According to Wanita MCA chief, Dr Ng Yen Yen, the law should be amended to compel parents to be financially responsible for their children not only until 18 years of age, but beyond to cover the children's tertiary education and obtainment of their first degree (as reported by the The Sunday Star , Nov 21, page 18).

Ng's suggestion was made in response to the recent Ipoh High Court decision which struck off a petition by 22-year-old student Foo Dui Geng who wanted his father to pay his maintenance until he had completed his tertiary education in Britain.

Dui Geng's case must be viewed in its context.

He had wanted to compel his 45-year-old father, Foo Woon Keat, to pay a lump sum of RM81,421 for his course fees, lodging, food, and other expenses to enable him to complete his final-year studies at Nottingham Trent University in England.

Dui Geng, who lived with his mother in Pinggir Rapat, Perak, after his parents divorced in 1987, had said that his father was a well-to-do businessman holding various assets and was operating a factory in Gopeng.

Our Law Reform (Marriage Divorce) Act 1976 has already provided that parents have a duty to provide for the clothing, food and education of their children as may be reasonable having regard to their means and station in life, such duty terminating when the children reach 18 years of age (when they become adult and presumably no longer dependent) unless in cases of physical and mental disabilities, which in such cases, would extend until such disabilities end.

Dui Geng couldn't get what he sought for because the court ruled that involuntary financial dependence for tertiary education was not a physical or mental disability for which a parent should be made responsible after a child reaches adulthood at 18 years of age.

Ng's suggestion of law reform carries with it several implications.

First of all, does education, which a parent is responsible for, now to be construed to extend beyond secondary education to tertiary education overseas in England, US or Australia, and if so, would it stop arbitrarily at the first degree, and not up to a doctorate level?

The question is, are we going to amend the law to allow 18-year-olds and above to sue their parents for tertiary education even if the family is not fractured and the parents not divorced?

What happens if the first born, who is not so scholastically distinguished to procure a scholarship on his own at 18, sues his parents for tertiary education when the parents have to preserve their available financial resources to educate five other younger siblings up to secondary school level?

I would assume that for the general case, it would be natural for most parents to support their children educationally for as far as they can go subject to their being able to afford it. So the question here is whether they should be subject to the force of law to provide for their offspring's tertiary education even after their offspring has attained adulthood at 18 years of age.

It seems strange that in today's society, no one wants to take responsibility for anything and always pushes it on to others - like erstwhile parents.

What is the government, and more specifically, an important component party like the MCA, doing to ensure equal opportunity for academically deserving persons of all races above 18 years to fulfill their aspirations for tertiary education?

Dui Geng's case is not one where the deserted spouse is suing the errant other for their child's educational support extending to tertiary education.

It is one where the son, after coming of age, sues the father. If one changes the law without care, this legal remedy may be available to any errant child, just entering into adulthood, fancying an education in a prestigious university abroad without any heed of his station in life to which he was born or his parents' financial limitations and other responsibilities.

More important, when a person comes of age at 18, and is adult enough to be conscripted to join the army and fight for the country, shouldn't he take personal responsibility to work, save the money or endeavour hard enough to produce good grades to be eligible for scholarship in pursuit of his further education dreams? Is it good teaching to absolve him for that personal responsibility to fend for himself?

When one pushes for law reform to make parents legally responsible for financing their adult offspring's tertiary education, wouldn't this represent an encouragement to offspring to sue their parents for every dissatisfaction regarding their station in life and thus undermine in the process the familial trust and unity that must subsist for the long-term integrity of our family institution?

And wouldn't this run counter to the Confucian precept of filial piety that would be anomalous for a Chinese-based party like the MCA to indirectly subvert? MCA has urged the Chinese Malaysians to marry and produce more children so that population percentages may be at least maintained for political rights to be preserved.

Indeed, the MCA Wanita deputy chief has inaugurated and organised 'boy meet girl' social functions under the auspices of MCA's Cupid Club to facilitate this goal..

So, in the interest of MCA's political agenda of preserving Chinese population percentages, are we supposed to look forward to having a marital partner, having many children and when financial resources are spread too thinly over several children, look forward to the prospects of our children suing us for educational support up to tertiary level?

This when the MCA itself has not taken the responsibility to fight fully for equal opportunity allowing Chinese Malaysians access to local tertiary education at lower cost.

Taking the case beyond, it is a trend nowadays to resort to tightening of laws and the imposition of the severest penalties to address every social problem there is whether relating to marital rape , traffic violations, neglect of child support, illegal immigrants etc. when such laws will not be efficacious against entrenched traditional attitudes.

Education on the importance of personal accountability, respecting others rights and equal opportunity evinced by actual deeds and examples - not highfaluting words - will be more effective as existing laws are already sufficient.

But can education inculcate such values when they are negated by a system that, by deeds or non-action, tolerates corruption, iniquitous laws like the ISA and unfair distribution of rewards and responsibilities?

Of course, one can seek to promote a culture of rights recognition in areas not so politically sensitive as compensation for deliberate neglect in other areas which are deemed politically sensitive.

Any suggestion to promulgate yet tighter laws may score political points and garner popular votes within one's immediate constituency but it can scarcely reach to the root causes to resolve the social problems emanating from within the system.