2013年7月1日星期一
內地子女不探長輩將違法-------這算是甚麼法律
內地子女不探長輩將違法
內地由今天起修改法例。規定子女如不時常回家探望長輩，將會違法。
內地由7月1日起正式實施修改後的《中華人民共和國老年人權益保障法》。新法例規定家庭成員應關心家內老人的精神需求，不得忽視及冷落老人；而與老人分開居住的家庭成員，需經常回家探望老人；如贍養人在某一單位工作，僱主亦需按規定，保障贍養人能探親休假。新例下子女若不時常問候老人，將涉嫌違法。
據了解，新法例乃針對改善內地市民不履行贍養義務的情況。有內地媒體形容不履行贍養老人責任的「不孝子」屢見不鮮，但許多時候因外界不便介入家事，使不孝情況普遍。
明報這則新聞真有趣，也相當諷刺，孝順及照顧父母，本來是天經地義的責任，竟然要發展成法律來提供保障。出發點雖然好，但為此立法相當可悲。《中華人民共和國老年人權益保障法》是1996年頒布的，目的是保護老年人依法享有的權益，禁止歧視、侮辱、虐待或者遺棄老年人。這法律條文，看起來像社會政策文件多過法律，含糊之處甚多，難以執行。譬如新修訂的法律所講：與老人分開居住的家庭成員，需經常回家探望老人。怎樣才算「經常回家探望」呢？一星期三次抑或一個月一次。子女住在不同省分或甚至不同國家又如何？真的要立法，就不能拖泥帶水，要立得清晰並可執行的。
根據《中華人民共和國老年人權益保障法》第二條，老年人的定義是滿60歲的人，這歲數，以人均壽命來講，並不算老，大陸應該鼓勵他們繼續工作。立法的方向應該清晰訂定老人享有的實質社會保障，而不是空泛的講法。譬如第十八條：老年人的婚姻自由受法律保護，子女或者其他親屬不得干涉老年人離婚、再婚及婚後的生活，看起來也相當荒謬。立法應該保障基本人權，做得到的話，子女或者其他親屬自然不能干涉。中國大陸要邁向真正法治，路途遙遠。要鼓勵子女孝順，首先不應做直升機家長，這些怪獸父母，間接做成子女不孝順，他們理所當然的受到過份呵護，何來反哺之心？
訂閱：
發佈留言 (Atom)
The real impact of this law will not be upon the old people; it will become a more formal and at the same time, extralegal, way to limit mobility within China.
回覆刪除Imagine you were a business owner in Shanghai and you have employees coming from all over the country, and this law requires you to grant special leaves to employees to visit parents, which types of workers would you prefer? Local or provincial? Even if the provincial workers could get in, they career progress would be stalled because they needed to get more time off.
Furthermore, the public security departments now have more reasons to round up people lingering outside their home provinces. There are thousands of people in Beijing seek audience with the ombudsman or more precisely, 上訪, and these people stay for years. According to this law, these people now have a legal and moral duty to leave the capital, and the police can arrest them and have the court send them back in accordance with the law.
I don't know if there is secret purpose behind the change. The change in law with this additional filial piety requirement by itself is farcical. One insidious effect, of course, like what you said. I see as a slogan style piece of legislation not enforceable in law. If you worry about using it as a pretext to dissuade the people appealing to Beijing for a local grievance, the parents be the appellants then or make sure the parents have not reached the age of 60.
刪除When the US made a temporary exemption of estate tax so that the tax would be collected again in a few years, it created an incentive to prevent one's parents to live pass the the exemption date, as documented by Paul Krugman here. Great fun.
刪除Considering the fact that the change is made to address the issue of people leaving their parents at their home provinces and going outside to seek employment opportunities, whether it is made with a secret purpose in mind does not matter; it is the impact that counts. Nevertheless, I do want them to enforce the law strictly; that would only serve to create more grievances.
Hey, you always bear an insidious intent to create turmoil. The Chinese can just stop any action if there is an enforceable danger of creating social unrest.
刪除I think the best enhancement to filial piety aside from education and propagation is a genuine tax benefit concession as incentive to lure the people to take care of their parents.
遲下大陸可能會立法，丈夫或妻子不定期與配偶行房，將會違法。
回覆刪除Don't be naughty. You may offend some of my readers.
刪除Bill I like the word you use 'farcical'. The whole of China practises rule by law or by decree which echoed farcical. The long arm of law just gets longer. Hong Kong to me seems going down a similar path by polarizing the application of existing law.
回覆刪除hi fiving
It is rather pathetic to see the lack of legal system and development of rule of law in China. The legislature is so loose and ambiguous.
刪除Let me fill in the blanks here a little bit. Laws in China are loose and ambiguous for a couple reasons. First, the laws are dictated by the rulers, who do not rely on legal experts in making the ultimate decision. Second, ambiguity work to their advantage, take your reply above, if the law does not work out as intended, the ambiguity allows them to back off a bit and try again later. Third, they have no enforcement system. Laws related to social policies require independent agencies, like social service departments, to spot the problem and notify the responsible authority. Fourth, despite China being a centralist state, the provinces have the power to determine how they enforce the law with provincial ordinances; loose and ambiguous legislation makes room for that.
刪除There will be huge disparity in decision if the resolution of ambiguity depends on individual judicial officer's interpretation at his/her pleasure. The development, if any, of the law is stagnated.
刪除The first case has already been decided in Wuxi (that was ridiculously fast; I believe it was a show). A women was ordered by court to visit her 77 year-old mother once every two months. See BBC for the story.
回覆刪除Thanks. I have just read this interesting story from BBC. What amazed me is the speed of the case. The new legislative requirement for the visit was implemented on July 1, as reported. The first case landed in court on the same day and the decision of the court is a pre-emptive one. Under the new law, the daughter has not yet seen whether she is complying or not since it was only the first day of implementation, how could the court entertain the application without giving time to observe whether the daughter will follow the law in the first place. It is just so farcical.
刪除