick-skinned as to say: “Sue and be damned.”The hand of the conciliator would be immeasurably strengthened. It is far morelikely that some sort of amicable settlement would be reached if therecalcitrant son or daughter knows that the alternative is a public trial.

It would be niceto think that Singapore doesn’t need this kind of law. But that belief ignoresthe clear demographic trends and the effect of affluence itself on traditionalbonds. Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves mostsuccessful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the firstplace.

1．The Maintenance of Parents Bill ______.

A. receivedunanimous support in the Singapore parliament.

B. was believedto solve all the problems of the elderly poor.

C. was intendedto substitute for traditional values in Singapore

D. was passed tomake the young more responsible to the old.

2．By quoting the growing percentage pointsof the aged in the population, the author seems to imply that ______.

A. the countrywill face mounting problems of the old in future

B. the socialwelfare system would be under great pressure

C. young peopleshould be given more moral education

D. the oldshould be provided with means of livelihood

3．Which of the following statements isCORRECT?

A. Filialresponsibility in Singapore is enforced by law.

B. Fathers havelegal obligations to look after their children.

C. It is anacceptable practice for the old to continue working.

D. The AdvisoryCouncil was dissatisfied with the problems of the old.

4．The author seems to suggest thattraditional values ______.

A. play aninsignificant role in solving social problem

B. are helpfulto the elderly when they sue their children

C. are veryimportant in preserving Asian uniqueness

D. aresignificant in helping the Bill get approved

5．The author thinks that if the Billbecomes law, its effect would be ______.

A. indirect

B. unnoticed

C. apparent

D.straightforward

6．At the end of the passage, the authorseems to imply that success of the Bill depends upon ______.

A. strict enforcement

B. publicsupport

C. governmentassurance

D. filialawareness

【答案与解析】

1．D 文章的第一句话指出赡养父母法律的通过：“… that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to supportone’s parents.”这句话的意思与选项D的意思相同，因此应该选D。

2．A 文章的第四段中：“… Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion ofpeople over 60 years of age.”并通过数字证明确实存在老龄人口比例增大的问题，由此而产生的问题是：“It is that the ratio of economically active people to economicallyinactive people will decline.”由此暗示了国家所要面临的严重问题，因此应该选A。

3．B 文章的第七段中提出：“A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children.”这句与选项B的意思相同，因此应该选B。

4．D 从整篇文章分析，一方面阐述了亚洲国家传统的道德观念是子女有赡养父母的义务，另一方面谈了老人无人赡养的问题，因此需要通过立法来促进道德观念的发扬，二者之间的辩证关系决定了答案D是正确的，因此应该选D。

5．A 文章的第十段中：“If it does indeed become law, the bill’s effect would be far moresubtle.”在下面的三段中，作者分析了立法后会产生的影响，不是直接通过法律手段解决问题，但是可以看到间接的效果，因此应该选A。

6．D 文章的最后一句话：“… if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the firstplace.”这句话表明此项立法是否成功要看它能否激励人们维护传统道德观念，而不是首先考虑对簿公堂，选项D包含此义，因此应该选D。 TcQazIZG80WnmqPvGMpqI509hHiNUoOr6YNKo/33mbZoKUWQ4b9jQ1mfLAICbQOE