Aging and the Law in Singapore and Japan: Adult Guardianship and Other Alternatives

ABSTRACTComparative adult guardianship law and other alternatives, especially in an Asian context, is an under-investigated area. This paper attempts to fill the gap in the literature by comparing the adult guardianship law and other alternatives from the perspectives of Singapore and Japan. The central argument of this paper is that in order for the law of adult guardianship to be widely adopted in Asian societies like Singapore and Japan - where much of adult guardianship related issues are governed by informal familial arrangements; this would require governments to do more than the mere enacting of adult guardianship legislation. To encourage widespread adoption, governments must embark on a robust public awareness campaign to promote the adult guardianship scheme, provide institutional support, and simplify the process for people wishing to sign up to the scheme and enact the appropriate safeguards against abuse. Such conditions are present in Singapore, whereas in Japan, these are lacking which explains the lower take-up rate with Japanese people preferring informal arrangements. Another key difference between Singapore and Japan is that the former relies primarily on family and relatives to act as adult guardians, while the court in the latter jurisdiction insists on the appointment of professionals like lawyers to act as adult guardians. It is surmised that this factor explains the lower take-up rate of formal adult guardianship in Japan as compared to Singapore due to the costs involved in engaging professional guardians. This paper also explores the alternatives to adult guardianship in both systems. Alternatives to formal adult guardianship is important because there will be a substantial portion of the population of older adults who would prefer these alternatives for various reasons.KEYWORDS: Adult guardianship lawalternatives to guardianshipJapanSingapore AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Tan Wei Jie Shawn for research assistance.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.