Mid-Week Thoughts - On Moral and Legal Obligations

There was a time when as a parent you knew that you had to provide for your child's needs, including educating him until at least to School Certificate level (now SPM or O-level). Your child in turn knew that when he finished school, he would have to begin earning his keep and not depend on you. A simple understanding of each other's moral obligation and which had worked pretty well generally.

Times have changed, however.

Nowadays, these moral obligations are sometimes seen in the context of the laws promulgated by Parliament. And that’s when things get complicated. Precise meanings of words and other legalese come into play.

So was the case reported in last Saturday's NST. In the said case, "The key question before the Federal Court was Section 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 — whether involuntary financial dependence of a child to complete tertiary education came within the ambit of physical or mental disability." Their Lordships interpretation was that it did not and accordingly ruled that non-Muslim parents (the Act does not apply to Muslims) were not bound by law to support the education of their offspring when they turned 18. Section 95 of the Act states the parents have the obligation to support any of their disabled children beyond the age of 18.

The ruling caused a stir among social activists. They were reportedly worried that it "may set an alarming precedent," reported a storey in Sunday Mail.While they agree " that, generally, Malaysian parents do fund their children’s education out of love and duty, the ruling may give legal reasons for irresponsible parents to shirk their parental duties." Ivy Josiah, executive director of Women’s Aid Organisation, was quoted as saying it especially so " in cases involving errant parents who are either estranged or divorced." A lawyer/child activist, Yasmeen Shariff, said, "Perhaps we should now lobby for an amendment for section 95 at least to make parents liable to providing maintenance for their children’s education – at least until the first degree.”

But one can argue, in turn, that there are also irresponsible and errant children. In these cases, should the parents still be expected to provide for their education after they turned 18? So, why can't Section 95 stay as it is?

We often forget that moral obligations are not "static" or "cast in iron". Even though they are time-honoured obligations, pragmatism sees to it that they continually evolve to take cognizance of changing circumstances. For example, most parents now know that with only SPM qualification opportunities for employment are limited and, if they have the means and the child wants it, they are prepared to support him/her to, say, up to A-level.

Legislating these obligations crystallized them and makes them less responsive to changing circumstances. It's either black or its white. There's no place for the shades in between.

Just like religious obligations, moral ones should not be made into laws. By their nature their practice is personal to the individual concern. It is on his conscience whether he performs it or not.