Family Matters

This month Singapore passed a bill that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to support one's parents. Called the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it received the backing of the Singapore Government.

That does not mean it hasn't generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament opposed the measure as un-Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem o f the elderly poor believed it a disproportionate response. Still others believe it will subvert relations within the family: cynics dubbed it the “Sue Your Son” law.

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

Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the problems of an incre asing proportion of people over 60 years of age. Demography is inexorable. In 1980, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the end of the century that figure will grow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26%. The problem is not old age perse. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people will decline.

But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety net.

Traditionally, a person's insurance against poverty in his old age was his family, lifts is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care and support for one's parents 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. A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support his or her parents.

In 1989, an Advisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 95% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the 5% 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 hav e to be destitute to apply）; or（c） starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as soc iety ages?

The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encounte red in other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply t o the court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would hav e the discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust.

Those who deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeed become law, the bill's effect would be far more subtle.

First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual's—not society's—responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is still conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It reinforces the traditional values and it doesn't hurt a society now and then to remind itself of its core values.

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

But to be sued by one's parents would be a massive loss of face. It would be a public disgrace. 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 more likely that some sort of amicable settlement would be reached if the recalcitrant son or daughter knows that the alternative is a public trial.

It would be nice to think Singapore doesn't need this kind of law. But that belief ignores the clear demographic trends and the effect of affluence itsel f on traditional bends. Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves most successful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the first place.

20. The Maintenance of Parents Bill ___.

      A. received unanimous support in the Singapore Parliament

      B. was believed to solve all the problems of the elderly poor

      C. was intended to substitute for traditional values in Singapore

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

21. By quoting the growing percentage points of the aged in the population, the author seems to imply that ___.

      A. the country will face mounting problems of the old in future

      B. the social welfare system would be under great pressure

      C. young people should be given more moral education

      D. the old should be provided with means of livelihood

22. Which of the following statements is CORRECT?

      A. Filial responsibility in Singapore is enforced by law.

      B. Fathers have legal obligations to look after their children.

      C. It is an acceptable practice for the old to continue working.

      D. The Advisory Council was dissatisfied with the problems of the old.

23. The author seems to suggest that traditional values ___.

       A. play an insignificant role in solving social problems

       B. are helpful to the elderly when they sue their children

       C. are very important in preserving Asian uniqueness

       D. are significant in helping the Bill get approve

24. The author thinks that if the Bill becomes law, its effect would be ___.

A. indirect B. unnoticed C. apparent D. straightforward

25. At the end of the passage, the author seems to imply that success of the Bill depends upon ___.

      A. strict enforcement                                 B. public support

      C. government assurance                        D. filial awareness

题解:

20. D) 细节题。

（Line 1，Para. 2） That does not mean it hasn't generated discussion.这并不意味着这项议案不会引起人们的争议.

（Para. 5） But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely elim inate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. S ome people will fall through the holes in any safety net. 但是无论是政府劝解还是进行家长式统治，都不能完全消除老年人没有足够的经济来源导致的入不敷出的问题.。总有一些人要钻安全网的空子。

（Lines 1 ~ 2， Para. 9） The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encounte red in other affluent societies. 《赡养父母议案》因此而设立，它提倡迄今为止能使亚洲国家抵御一些富裕国家不良习气影响的传统美德。

21. A) 理解题。作者引用老年人比例不断上升的数据有什么含意？

（Lines 3 ~ 4， Para. 4）The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people will decline.问题不在于老年本身。而在于劳动人口和非劳动人口之间的比率会下降。

22. B) 细节推断题。下列陈述哪一个是正确的？

（Lines 2 ~ 3，Para. 3）The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any more than it can legislate love.法律不能规定人们遵守孝道，正如不能规定人们坚守爱情一样。

（Lines 1 ~ 5，Para. 8）Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 95% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the 5% 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 hav e to be destitute to apply）; or（c） starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable.该机构的报告颇为得意地声称：95%的没有收入的老年人可以从家里人那里得到现金资助。但是另外的得不到家人赡养的5%的老人怎么办呢？他们有几个选择：（a）找份工作一直干到死；（b）申请社会救助（除非穷的要饿死才可以申请）；或者（c）安静地饿死。没有一项选择可以为社会所接受。

（Lines 1 ~ 2，Para. 7）A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children.法律可以强制父亲抚养孩子。

23. C) 理解题。作者如何看待传统观念?

（Lines 1 ~ 2， Para. 9） The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encounte red in other affluent societies. 《赡养父母议案》因此而设立，它提倡迄今为止能使亚洲国家抵御一些富裕国家不良习气影响的传统美德。

24. C) 细节推断题。作者认为如果该议案成为法律，它将会产生怎样的效果？

（Line 2，Para. 10）If it does indeed become law, the bill's effect would be far more subtle.如果它真的成了法律，这项议案的效果会变得更为微妙。

（Line 1，Para. 11）First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual's—not society's—responsibility to look after his parents.第一，它将重申一个观点，即：照顾父母是个人责任，而不是社会的责任。

（Line 1，Para. 12）Second, and more important, it will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilities think twice.第二，也是更为重要的一点，它将使那些想推卸责任的人不得不慎重考虑。

25. D) 推断题。在文章最后一部分，作者暗示了议案的成功取决于什么？

（Lines 2 ~ 3，Para. 14）Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves most successful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the first place.争取实施该议案的人认为：如果这项议案能够督促人们遵守孝道，而不是首先让人们诉诸于法律，那么这项议案才算是获得了成功。

参考译文：

这是一篇议论文。阐述了新加坡议会通过”赡养父母议案“以解决家庭问题这一举措的作用及其深远意义。

家事

这个月，新加坡通过了一项运用法律手段强制人们赡养父母、履行道德义务的议案。这项议案称为《赡养父母议案》，它得到了新加坡政府的支持。

这并不意味着这项议案不会以前你人们的争议。一些议会成员反对这一措施，因为它不符合亚洲传统。另外一些了解贫穷老人问题的意愿则认为这一议案有些过火。还有一些人认为这会搅乱家庭关系：喜欢嘲笑挖苦人的人则将这一议案称为”起诉儿子“法。

有些人说这一议案不能促使儿女更加履行孝道，当然，他们说得没错。但这一议案和孝道没有任何关系。它只是介入到了孝道不能管辖的领域。法律不能规定人们遵守孝道，正如不能规定人们坚守爱情一般。法律能做的就是提供安全网，以保护道德不能约束的领域。新加坡需要这项法案不是为了使其替代道德，而是为了提供支持道德的激励因素。

和许多其他的发达国家一样，新加坡也面临着人口老龄化问题，60岁以上的人在人口中所占比率越来越高。人口统计的结果是无情的。在1980年，60岁以上的人口比率只有7.2%。在世纪之交，这个数字增长到11%。预计到2030年，这一数字将会达到26%。问题不在于老年本身。而在于劳动人口和非劳动人口之间的比率会下降。

但是无论是政府劝诫还是进行家长式统治，都不能完全消除老年人没有足够的经济来源导致的入不敷出的问题。总有一些人要钻安全网的空子。

从传统意义上来说，一个人年老时的养老保险就是家庭，家庭可以保证其免受贫困之苦。这不是一个革命性的概念。也不是亚洲人所独有的。关心父母、赡养父母是所有文明社会所共有的价值观。

新加坡的问题是不能强制人们遵守道德义务去照顾父母。法律可以强制父亲抚养孩子，可以强制丈夫供养妻子。但是迄今为止，儿子或者女儿没有赡养父母的法律义务。

1989年，新加坡设立了管理老年问题的咨询委员会。该机构的报告颇为得意地声称：95%的没有收入的老年人可以从家人那里得到现金资助。但是另外的得不到家人赡养的5%的老人怎么办呢？他们有几个选择：（a）找份工作一直干到死；（b）申请社会救助（除非穷的要饿死才可以申请）；或者（c）安静地饿死。没有一项选择可以为社会所接受。但是如果这个5%的比率增加该怎么办？这个比率很可能会增加正如社会肯定要发展一样。

《赡养父母议案》因此而设立，它提倡迄今为止能使亚洲国家抵御一些富裕国家不良习气影响的传统美德。这项立法允许老人向法院申请，要求得到其任何一个孩子或所有孩子的赡养。如果申请有失公平，法院会考虑是否要拒绝执行。

有些人嘲笑这项议案，认为法院不该插手家事，这种观点是错误的。因为只有在极端的案件中，家长才会把孩子告上法庭。如果它真正地成为法律，这项议案的效果会变得更为微妙。

第一，它将重申一个观点，即：照顾父母是个人的责任，而不是社会的责任。新加坡仍然还是一个传统社会，大多数人不会反对这个观点。它巩固了传统价值观，而且现在对社会无害，并以此来提醒其核心价值观。

第二，也是更为重要的一点，它将使那些想推卸责任的人不得不慎重考虑。到现在为止，如果一个人让你要求家族中的长者、牧师或社会发展部帮助其从孩子那里得到经济上的资助，大多数情况下他们也只能得到调停的帮助。但是调停者没有强迫执行的权力，孩子可能会对调停置之不理。

但是，被父母起诉可是一件极为丢脸的事。会遭到公众羞辱。很少有人会厚脸皮到说”有种去告我“的地步。抚慰者的权力得到了无限制的增长。如果不孝子或不孝女明白自己出了接受公众审判别无选择的话，很可能会达到某种和解。

如果认为新加坡不需要这种法律，这种想法当然是好的。但这种观念忽略了人口统计学显而易见的去世，也忽略了经济增长对传统价值的影响。争取实施该项议案的人认为：如果这项议案能够督促人们遵守孝道，而不是首先将人们诉诸法律，那么这项议案才算获得了成功。