The following question stood in the name of Mr Ganesh Rajaram –
1 To ask the Minister for National Development given the record number of en bloc transactions in the property market and coupled with ongoing development and construction work surrounding new MRT stations and lines (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a study on the impact of the numerous heavy construction projects and redevelopment works on our tiny island; and (b) what measures has the Ministry taken to mitigate the impact on existing infrastructure as well as inconvenience to people.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Question No 1.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, Sir, to meet the needs of Singaporeans, such as housing, transport, healthcare or education, it is not uncommon for multiple development projects to be taking place across our island at any one time.
When assessing development projects before construction is allowed to proceed, agencies take into account the impact of construction arising from that particular project on the people, the existing buildings and infrastructure, and the environment in the surrounding area. In addition, agencies consider the impact of other construction works taking place at the same time in the area.
To minimise potential noise disamenities from construction works, the National Environment Agency imposes noise limits on construction sites under the Environmental Protection and Management Act. Mitigating measures, such as shielding noise sources, using quieter equipment and cleaner construction methods, monitoring vibration levels, and restricting the duration of noisy activities, are implemented, where necessary.
For large-scale projects, the Land Transport Authority also requires developers to conduct a Transport Impact Assessment to identify the potential impact of construction on traffic flows and propose mitigation measures, where necessary.
Enforcement action will be taken against developers who violate regulatory requirements, and a \"stop work order\" may be imposed on repeat offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training and Support for Professionals in Special Needs Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Rahayu Mahzam –
2 To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current total number of professionals, such as teachers and social workers, who are in the special needs sector; (b) what training and professional development programmes are available for the professionals in this sector; and (c) what are the support structures in place to ensure that these professionals do not suffer from burnout or are able to cope with the stresses of the job.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Question No 2, Sir.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): There are about 1,900 professionals working in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and in Special Education (SPED) schools today. These include teachers, social workers, psychologists and therapists.
These professionals play a key role in the development of special needs children, and we support them in several ways. Professionals working in the special needs sector must hold the relevant degrees or diplomas in their fields of practice. To complement this, the Social Service Institute (SSI) and the National Institute of Education (NIE) provide professionals in the disability sector with continuing education and training (CET) programmes. These range from broad-based courses to targeted ones focusing on the skills and knowledge required to work with special needs clients. For example, teachers working with children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can take up targeted courses that build specialised knowledge in autism. There are also courses that equip professionals with skills to cope with the demands of their work, such as mindfulness and self-care practices.
These courses are subsidised by the Government, through grants, such as the Local Training Grant from the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs)-Charities Fund. To further upgrade themselves, in-service professionals can also apply for professional development sponsorships, such as the Ministry of Education (MOE) Scholarship for SPED teachers and SkillsFuture Study Awards. Promising social workers and Early Intervention (EI) teachers taking up managerial and leadership positions can also apply for the Professional Development and Management Programme and the Leadership Development Programme which fund leadership, management and other skills-based training.
Second, we also help professionals learn from one another’s experiences and expertise through practice networks. The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) organises annual sessions for social workers and psychologists in SPED schools to share resources and best practices. SPED schools have also put in place Professional Learning Teams (PLTs) where teachers and other professionals can discuss how to improve teaching practices.
Third, we have put in place measures to help social service professionals cope with the challenges of their jobs. Aside from self-care courses run by the SSI, NCSS also introduced the Sabbatical Leave Scheme in 2008 to help reduce burnout in professionals. Through this scheme, social service professionals nominated by their organisations receive funding from NCSS that provides them with 10 weeks of paid leave to recharge and refresh themselves, as well as sponsorship for professional development courses. To date, about 170 professionals have benefited from this scheme.
Mentoring and on-the-job coaching by senior practitioners also help to alleviate burnout by equipping younger teachers and social workers with skills and strategies to build up their confidence and resilience. For example, SPED schools have mentoring and coaching programmes for teachers and ensure that teachers have access to counselling services and enjoy protected time during school holidays. Some EIPIC centres have also structured the work week such that teachers have a one-day reprieve from direct intervention, to work on back-room administrative tasks, such as programme planning.
To complement these targeted efforts, NCSS has also been working with VWOs to improve their human resource management capabilities to ensure that all our professionals are well-deployed and cared for, as they give their best to help those in need.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I have just one supplementary question. Does the Government envisage that there is a need to increase the number of professionals working in the special needs sector and, if so, what are the plans in the next five years?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. Indeed, it is not only now that we realise that there has been an increase. In fact, a few years ago, we had anticipated this and the number of professionals in the social service sector has increased significantly for some, depending on the sub-sector. And we are mindful that the numbers or the needs require this increase. As such, we recognise this and we have been doing that. I assure Members that we are keeping a close watch on how we can, one, care for people; and two, make sure that we provide the necessary framework, infrastructure as well as manpower to ensure that their needs are met sufficiently.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.
\tMr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Mine is a follow-up to the question. Is there a desirable student-to-teacher ratio that the Ministry is trying to achieve? Secondly, usually in a day class, if you have many hours of working, it is actually very stressful for teachers, especially when you are working with students with special needs. Is there a maximum number of hours a teacher can teach within a day, so that they can have a reprieve and have breaks in between?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The unique state of affairs of the disability sector is that the nature of work is complex and it varies from student to student. As such, we are very mindful of the needs of the students. For some who have high care needs, we will put more staff to be involved. We are also mindful that staff also need reprieve. As such, depending on the setting, NCSS and the Ministry of Social and Family Development work closely with the VWOs to see how we can provide the support, not only to the kids but also to the teachers. So, my answer is, it varies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Positive Environment at Children’s Homes, Shelters and Other Welfare Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the Government's overall approach to create a positive learning and personal development environment for children staying at the various children's homes, shelters and other welfare homes.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, education is a key pillar of social mobility in Singapore. Our schools provide equal opportunities for all students, regardless of background, to access good quality education. This also applies to children who reside in Homes licensed under the Children and Young Persons Act.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development aims to minimise disruption to the educational needs of such children, even though circumstances had led them to be separated from their own families. For example, community case managers in the children’s homes work with the schools to ensure that the children continue to attend school. At the same time, the social and emotional needs of these vulnerable children are provided for, bearing in mind the difficult backgrounds they come from and the trauma that some of them may have experienced. Equally important is character development and the need for the children to be connected and integrated in the community.
In contrast to the children's homes, shelters and welfare homes serve different target groups. Shelters are intended for adults who have exhausted all other means of accommodation or those who face family violence. Children who reside temporarily in these shelters are accompanied by their family, and the shelters partner the family, schools and the community in providing for the children’s needs. Welfare homes do not admit children, and serve only adults who are destitute.
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the current capacity in all these homes and what is the occupancy at these homes?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: All I can say is that the numbers of children and youths in these homes have been going down. In fact, the capacity has been increasing. In 2015, we had about 798 children; in 2016, it went down to 734; in 2017, it was 701. This is because we are looking at transforming the out-of-home care sector. We are putting more kids into foster families. This is a good development. And I want to assure Members that we take care of these kids because they are our future generations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Profile of Singaporeans on Public Transport Concession Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current number and percentage of Singaporeans who are on the various public transport concession schemes and how do the figures compare to those five years ago; (b) whether there are assessments done on the number of Singaporeans, especially senior citizens, who are likely to be on the concession scheme by 2020 and 2030 as a result of our ageing population; and (c) whether the senior citizens concession scheme has resulted in more travels by senior citizens.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, over the last five years, the number of Singapore Residents holding concession cards increased from 1.4 million to 1.8 million. These include students, full-time National Servicemen and senior citizens. We have also recently included persons with disabilities and Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) beneficiaries to the concessions framework in 2014.
The concession scheme for senior citizens, which accounts for more than 40% of residents with concession cards, aims to recognise their contributions towards our nation. By 2020, we expect that there will be close to 900,000 Singapore Residents aged 60 and above who will qualify. Over the last five years, the average number of journeys made by senior citizens has increased by around 50% while the number of senior citizen concession pass holders rose by around 30%. This suggests that senior citizens are making more trips, which could be due to reasons other than the concession.
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.
\tMiss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Some questions. I would like to check how is fare affordability checked to ensure that no one falls through the cracks and they have the suitable concessions that they can apply for. The concessions formula was also reviewed in 2012/2013. Will there be a review soon to keep up with the changing needs? The other thing is, with the increase in the number, how are the fare concessions funded? Because with the numbers, can the current funding model continue to fund when the number of seniors or the people on concession increase substantially? Will there be enhancements soon, especially for the Workfare Supplement scheme?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I thank Member for the questions. The concession schemes are decided by the Public Transport Council (PTC) and reviewed by it regularly. So, PTC will ensure that our public transport fares remain affordable. Looking at the past decade, when we look at the low-income residents, the monthly expenditure on public transport as a proportion of their household income has come down from 4.2% to 2.7%. Of course, besides the low-income groups, there will be other segments of the population that require support. And PTC will continue to review and, if necessary, enhance the concession schemes to take care of these various groups, including senior citizens, students and persons with disabilities.
Miss Cheng is right that there is cost to these concessions. Except for the Workfare Transport Scheme and the persons with disabilities scheme, which are funded by the Government, the others are cross-funded by other full-fare paying commuters. So, there is cross-subsidy by other full-fare paying commuters. Ultimately, PTC has to take into consideration and to strike a balance between ensuring the financial sustainability of the land transport system and the fare affordability for our commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Network Capacity Factor to Address Gap in Transport Cost and Fares","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) to what extent is the Network Capacity Factor able to address the widening gap between transport cost and fares; (b) how will the revised fare formula affect low-income and elderly Singaporeans; and (c) whether existing transport subsidy schemes for needy Singaporeans, such as concession holders who are Workfare Income Supplement recipients or senior citizens, will be reviewed or enhanced.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, the Public Transport Council (PTC) developed the fare formula to objectively track the changes in the running cost of our public transport operations. This helps inform their deliberations when they evaluate proposals from operators for fare changes and decide on the annual fare recommendations.
The running costs of public transport operators are affected by a number of factors, including the price and quantity of the resources deployed. For example, their expenditure on electricity in a particular year will depend on the quantity of electricity consumed during that year, and the prevailing electricity tariffs.
While the old fare formula adequately measured the changes in the price of resources consumed, it did not measure the changes in the quantity. When the capacity of the public transport network is quite stable from year to year, the limitation of the old fare formula is not material. However, as we aggressively expand the capacity of our public transport network, the inadequacy in the old fare formula will have a material impact on the sustainability of our public transport system.
In the last five years, we have added more than 1,000 new buses and 200 new trains to our public transport network. This has increased the capacity by around 25%. But over the same period, commuter demand increased by less than 10%. The limitation of the old fare formula has, therefore, contributed to a widening gap between fare revenue and operating costs. So far, the yearly operating shortfall has been covered by Government subsidies. But, going forward, we need a fair way to take into account changes in the capacity of our public transport network relative to commuter demand.
PTC designed the Network Capacity Factor (NCF) specifically to address the limitation in the old fare formula. NCF is a neutral factor. It may be positive or negative. It will be positive where demand grows slower than capacity. Conversely, if capacity remains stagnant in a given year and demand grows faster than capacity, resulting in more crowded trains, NCF will be negative. PTC's mission is to ensure the long-term sustainability of our public transport system, while keeping fares affordable.
Meanwhile, the Government will continue to bear the full development cost of public transport civil infrastructure. This is estimated to be around $20 billion over the next five years.
As for our public transport fares, as Members have just heard from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, the PTC will ensure that they remain affordable. Over the past decade, monthly expenditure on public transport as a proportion of household income for the lower-income group has come down from 4.2% to 2.7%. In other words, transport fares are becoming more affordable.
PTC will also continue to review and, if necessary, enhance concession schemes to provide targeted help for specific groups like senior citizens, low-income individuals and persons with disabilities.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Linking the cost of building the bus network to commuters' fares under the new public transport, whether this approach to cost recovery will contradict our goal to be a car-lite society. Because we are, on one hand, encouraging people to take public transport; on the other hand, when you put in more resources, then it will have an effect on the fares.
Secondly, how will the Ministry ensure that the new fare formula will be made more transparent to the public? Because I hear the feedback, people say that NCF is very complicated.
The third question is why a service standard component is not added to the fare formula, only about cost recovery, but whether the service standard, can it be computed into the fare formula as well?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, I totally subscribe to transparency. Our polices are argued thoroughly and sometimes debated in this House. Formulas are formulated and factors thoroughly explained. If there is a lack of understanding, we will continue to explain and publish them on the website, and so on.
NCF it is a new factor, so I am not surprised that there may be some ignorance about it and people will need time to understand it. We will continue this education process but there is nothing opaque about it. The formula, the definition and how it is computed, it is all up there on the website. In due course, towards the end of this year, when PTC has to evaluate the proposals coming in from the operators, and when the Fare Formula has to be quantified, I am quite sure they will go to great lengths to explain and justify how the factors are changing over the years, whether it is positive or negative. So, that part I can give the Member the assurance.
The service standard component, in a way, is indirectly included in this Network Factor. As I have explained a few minutes ago, for example, if we do not expand the rail network but demand grows, as it happened a few years back, resulting in crowded trains, then the Factor will be negative. That means everything being equal, PTC will be asking for a reduction in fares. I think that is how PTC intends to make use of this Factor. So, it is neutral. If things improve through more comfortable ride, costs go up, then the Factor is positive. That means there may be a need for fare adjustments. Otherwise, the operators will find a gap in how to cover their operating costs. On the other hand, if the network is not expanding but demand is growing in a big way, more uncomfortable ride, then PTC will be asking for a fare reduction to counter this reduction in service level. So, it is being handled but indirectly.
The first point by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah baffles me, I do not quite follow. We expand our bus and rail network precisely so that we can facilitate car-lite. So, more buses, more trains and, hopefully, more people making use of public transport, less need to drive. Then, we have an easier congestion problem on the roads.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: While we are encouraging people to take public transport, with this new fare formula, and several times the Minister had mentioned that the transport fare will surely go up, so the discussion on the ground is that while we encourage people to take public transport and then the transport fares keep going up, so is it going in the same direction?
My follow-up supplementary question about this service level is whether the local service level will be picked up by this fare formula. For example, in Nee Soon South, we have Build-To-Order areas where residents keep complaining that, in the mornings, the wait is very long. I understand because that bus service is a trunk bus service, but they said it is always packed and they have to wait for a long time. So, service level in this sense, will it be picked up by the fare formula?
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Service level may not be picked up directly through the fare formula, but the sentiments will be picked up by me very quickly because Er Dr Lee Bee Wah will make sure that I fully understood what is happening on the ground. I am very attentive to this not just in Yishun but the whole of Singapore.
Let me assure you, we have set up PTC, a multi-individual council with people from all walks of life – media, academia, unions and so on, and I know each one of them. They have their hearts in the right place. That is the reason why you may remember, I hope people remember, the last two, three rounds, fares have actually gone down. But what I have said in Parliament several times is not that fares will definitely go up; that is not what I said. What I said is fares sometimes go down and sometimes go up. It cannot be always going down, that is not possible, because a big part of our operating cost is manpower, unless you say, \"Sorry, bus drivers, train drivers, your salary will forever be going down\". With productivity, sometimes we can achieve some of this. But there is a limit. You heard me many times in this House, in the last two and a half years, we are ramping up, intensifying maintenance, recruiting many more engineers, mechanics, technicians, and all those require money.
I really hope that Singaporeans understand that I want to do my job well, so that we can have a first-class transport system, and we will get there. But I do need money because it is not realistic to hope that you get a good first-class reliable train with no need for any injection of resources. That is why both the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and I repeated that point, which I hope Singaporeans appreciate, that over the last 10 years, the lower-income group, when we look at how much they spend out of their household income on transport, it has been going down. It used to be above 4%; now it is below 3%. So, over time, in fact, affordability has improved.
Whatever we do, we will do what is necessary, including pumping in more resources in order to raise the standard of our public transport systems, so that people do not need to drive, but we need an adequate level of funding. And funding comes from where? Either taxpayers through subsidy, or commuters through fare. To load it on one or the other is wrong, so it is a matter of co-sharing. PTC is given that task of doing this balancing act, finding a way to balance the interests of both sides.
At the end of the day, remember, too, that many taxpayers are commuters and many commuters are also taxpayers.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\t
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for the reply. I refer to the PTC's news release on 22 March 2018 on the Fare Formula Review. There is a paragraph which says that \"the Government will continue to provide significant subsidies for public transport services estimated to be around $9 billion over the next five years. Can the Minister provide some details on the nature of these subsidies? The amount is a significant one. Are there any details the Minister can share on which classes of commuters will benefit from these subsidies?
\t
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Indeed, Government funding to subsidise public transport is a significant one, about $9 billion and – I am relying on memory here, and this is a 66-year-old memory; but then again, a 92-year-old memory can be equally sharp as a young one – I think bus subsidy is about $1 billion a year. So, over five years, that is about $5 billion. That is for buses. For trains, over the next five years, we need to spend about $4 billion replacing existing old assets. So, that is where this $9 billion comes from. But actually, that is not the full story because, as I have just mentioned just now, over the next five years, we will be spending another $20 billion on new public transport infrastructure, as we are going to continue to expand this network.
So, these are huge amounts of money coming from taxpayers and I think it is only fair that part of it must be borne or shared by commuters. I have regularly compared and looked at the fares charged here versus Hong Kong, Taiwan, New York, London. Our rates are not outrageous at all. I think Singaporeans, in their heart, when they travel, they know. PTC told me they do fairly frequent focus group discussions with the commuters, and they find our fares reasonable, and most of them say so.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\t
\t
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for his answers. In respect of service standard in NCF, would the Minister consider incorporating a measure of train reliability standard in order to incentivise the real operators to improve the reliability all round as well as also to manage commuters' expectation? After all, we hear a lot on the ground that there is expansion and there are supposed to be improved services. The survey shows something. But on the ground, people are still complaining about frequent delays.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: It is a very rapidly evolving situation. I have been in this game now for two and a half years and I personally witnessed how things have changed. Yes, last year, we had an awful year, especially towards the end of last year. Two incidents, which should not have happened, happened unfortunately. But there was a silver lining to it; out of it, we came up with Early Closure Late Opening (ECLO). As I always shared with my transport colleagues, ECLO is our favourite four-letter word because that allows us to intensify engineering maintenance. And the results show. Since December, and we are now approaching the middle of May, the situation has improved significantly. So, when the Member said the commuters are upset over very frequent delays, it depends on when you asked them. Was it last year or this year? I do not know whether the Member uses trains and buses. I do. I meet many more commuters than he does, I think. I got it first-hand. North-South line, for example, which used to have a lot of problems with rail reliability, goes through my constituency. In my many house-to-house visits, it used to be about trains. But, in the last few months, I have not heard about trains. Instead, it is e-scooters and bicycles being thrown all over the place. So, as far as rail is concerned, things have improved. Bus level improvements I think have been pretty obvious in the last two to three years. Of course, we are not yet in a perfect situation, like in Yishun, but things will get better, I am quite sure.
As to whether we should include rail reliability into the formula, first of all, this formula is not set by me. It is by PTC. PTC, after consulting their members, consulting Singaporeans, came up with this formula. They did think about whether to include rail reliability. But in the end, they decided against it for various reasons. In any case, even though it is not in the fare formula, I deal with it directly, myself, through the sort of focus and pressure I exert on the operators to make sure they work on rail reliability because that is my priority. And I will see to it that it happens, whether or not it is included in the fare formula.
One of the reasons why PTC did not include it is because when a system is unreliable, in fact, that is the time to pump in more resources. And if you punish them through reduced fares, you are withdrawing resources from the operators. And you will be doing exactly the wrong thing. In short, rail reliability is important, but deal with it separately.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspending Shared PMD Permits Until Riding Culture Improves","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government will consider not allowing commercial shared personal mobility device (PMD) services until the riding culture for PMDs has improved and incidences of unsafe and inconsiderate usage have subsided.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, Sir, to address the unsafe and inconsiderate usage of personal mobility devices (PMDs), we are strengthening public education and enforcement, including the registration of e-scooters. When implemented in the second half of 2018, all e-scooters, regardless of whether they are privately-owned or shared, must be registered and have identification stickers prominently pasted on them. This will facilitate enforcement and deter reckless riding. Under the Active Mobility Act which commenced on 1 May 2018, errant users of e-scooters are also subject to strict penalties.
We do not rule out starting a licensing regime for PMD-sharing services at a later phase. However, more time is required to understand their operational and safety processes as these services are relatively new and rather limited in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. The Senior Minister of State mentioned about the new regulations, the registration requirement, and I agree that that may deter reckless riding and illegal riding to some extent. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what are the current plans to improve better riding etiquette, inconsiderate use of PMD because inconsiderate uses may not amount to an offence? So, a lot of such inconsiderate uses on an everyday basis are not really captured as such. But I think there is a public relations aspect to this, and I think a lot of, especially pedestrians on the ground, are concerned about this. Moving forward, what are the Government's plans to improve this aspect?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member, Mr Dennis Tan, for the supplementary questions. And allow me to indulge in answering the very pertinent question, which I think many Singaporeans as well as users of PMDs are concerned about.
We adopt a multi-pronged approach to deter reckless riding. One of the measures that we have adopted is education initiatives. We have embarked on a public education campaign. In order to promote gracious sharing of public paths, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) actually launched a wave of communications since early 2017 to raise awareness of the active mobility rules and code of conduct, as well as safe riding habits. And these safety messages have been translated into various languages, including Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi and Bengali. And LTA will continue to raise public awareness of these new active mobility rules as well as the penalties involved if such rules are violated.
At the same time, LTA has also started a Safety Riding Programme since February this year to educate the participants on safe riding practices as well as the rules and conduct under the Active Mobility Act. And this Safe Riding Programme has actually two components. There is a practical component whereby the programme teaches participants how to manoeuvre the bicycles and PMDs safely as well as to react to certain unforeseen circumstances. Of course, there is another component of a didactic lecture which I have already mentioned. In addition to all these educational initiatives, I think the Member is also aware that we have enacted legislative changes, such as the Active Mobility Act, as well as stepping up enforcement actions. LTA has their Active Mobility Enforcement Officers who are stepping up their enforcement actions as well as patrols at all these hot spots where there is a high volume of pedestrians and cyclists. We have also engaged volunteers on the ground to look into educating users on safe riding habits as well.
Thirdly, LTA is also adopting innovative solutions to manage this situation. We have embarked on a trial to study the effectiveness of mobile closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in identifying and reducing errant riding behaviour along public paths. If this proves to be effective, I think we will extend it to more places. Right now, we just piloted it to a few areas like in Ang Mo Kio, Yishun and Ubi.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Just a follow-up supplementary question to the Senior Minister of State. Regarding usage of PMDs, increasingly, we are seeing them being used in private premises, such as shopping malls. Some of these malls and private places are quite porous, and they allow PMDs to move from public to private spaces. Many of these mall owners are at a loss. We have seen situations where there is confrontation when some of these PMD users say, \"This is private premises; it is my freedom to use the PMD. Why are you telling me not to?\" So, are there measures taken to work with mall owners and perhaps even give more powers to them to help them in that journey to enforce, minimise or eradicate some of these very dangerous, negligent and careless PMD uses?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The Active Mobility Act as well as the Parking Places (Amendment) Act deals with situations within public places. With regard to the Member's query as to private places, this is really up to the owners of the private places to come up with measures to prevent illegal use of such mobility devices. Of course, if these private entities need assistance, they can also approach us to step up education to educate PMD users on the right habits as well as riding safety.
At the end of the day, because these are private places, it is up to the private landowners to exercise the due diligence in preventing such use of PMDs in those areas.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Despite all the measures that we have taken to encourage safe riding behaviour, accidents do happen. And some of these accidents involve my residents. What would the Senior Minister of State suggest the recourse that the accident victim could take where, let us say, the rider has no insurance coverage and neither does the accident victim? Some of the medical costs incurred can be quite high and can be very difficult for the accident victim to claim compensation.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: In situations where there are accidents, the first thing that the victim has to do is to report it to the Police so that the necessary investigations can be done. I agree with the Member that, indeed, there has been a rise in the number of accidents involving active mobility devices on public paths. Just to give some statistics, in 2015, we have about 19 cases of reported accidents. And that has increased to 42 in 2016, and 128 in 2017. This is quite a significant increase and we are quite concerned about it as well.
\t
And in light of the increase in active mobility-related accidents, we have also engaged the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to review some of the measures that need to be taken, such as the reduction of speed limits on footpaths, whether there is a need for the usage of helmets, and there are also suggestions to dismount and push at traffic crossings, bus stops as well as in crowded areas, and suggestions on the insurance and compensation framework as well. So, I will leave to the Active Mobility Advisory Panel to advise us. They will be meeting and we will take reference from them.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\t\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State \tfor the elaboration. I have one question. I notice that upon approaching the zebra crossing at every crossroad, it is quite common, at least for me, to see that the PMD riders do not stop but just rush through. Is there a way that we can do something at the crossing so that they will slow down and not rush through the zebra crossing because their speed is much faster than that of the normal pedestrian's? I guess Members know what I mean, right?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. As what the Minister has said, indeed, PMD use, as well as reckless driving, have become one of the hotter topics, rather than trains and buses.
Yes, indeed, I think not only at zebra crossings. Even when the PMD users are actually riding on normal pathways or shared pathways, they have to exercise due diligence and considerations, as well as obey traffic rules. So, public education is important in educating some of these PMD users on how to use the PMDs in a more responsible way. If we are able to achieve that, I think it will be much safer for all users, and we will also be able to achieve our vision of a \"car-lite\" society.
Mr Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
\tMs Foo Mee Har (West Coast): I would like to ask a supplementary question. I think the Senior Minister of State has alluded to a lot about encouraging people to use active mobility devices on the back of assumed success of the education programme because we do not have a law now, or we are just having a law in place.
I want to ask how effective has this education programme been. First, how many have taken the safe riding programme? How many have turned up? How many people actually read those pamphlets? This is so that we know that the educational efforts are making an impact and that we can count on them to make sure that the use of active mobility devices is safe.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Member Foo Mee Har for the supplementary questions. I think these are very pertinent questions. Besides public education, I think there are also other measures that LTA and the Ministry of Transport are implementing to make sure that the use of PMDs is safe on our paths.
With regard to public education, the Safe Riding Programme has only started in February this year. So, I urge Members, as well as all Singaporeans, to be a little bit more patient. We will definitely want to step up the public education efforts. At the same time, with the Active Mobility Act being in force since May, I think that will actually serve as a strong deterrent factor for users who ride irresponsibly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Options for Bukit Panjang LRT System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether a feasibility study is conducted regarding the options to renew vis-a-vis to rebuild the Bukit Panjang LRT system; (b) whether causes of past breakdowns will be better resolved and future occurrences prevented as Bombardier has also been involved in the reliability work carried out since 2016; and (c) whether the renewal process could have commenced before the first half of this year since Bombardier is responsible for the renewal project.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has studied all possible options to replace the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (BPLRT) which is reaching the end of its economic life. These included replacing the LRT system with a non-LRT option, such as running more buses or even autonomous vehicles on the existing roads and LRT viaducts.
But after extensive traffic studies, LTA concluded that these alternatives, which would require an extended shutdown of the BPLRT to modify the viaducts, are just not feasible. This is because any suspension of the BPLRT during peak hours would require us to deploy 40 double-deck or 80 single-deck buses, at frequencies of as low as three minutes. The existing roads just cannot support such a level of bus deployment. As Bukit Panjang is already built-up, there is also limited scope to expand the current road network and to build additional bus facilities. These non-LRT options would have created severe traffic delays and unacceptable tradeoffs to commuters’ travelling experience. Even if LTA were to implement strict bus priority measures at the expense of motorists, a trip between, say, Choa Chu Kang Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and Bukit Panjang LRT stations, which are less than three kilometres apart, would take at least half an hour by bus due to the heavy road congestion created.
Hence, LTA discussed the LRT renewal option with several established LRT manufacturers, including the existing supplier, Bombardier of Canada. After a thorough evaluation with Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT), the LTA Board decided to award the contract to Bombardier in March this year. Bombardier’s proposal was selected because it could be completed sooner, without requiring major civil engineering works or extensive service closures. Bombardier, having worked with LTA and SMRT since 2016 to improve the BPLRT's reliability, was also deeply familiar with the difficulties the system faced.
LTA, SMRT and Bombardier have jointly analysed the root causes of past BPLRT breakdowns and delays. They were largely due to faults with the signalling, traction power and train propulsion systems. The renewal will directly address these causes.
First, the train's signal collector shoes tend to lose contact with the signalling system’s signalling rail at sharp turns. With the renewal, we will adopt a new wireless Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) signalling system with better built-in redundancy.
Second, the traction power system supplies electricity to the trains through the power rail. Similar to the signalling system, a recurrent cause of faults is when the trains' current collector shoes dislodge from the power rail at sharp turns. The renewal will enhance the power rail with more robust rail brackets and we will also relocate the joints to less severe curves.
Third, faults with the train propulsion system will be addressed when the first-generation fleet of 19 trains are replaced with new models which will come with a more reliable Alternating Current (AC) propulsion system. The new fleet will also feature enhanced redundancy and better air-conditioning performance.
Beyond these engineering fixes, LTA will also install more condition monitoring features to support predictive maintenance.
At the same time, SMRT has contracted Bombardier to provide long-term service support for the renewed BPLRT system. This contract engages Bombardier to provide more expedient technical, logistical and spares support, including training for SMRT’s maintenance staff to build up local expertise.
Design work for the renewal has already started. The overhaul, replacement and upgrading of all these critical components and sub-systems will be fully completed by 2024. However, commuters can begin to enjoy smoother and more reliable rides from 2022, when the upgraded trains and signalling system come into operation.
But meanwhile, SMRT has also engaged Bombardier to provide technical support for the existing BPLRT system. LTA, SMRT and Bombardier are committed to improving the reliability of the existing BPLRT by intensifying preventive and corrective maintenance. The recently announced Sunday closures of the BPLRT have been very useful for SMRT’s engineering teams. We thank commuters for their understanding and patience.
In short, things will get a lot better when we have completely renewed the BPLRT, which will be 2022-2024. But meanwhile, we are intensifying maintenance for the existing BPLRT, and that is why we needed additional engineering hours, and we have already stepped up doing so with the Sunday closures.
I am confident that we can do a better job than what is happening today. Today, the reliability measure, the Mean Kilometres Between Failures (MKBF), is barely 50,000 kilometres (km). The other LRT, which is Sengkang-Punggol, is doing more than 100,000 km. My instruction to SMRT and LTA is to, first, close the gap and then work towards exceeding Sengkang's achievement. So, today, it is 50,000; I am confident that within a couple of years, we can double it, but that is still not my final destination. I think we can do much better than that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\t
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have a supplementary question. In the United States (US), for example, Sir, for many of the decommissioned rail tracks, they use buses to run – they call it bus rapid transit. So, for Singapore's BPLRT, has the Minister considered running buses on the track if this LRT will not be useful or reliable?
Sorry, I must declare my interest as I am in the management team of ComfortDelgro, which includes Singapore Bus Services (SBS) Transit.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, as I said in the reply, such proposals or options were considered. But you cannot simply take the existing viaducts and then run buses on it. You got to do extensive civil engineering work on the viaducts.
We got to pull down, rebuild and reconfigure – months of suspension of the BPLRT. We have studied, and I was game for a completely new system – close it down and have all buses either running on existing roads or on the viaducts. But the roads just cannot take the peak-hour load unless you throw out all the cars, in other words, no cars at all in Bukit Panjang Town, and every lane will become a bus lane. Even then, it is barely sufficient. That is why, after extensive discussions and simulations, we decided that it is not viable. So, we are back to LRT. But we will make sure that it is a much better LRT.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng: I totally agree with the Minister that if we do an all-bus model on the roads of Bukit Panjang, it is going to be quite difficult. But could the Minister elaborate more on why we cannot refurbish the viaduct and allow buses to run on it? Is there a kind of study to prove that it is not effective, or not cost-effective?
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: As I said, you cannot just simply take the existing viaducts, buy the buses and just run them on it. You cannot do that. You actually got to do extensive civil engineering work on the viaducts, which means closing the LRT service, tear down the viaducts, major sections of it, and redo, which means no BPLRT service for months.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\t
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Or years.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Or even years. Here is Er Dr Lee Bee Wah speaking as an engineer! And I confirm what she has just said. So, unfortunately, it is not possible. Long term, is it possible? I hope so, because if our car-lite Singapore vision arrives – not immediately, but in 20 years' time – when the next version of the BPLRT will also run out of economic life in another 20 to 25 years.
Hopefully, by that time, Singapore is largely car-lite, few cars, on the roads, then the roads can be handed over to buses and we can tear down the viaducts, redo them and run buses on top of them, or have cyclists cycling on the viaducts – which is a suggestion from Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. He envisages the day when you can cycle on the LRT tracks. Or there may be other ideas. Maybe theme parks might adopt it to do something else, I do not know. But I think those are further down the road. It is not my job. We leave it to the future Minister for Transport.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I thank the Minister for Transport for his strong commitment to improve the reliability of the BPLRT and also for his frequent visits to Bukit Panjang town to observe the public transport system. Among the planned renewal works, one of those that the residents really like very much and welcome is the replacement of the 19 new trains. That is most appreciated. But the not so ideal part is that the timeline appears to be quite a distant future. If I remember correctly, it is the third quarter of 2020 for the first two, and the remaining ones like in the fourth quarter of 2022. Can I ask the Minister if he can find ways to bring the delivery of the train cars forward because the old ones are really quite worn out? I think the Minister must have tried that before. The rides are quite bumpy and the air-conditioning is always not working well. So, if the Minister can see if he can do something about it to bring it forward – 谋事在人。See if you can do it.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: But 成事在天, is it not? But 我 不是天! But Bombardier knew that there is huge pressure from all of us to improve the service as quickly as possible. So, the order for new trains is firm, it is committed. How fast they can build, whether there is a way to shorten it, they will try. But still it is years, not months. For the existing trains, we can do something, especially the air-conditioning system. Surely, we can do something about it, and we shall fix it this year if we can.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US and China Protectionist Measures on Singapore’s Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the impact of the current protectionist measures by the United States and China on Singapore's economy in relation to trade, investments, jobs and Singaporean workers who are working in companies which are or may be impacted by those measures.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, China and the United States (US) are major economic partners to countries around the world, including Singapore. To date, the direct negative impact of the tariffs announced by the US and China on the Singapore economy is limited, given the modest share that the affected products have as a percentage of Singapore's total domestic exports. The Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) analysis estimates the tariffs to directly impact about 0.09% of our domestic exports to the world.
Nonetheless, we are closely monitoring developments, particularly for any longer-term indirect impact on companies and workers. Our economic agencies are in close contact with companies that may be affected. Singapore has also registered our concerns with the relevant US and Chinese departments and is continuing to engage them.
Singapore is a strong proponent of free trade and supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system. We remain concerned that an escalating cycle of expanding unilateral tariff measures will result in negative spillover effects on global supply chains. Any disruption to global trade flows or trade volumes will affect big and small economies alike. We hope that countries will exercise restraint and avoid further escalation of tensions.
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I wish to thank the Minister for his reply. Recently, I spoke to a professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) who work in a US multinational corporation (MNC) situated in China, and she has expressed concerns over the uncertainties of what is happening. So, they are watching that space closely. It is not just the US tariffs. There are a few things that are happening. They are looking at a potential review of the US interest rates, they are also looking at Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) coming up and, of course, at the same time, in the US, corporate taxes have gone down as well. So, there are quite a few measures which have caused a bit of uncertainty among workers, particularly so because there are quite a number of our PMEs and workers as well working in US MNCs or even Chinese MNCs in Singapore as well as their respective countries. So, I would urge the Government, especially the economic agencies, to pay a close watch and to stand prepared, particularly with measures, to help these workers.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Mr Patrick Tay for his observations. His observations are right. If I may just elaborate on some of those observations.
Indeed, any unilateral actions will have direct and indirect impact. All these, cumulatively, will cause a lot of uncertainties to the market. There are uncertainties that are of immediate consequence because the trade flows and trade patterns are disrupted. There are also indirect impacts that affect the longer-term investments and these create another round of uncertainties. How should Singapore manage such situations?
First and foremost, as an economy, we are an open economy. We must make sure that we are not overly dependent on any particular markets, which is why a couple of days ago, I mentioned during the Debate on the President's Address that we must continually expand and diversify our markets to make sure that we are not overly dependent on any particular market for our products and investments. So, that is the first order of business.
I have also asked MTI staff and economists to do an in-depth study of the possible implications of a long drawn out trade war or an escalating trade war. This will require further study because there are at least a few levels of implications for us. The first level of implication is that if the tariff goes up on specific products, there is a direct impact on the cost of business, the cost of the factories, companies and so forth. That is the easy part. But there is also an indirect impact, which is, even though the tariffs are not targeted at Singapore, it will cause the global trade flows to shift. And when the global trade flows shift, it will have a knock-on impact on Singapore. Whether it is positive, negative, to what extent, we will need to study this carefully.
There is yet a third impact because when the tariffs are targeted even at third-party countries, it affects the trade flows between and amongst these countries, which will then have yet another round of consequent effects on Singapore.
So, all these are complex issues. It requires us to watch the trends carefully, as Mr Patrick Tay has mentioned. It requires us to review our economic models to make sure that we understand the shifts in the trade flows and ask ourselves what other actions do we need to undertake in order to safeguard ourselves from all these uncertainties.
So, these are the things that MTI will continue to watch carefully, not just in isolation, but also with the other Government agencies and also with our other partners, trade partners included.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Use and Transfer of Untapped Edusave Account Monies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Azmoon Ahmad asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Edusave Account can be used to pay for school fees where the student's family income is below the poverty threshold; and (b) whether the unutilised amount in the Edusave Account can be transferred to the individual's SkillsFuture fund after finishing school.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Edusave Account is to support the development and upgrading of Singaporeans. Hence, the funds in the Account can be used by Singaporean students aged seven to 16 to pay for enrichment programmes organised by the Ministry of Education (MOE)-funded schools, or to defray any additional fees beyond school fees and standard miscellaneous fees.
Unutilised monies in the Edusave Account will be transferred to the Post-Secondary Education Account in the year the child turns 17 years old or is no longer studying in an MOE-funded school, whichever happens later. The monies can be tapped on to defray the cost of post-secondary education or approved SkillsFuture courses.
To help students from low-income families with schooling expenses, we have the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS). Under the scheme, school fees and standard miscellaneous fees in Government and Government-aided Schools will be waived.
For primary and secondary students, the scheme provides for free textbooks and uniforms, and subsidised transport and school meals. For pre-university students, an annual bursary is provided. Similar assistance is extended to students from low-income families under the Independent School Bursary scheme.
Therefore, there has not been a need for students to tap on Edusave monies to pay their school fees and standard miscellaneous fees. We will continue to review the eligibility criteria for FAS regularly. The latest review was at Budget 2018, just recently, where we extended the scheme to cover more students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Azmoon Ahmad.
\tMr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): I have one supplementary question. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share with us how many students were under FAS in 2017?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I do not have the figures right now. If the Member would like to, he can file another Parliamentary Question. Nevertheless, I assure the Member that we want to help as many students as possible. We are committed to providing quality and affordable education to all Singaporeans, regardless of their financial circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deducting Expenses from Assessable Income Tax for Taxi Drivers and Private Hire Car Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the rationale behind allowing taxi drivers but not private hire vehicle drivers to deduct expenses, such as vehicle rental fees, fuel and ERP, from their assessable income tax; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing tax deductibility of these expenses for private hire vehicle drivers based on the mileage clocked on private hire driving.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, tax deduction of expenses incurred for a private car is currently not allowed. This is applied consistently to both corporate and individual taxpayers. It is in support of our long-standing policies on car ownership. That is why private car drivers today are not allowed to claim tax deduction on any car-related expenses. Private hire car drivers can, however, claim tax deduction on non-car-related expenses, such as commissions paid to third-party operators.
The current tax treatment that we have was introduced before the advent of companies like Grab and Uber. With the introduction of private hire car services, the private hire car drivers are essentially operating in the same space as taxis. We have noted the feedback from Members of this House and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association. We are carefully reviewing this matter to see how we can refine the tax policy to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Minister for the reply. I do agree that perhaps the tax regimes for taxi drivers and part-time private hire drivers should be different. But I think for full-time private hire drivers, it should be the same and I am just wondering whether the Minister would consider establishing, say, a minimum mileage clock, after which then the private hire driver is considered full-time and can then enjoy the same tax regime as a taxi driver.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are reviewing this holistically and it has also to be done in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport's (MOT's) ongoing review of the regulations on such private hire car services. So, that is happening now. MOT and Land Transport Authority (LTA) are reviewing the regulations for this group of companies, how they should be regulated vis-a-vis taxi companies. When that is done and clearer, I think the tax treatment can also be adjusted accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how long will the Ministry take for the review, that is, what the timeline is, because this is quite a hot topic discussed on the ground.
\t
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to look to my colleagues from MOT. Because as I said earlier, the reviews are being done in parallel. I think the tax treatment must be consistent with also the regulatory treatment. I believe MOT and LTA have announced that they are doing this review on the regulations of private hire car services, and we at the Ministry of Finance (MOF) are also looking at the tax treatment. And both are moving in parallel. Once the reviews are completed, we will be able to announce on the MOT side, the regulations; and on the MOF side, the tax treatment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Life Skills Training for Prison Inmates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are existing programmes which allow volunteer welfare organisations to provide life skills training to prison inmates during their period of incarceration; and (b) if so, how many have benefited from such training in the last five years.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Singapore Prison Service works with a number of community partners and voluntary welfare organisations to run programmes for inmates that incorporate life skills, such as communication, stress management, conflict resolution and financial management. These programmes include family programmes, drug abuse intervention programmes and religious counselling.
One example is the structured family programmes run by Fei Yue Community Services and Lakeside Family Services. The programmes aim to increase inmates' knowledge, skills and confidence in maintaining ties and building stronger relationships with their family members. Another example is the drug abuse intervention programme run by Touch Community Services, which motivates inmates with drug antecedents to change. Inmates also learn behavioural skills to help in relapse prevention.
More than 35,000 training places were offered to inmates in the last five years.
\t
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sentencing Discretion for Intellectually-disabled Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Minister will consider reviewing the Criminal Procedure Code to (i) provide the Courts with sentencing discretion for offences mandating imprisonment and caning where the offender is intellectually disabled, and (ii) expand the sentencing options for intellectually disabled offenders, such as mandatory treatment orders.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): We will study the issue. There are a number of considerations that we will need to balance.
First, intellectual disability occurs along a wide spectrum of severity. Persons with severe intellectual disability to the extent that they are incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act they had committed, are acquitted. However, in other cases, intellectual disability may not negate the culpability of the offender.
Second, we will need to take into account other sentencing considerations. Offences which attract mandatory imprisonment and caning are generally serious and involve violence, such as robbery and aggravated rape. Such offences cause great distress to victims and threaten public safety. As such, punishment, deterrence and public protection are key considerations in sentencing for such offences.
As for Mr Louis Ng's second question, mandatory treatment orders (MTOs) are imposed when an offender is suffering from a mental illness which is treatable and which contributed to his offence. However, psychiatric assessments of offenders have found that those with merely intellectual disability are unsuitable for MTOs as their conditions were not assessed to be treatable.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I just check the timeline for the review? And two, I understand that, currently, programmes under the Reformative Training (RT) regimes have already been modified for the intellectually disabled inmates. But I think the limiting factor is the prison officer's time as well as resource constraint. So, while we are undergoing this review, will the Singapore Prison Service consider providing more resources to the RT officers so that they can modify these programmes for the inmates who are currently in there with intellectual disability?
\tMr Amrin Amin: We will conclude the review in good time. Generally, the prison service takes extra precautions to manage inmates who are diagnosed with intellectual disability. Those with mental illnesses and who require treatment are currently housed separately at the psychiatric housing unit. And those who are able to assimilate with the mainstream population and are housed with them, they generally undergo the same rehabilitation programmes like other inmates. However, prison staff will monitor them closely to pick up any incidents of bullying or difficulties in adjustment.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. But the concern really is that they are saying they do not have enough time and resources. So, I am just wondering whether on the Ministry of Home Affairs' side we can pump in more resources so that the RT officers can have time to modify programmes for the intellectually disabled.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I think the time and resources issue will be considered as part of the general review and we will certainly be keen to ensure that our inmates get the proper support to help with their rehabilitation process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Insurance Coverage when Foreign Domestic Worker is Put on Special Pass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the mandatory medical insurance purchased by an employer for a domestic worker continues when the worker is put on a special pass by the Ministry or the Police; and (b) if not, who is responsible for the worker's medical bills, such as cost of consultation, prescription and procedures in those situations.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, Special Passes are issued to foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to legalise their stay in Singapore after their Work Permits have been cancelled.
When an employment contract ends, the employer is required to cancel the FDW's Work Permit before she departs Singapore. A Special Pass is granted to cover the period between the cancellation of the Work Permit and the FDW's departure from Singapore for her home country. During this period, the employer is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the FDW, including medical treatment. So, I want to assure Mr Louis Ng that the mandatory medical insurance purchased by the employer continues to be in force.
In exceptional cases, an FDW may be required by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) or the Police to further remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. For such cases, a Special Pass will also be issued to the FDW. MOM and the Police will assist the FDW who needs help with medical treatments, including paying for medical bills as required.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Debate on President's Address","subTitle":"Fifth allotted day","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [14 May 2018]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]
[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'.\" – [Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, the call for bold ideas by the President has received widespread response. In a sense, this is not surprising – good ideas are the product of long reflection and examination, but they are also, sometimes, the result of an urgent felt need, some local knowledge from ground experience or even strong emotional response.
As we have seen in the past few days, bold ideas are not in short supply. But sieving them through the good from the not so practical or reckless ones, the strong from the popular and perhaps, even more difficult: implementing these ideas, if not flawlessly, then at least successfully, is far more difficult.
It is far easier to write a policy paper than to actually make the policy happen. I say this not to belittle the role of bold ideas but to argue their limitations. We ought not to let ideas be our masters but think more deeply about their weight and impact. That is, we should worry less about what we do than why we do them.
Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, I argue one simple idea, which is to rethink the way we evaluate ideas.
We need to rethink the role of the market and of economic reasoning. For a long time, the economic reasoning that our Government applied to public policies have stood us in good stead. Whether in healthcare, housing or the management of much of our social policy, such reasoning has allowed us to make good use of our resources.
The magic words in any policy was whether it was \"sustainable\", that is, whether it would \"pay for itself\". A long-term reliance on Government funding is sometimes the kiss of death for a good idea. For, if the idea was good, surely, money can be found from the market.
But economic reasoning is empty without a moral foundation. Such foundations cannot and do not exist without a conversation about values – not just what is cheap, but what is right; not just about generating income, but about giving meaning. For too long, we have made decisions based more on an economic compass, as if the use of $1 has the moral equivalence of the loss of another. Sir, it is time we recognised that money is merely a proxy for value and, at times, a very bad one.
We need regulations on responsible use of funds, on fiscal prudence, good procurement but, equally, we ought to be having a conversation about reciprocity, trust and relationships.
Teachers know this. They know the magic of little gestures of a sticker with a thumbs-up stuck on an untidy worksheet for encouragement for a little child who handed in his homework despite family difficulties; a treat of a small snack; a lift to school to a pupil who otherwise would not want to come. Teachers who have all these years paid for all forms of Children's Day treats and surprises for our children, all these things which cost them no small amount of money, and yet, whose value transcends price. Teachers who have bought their own red pens to mark the test papers of all our children, they do not think that \"the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not pay for red pens\". Let me use instead the whiteboard markers which they do pay for. They do not think \"I should means-test the kids and give treats only to those who cannot afford it\".
It is laughable and an insult to think that they do this in exchange for free parking. So, of course, the withdrawal of free parking would not make teachers any less likely to do the many incredible, unpriced things they do. Rather, it is a reciprocity and a give and take which I feel we have lost by insisting on this strict calculus of benefits.
Using a clean wage argument implies that all the years of free parking had tarred teachers with an \"unclean\" wage. Sir, I do not want to belabour parking any further. Teachers, I think, have accepted this and have moved on. But something still sits uncomfortably on this matter for me.
And I want to address this squarely: not all Government policies have a complete recourse to dollars and cents. We need, within our current structures, to make more room from the lexicon of morality, duty, relationships and trust. This is not an appeal to populism. Rather, it is an appeal to the ideas of justice and community that have informed Singapore public policymaking at the start of our journey 53 years ago.
The first practical implication of my idea: this reform must start at the Ministry of Finance (MOF), responsible for so many of our policy levers – a reform that requires an explicit recognition of the limits of price, cost and expenditure as a proxy for value, and to allow for greater use of discretion by public officers in recognising moral reasoning as a legitimate form of argumentation.
Sir, I use the decision to charge parking to illustrate the kinds of conversations that we ought to be having. Thinking about the issue using a pure economic lens is, I argue, a mistake, as is the reduction of \"clean wage\" – surely a moral idea – to a mere tableau of taxable benefits.
Without this lexicon, we will not be able to address the greatest problems that have arisen in our time. The current debate has framed it as a problem of inequality but that risks mere description without a thesis. We might better frame it as a problem of an overweening dominance of economic magical thinking, a problem which, again, could be addressed by recalibrating the balance between the economics and the morality of our public actions.
Sir, many have spoken about the need for equality, but we have spoken mainly within the current framework of providing everyone with equal opportunities. While it is true that inequality is lower today than at the start of Singapore's journey, we also worry that the stratification today is higher than it was in the past, a point which Minister Ong Ye Kung highlighted in his speech on Wednesday.
And so, our measures must be correspondingly more aggressive, and we must slant inequality the other way. John Rawls famously said that we must try our best to treat people as equally as possible and any inequality ought to be to the benefit of the least advantaged.
But today, where inequality exists, we must go further. And in a country where socialism is not a dirty word but a founding philosophy, we must be prepared to do more for equality. So, I suggest that we must increasingly and continually treat people as unequally as practicable, so as to provide the largest advantages to the disadvantaged.
We must make sure that a boy born to poor parents must have more from the state than one born from the rich. I have said before in this House that this compensates for such matters as luck in birth and circumstances and I still hold that view even more strongly today. In the past, it used to be that a degree was a tried and tested way to climb up the ladder. Today, more and more of us, Ministers included, have said that a degree is not the only way.
In the United States (US), the higher education premium has not increased for the past 10 years. But here is the rub. When the premium on higher education falls, it is replaced by more varied paths, and decision-making always levies a higher cognitive tax on the poor. We must make sure that the transition to the new economic structure benefits the least advantaged in our society.
At the same time, I know that we need to be sensitive to the accusations of unfairness, that it is unfair that the people who pay taxes get the least out of the system, that Singapore ought to be a country for all, rather than always take from one side and giving to the other.
And yet this is the truth of a nation – those who have more bear a larger burden. It is how we tie to one another as Singaporeans, confident that whoever falls upon hard times, rich or poor, they will have a helping hand. This is our only safety net against fate and bad luck, whether in bad health or accidents. Incidentally, this also includes many external events outside our control. Economic storms can wipe out fortunes, making the rich today the destitute tomorrow.
Hence, my second suggestion for reform – we need more aggressively progressive policies, to ask more from the rich, and lessen the burden on the poor. All in the recognition that in the veil of ignorance, luck and chance attend to all men and women, and all Singaporeans need to stick together through thick and thin.
I do not mean this to say that we need a minimum wage, or universal welfare. Quite the opposite. We need a partnership of all Singaporeans, for a deeper engagement with Singaporeans with different needs, to negotiate paths through the complexity of our interests.
Mr Speaker, the rebalancing of economic with moral reasoning also leads us to see the injustice that we continue to be complicit in, by using up environmental capital meant for future generations.
Sir, you will see that Singapore is changing. Our temperatures are getting more extreme. And within the past few months alone, I think we have seen unusually cool and unusually warm days. This is a significant problem and not one that we can solve alone. But we can certainly make a start. For example, in changing the way we live, and spend resources, in making changes to our diet, for one, and our energy consumption for another.
We need to make sure that the capital that we rely on today still remains for the needs of tomorrow. In this, we require both morality and economics to work together, for capital to power clean technology for the future, as well as a massive change in consumer behaviour today.
So, my third and final idea for reform – let us start an environmental behavioural change that will tackle the largest environmental problems of our times. To lower our carbon emissions with our energy efficiency and allow Singapore to impact the world by making it bluer, greener and less polluted.
This is an issue which remains under-invested today, especially in the social sciences, and I urge the Government to invest in a research fund on environmental behaviour and change.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, mine is a simple idea. We need to insert and steer our values into the national conversation about prosperity and growth. We need to balance the economic reasoning with moral reasoning. We need to make what is cheap, efficient and quick to what is fair, just and right.
It may be that there is no one policy, no matter how bold, that will address the most pressing problems of our times. It may be that Singapore today is a problem for the foxes rather than hedgehogs, but we need first to recognise that foxes speak the multi-tonal language of values, rather than the universal language of money. We must, therefore, make language of morality our vernacular in policy matters. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, recently a resident came to see me at my Meet-the-People session describing his experience when he went to apply for a licence. He could not speak English, and apparently the staff at the counter did not understand him and told him to stand aside while they served others. Eventually, he said, they told him to leave. Over and over, the resident described to me his encounter. How he felt the counter staff looked down on him, how others in the queue became aware of his inability to speak English. I explained to my resident that I would write an appeal for him with regard to his licence application. But over and over, he continued to describe his encounter to me. He could not stop. Every look he thought he saw, every tone he heard, every slight he felt, his dignity, Mr Speaker, had been hurt.
I thought back about the President's speech. We have programmes to build a fair and just society. I welcome and support these programmes. But to my resident whose dignity had been hurt, what is a fair and just society? We are all born with a sense of dignity. Some describe dignity as a sense of being valued, a feeling of being respected, a sensation of esteem of self-worth. It is tied to our self-identity, to the things that matter to us, and it is reinforced daily on how others react to us. When our dignity is maintained and our self-worth reinforced through words or deeds, we are at peace with ourselves and with society. When our dignity is threatened and our self-worth questioned, we may react in anger against those who look down on us. We may also become depressed, or demotivated.
I would say, that how we recognise one another's needs for dignity and protect it, has implications for how fair and just our society is perceived to be and for social harmony. To achieve a sense of fairness and justness, Government policies which preserve meritocracy, equality and promote self-help are important. To a large extent, our Government policies strive to create equality in our society by making sure that all citizens have access to education, medical care, basic home ownership and jobs. This allows everyone to have the basics to live a life with dignity. And even for those who drop out or have fallen behind, there are Government schemes to provide them an opportunity to get back on again.
For instance, we have the Fresh Start Housing Scheme which aims to help second-timer families with children and who live in public rental flats own a flat again. And should new gaps appear in society, Government policies will be looked at again to deal with new issues and new inequalities which may come about.
But apart from good policies which strive to create equality, we should also be mindful of the processes and social interactions which can affect an individual's sense of dignity. For example, when the vulnerable and the needy go to Government agencies for help, are our processes sensitive to their needs? Do we make them feel that they are valued citizens, albeit they need help at this juncture? Are we mindful of the constraints that they face? I believe that every time a citizen comes forward to seek help, it is a moment in his life where we could help effect change. A moment where we could try to right life's inequalities, a moment where we could make an individual feel that he is respected and valued, regardless of his station in life. These are moments where we can uplift our citizens and show that we are a caring society.
I subsequently met the same resident I mentioned earlier a month later at a block visit. He shared with me happily that his licence application had been approved. I may never know the exact details of his original encounter. Nevertheless, it seemed to me to be quite a straightforward application. So, the unhappy incident could have been due to a breakdown in communication arising from language difficulties.
This episode taught me that in our interactions with our fellow men, we need to put ourselves in their shoes, speak the language they speak, consider the options put to them to their world view. Sometimes, it is not so much what we do, but how we do it that matters. But creating an environment where people feel that they are respected and their sense of dignity is upheld, is not just the role of the Government.
The Prime Minister, in his speech on Wednesday, spoke about social cues and social markers. That they become ways to pigeonhole or exclude others knowingly or unknowingly. This is where each of us can play a role, that we not become a perpetrator of such social markers. Instead, we should treat those around us, our fellow men, with mutual respect and compassion. It is only when mutual respect becomes part of our bigger culture that we can be assured that every citizen feels valued and respected just being part of our society.
For instance, in our everyday interactions when we come across a service staff, a cleaner, a waiter, do we acknowledge their presence, smile at them and thank them for their work? When we walk into a shop, are we considerate to the shop assistants? This goes beyond superficial manners. It is genuine respect for someone else's work and consideration for someone else's dignity. And to our young, do we show them through our words and our actions that we value them regardless of what school they go to, how well they do in school and that we respect them as multi-dimensional individuals with various different potentials?
When we have compassion and mutual respect for our fellow men and we demonstrate it through our words and our deeds, we uphold their dignity and we make a statement about what we hold dear in our society, that regardless of what life has in store for individuals and its infinitely varied and unequal economic outcomes, everyone has a place in Singapore society. No one is any less equal. When we respect one another and treat one another with civility and dignity, this mutuality of respect becomes a powerful anchoring force, providing assurance to every individual that he is loved and accepted. This brings people close together because they know that they are accepted, come what may. And this is the antithesis to social markers which serve to divide and to differentiate.
Mr Speaker, there are uncertain times ahead with global trade being threatened and our economy undergoing economic restructuring. There will be new winners and new losers in a new paradigm. Inequality can become a serious issue, and social stratification can break the social compact in Singapore. Amidst this tidal wave of change, individuals will be seeking new anchors to preserve their world view and their sense of self-worth as jobs are disrupted and skills have to be relearnt. How we manage this transition together and how we help others around us will be a true mark of our compassion for our fellow men and our resilience as a nation. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, recently at my Meet-the-People session, a resident, Mr Wong, came to see me. He said he had an unhappy experience not too long ago when applying for a certain licence. He said that because he could not speak English, the staff at the counter could not understand him and asked him to stand aside. The staff then started to serve other residents and later tried to talk him into leaving.
Mr Wong recounted his encounter over and over and could not get over it. He felt that the staff looked down on him. He also felt that people around him also started to look down on him after knowing that he could not speak English. He felt that he has lost face.
Although I could not verify what exactly was the attitude of the staff at that time, according to Mr Wong, the expression and the look of the people around him have hurt his dignity.
Mr Speaker, what is dignity? Some say dignity is a sense of being respected and valued. It is the indication of self-esteem and self-worthiness. In this society, only when the dignity of each person is protected can people feel a sense of belonging and the whole society be cohesive.
For over 50 years after Independence, there are many welcome policies that look after the dignity of our residents, for example, the housing, MediSave and Baby Bonus policies.
At the juncture of this new era, it is even more important to protect the dignity of individuals. Currently, Singapore is facing the potential threat of global trade wars and the challenge of economic restructuring.
Amidst this tidal wave of change, many professions will be disrupted and new winners and losers will emerge. At this time, Singaporeans will need psychological and spiritual anchors. When faced with failure and humiliation, can we still maintain an optimistic and a positive mindset? Can we still maintain our confidence and courage?
I think this will require our society to be more inclusive.
In the past few days, Ministers and Members of Parliament talked about social inequality. To solve the issue of inequality, for sure, Government policies will play a role. However, we also need to realise that inequality is usually a perception. Even if we have the right policy, if we do not respect one another, people will not feel real equality.
Coming back to the story of Mr Wong, I learned that his application was approved within a short period of time. In fact, his application was a rather simple process. The unhappiness before was likely a result of miscommunication. Sometimes, certain words we utter and certain body language could affect others profoundly. He may feel that his dignity is hurt and the society is unfair to him.
When communicating and interacting with residents, if we could pay attention to details and be sensitive to one another's needs, unnecessary misunderstandings could be avoided. Each time we meet a resident, it provides us a valuable opportunity to help him, an opportunity to correct his perception of imbalances in life, and even an opportunity to change his life. Hence, we should treasure each opportunity when we meet the residents and make an effort to attend to the details, so that they truly feel that Singapore is a country with a human touch.
Meanwhile, if each of us, regardless of race, religion and language, can have enough cultural confidence and leave some space for one another, then we will be able to feel that this is an equal and inclusive society.
Mr Speaker, for every resident in difficulty, I would like to say to him that \"Perhaps, I am not able to really feel the pain you are going through, perhaps I cannot fully understand the choices you have made, but I respect you always. Let me hear you, let me help you, let us work together and move forward hand in hand\".
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President for her speech which outlined the direction that the 4G leaders would be taking our country. My speech will focus on forging a strong national identity through four key areas. First, virtual world to real world; second, volunteerism/community involvement; third, sense of belonging; fourth, foreign policy.
We are today moving into an era where many things we see and do are unthinkable just a decade ago. We are in the age of disruptive technology. People can sit at home and let their fingers do the walking and talking. It can create social isolation. But we can turn these technological tools to our advantage.
We often talk about the disappearing kampung spirit. In fact, this kampung spirit has moved to the virtual world. They take a different form, that is all. There are so many kampungs in our Whatsapp and Facebook chat groups. Some chats have groups with as many as 50 to 60 people, or as few as 10 or less. These private app chats are today’s mini kampungs where people communicate, share opinions, comments, news, videos and so on.
Data from Statista, the Statistics Portal, showed, as of the third quarter of 2017, the most popular social network was WhatsApp with a 73% penetration rate. In 2016, Singapore had 3.3 million social network users. This figure is projected to grow to 3.6 million social media users in 2021.
So, I would call this the era of GenApps, a time when what is unthinkable today can be tomorrow’s reality. But to forge a strong Singapore identity, groups in the virtual world should move to the real world. To all chat groups, I make this call to not just stay in the virtual world. Please come forward and join our community when we celebrate our National Day and other festive celebrations. At such events and at subsequent events, we meet one another, get to know one another better, share our common interests and forge deep bonds. Because of this relationship, we share joys and, should a crisis arise, you and I, our actions and reactions, our response to the call for help, would be more robust. This is the Singapore Spirit.
My second point. Another platform that we can promote and forge a common identity is through volunteerism. I urge everyone, whether you are in school, a youth, a working adult or a retiree, we can all make our contributions. There is a role for everyone. The energy and the commitment you bring will no doubt improve many lives. We derive deep satisfaction through meaningful interactions, build up our circle of friends, join in the various activities and build up a sense of belonging to the community. People who volunteer together, play together and participate in activities together will build interpersonal relationships, trust and attachment to one another.
Our Government has done much to invest in the physical infrastructure for our community. As a community, we can do even more to benefit our people in building and strengthening heartware. We can provide the emotional support to bring our people together. In my Henderson Dawson division, I have a regular coordinating meeting with all the Government agencies, community partners, business groups and volunteer groups where we share information about who, what and how we are helping residents in need. This helps us to address gaps, duplication, so that limited resources can be spread to more beneficiaries and holistic help can be provided and urgent cases attended to quickly. Thus, instead of each organisation working in silos, we work together. Instead of solely depending on the Government to help, the community is involved. In addition, we provide a platform for our beneficiaries to volunteer, as this gives them a sense of pride and dignity where they are also contributing to the community.
Third point. Speaking of pride and dignity, the Government can do well to offer our seniors career opportunities, especially the female workforce. It is an area where we can tap on our readily available workforce. There is a growing pool of retirees whom we should look to rely on as a good source to meet our skilled manpower needs. Many of our retirees are healthy, well-educated, well-informed and with good work ethos. Can they not have a second career opportunity to pursue their dreams?
I had shared this anecdote in the Budget Debate. But a good story is one that deserves to be retold. One of my residents, Mdm Maureen Tan, aged 69, living in Strathmore Avenue used to work as a personal assistant in a bank. At the same time, she had always cared for her grandchildren and even helped to babysit her neighbours’ children whenever she had the time. After her retirement, she became a full-time caregiver to her two grandchildren. Her neighbours knew she doted on children and would occasionally ask her to babysit for them when they had errands to run.
Last year, Maureen approached the Henderson Dawson PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkletots Childcare Centre and volunteered her services. As the teachers saw she had so much love for the children, the centre offered her a job. She now interacts with the children, keeps them comfortable and showers them with all her tender love and care.
Maureen has been working in the Henderson Dawson PCF Centre since February 2017 and enjoying every day of it. At 69, she is healthy, experienced and very committed. She sees her work with PCF as a second career. She will be very happy if she can be offered a career path, so that she can develop herself. I believe the Government can offer retirees like Mdm Maureen Tan a second career and develop a career path for them. In doing so, we give our seniors a sense of belonging and participation in the new chapters of the Singapore story.
Fourth point: foreign policy. Another area where we can strengthen our identity is to help educate our people on the many things that our leaders are doing in the field of foreign policy. We need to explain in simple terms the areas that our Government is doing in foreign affairs which are often not understood by the man-in-the-street. For example, how decisions at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summits impact our lives or, how our participation in international treaties and agreements, such as free trade agreements (FTAs) or the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, impacts on our lives; how important it is to be chosen as host to the Trump-Kim Jong-un Summit. The current Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website offers information but on very few subjects and it is more event-based. The ASEAN page gives some exposure to the grouping, but it is still very limited to the history and the deliberations and events.
In this information age, I would like to propose to MFA to set up a portal and provide bite-size information on our foreign policies where our people can look up on the Government's stand and understand why certain decisions are made and why certain comments are made. This can deepen our understanding of our foreign policies, and our man-in-the-street can be our ambassadors of our foreign policies, too. This, I feel, can help our people forge an even stronger Singaporean identity. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, another area where we can strengthen our identity is to help educate our people on the many things that our leaders are doing in the field of foreign policy. We need to explain in simple terms the areas that our Government is doing in foreign affairs which are often not understood by the man-in-the-street. For example, how decisions at ASEAN summits impact our lives. Or how our participation in international treaties and agreements, such as FTAs or the Paris Agreement on Climate Change impacts on our lives. How important is it to be chosen as host to the Trump-Kim Jong-un Summit?
In this information age, I would like to propose to MFA to set up a portal and provide bite-size information on our foreign policies where our people can look up on our stand and understand why certain decisions are made and why certain comments are made. This can deepen our understanding of our foreign policies and our man-in-the-street can be ambassadors of our foreign policies, too. This, I feel, can help our people forge an even stronger Singaporean identity.
(In English) Mr Speaker, Sir, our fourth generation (4G) leaders are very well-versed on the powers of effective and timely communication in this information age. However, the need to garner the views of non-government organisations (NGOs), voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and volunteer groups in the community is very important. This is so that everyone has a sense of participation and involvement in all that we are doing. It also helps in getting the buy-in from the ground. I look forward to our new leaders working with all Singaporeans to take us to the next level. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee Rajah.
The Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Education, Finance and Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, today, I wish to speak about what it means to be Singaporean. Every once in a while, the topic of the Singapore Identity comes up. Often, it is couched as a question: do we have a defining identity in view of our relatively short history? At other times, it is an expression of angst. We point to kiasuism, competitiveness and stress, and we ask ourselves are these all there is to us? We are known to be pragmatic, logical and rational but this also prompts us to wonder: “Are we all head and no heart?”
When I came to the Chamber just now, I found on my seat a brown envelope from Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin. She had inserted inside a copy of the letter from the National University of Singapore (NUS) students of Tembusu College to the fourth Prime Minister of Singapore that was widely publicised. In that letter, the students expressed their concerns, their hopes, their fears, many of those related to the Singapore Identity.
The question of the Singapore Identity is particularly pertinent as we enter a new phase of the Singapore Story. A new global situation is emerging.
Politically, we see the rise of China, the introspection of America, new tensions in the Middle East, Britain’s exit from the European Union, and, closer to home, a new situation in Malaysia. The global economic centre of gravity is shifting to Asia. Technology is penetrating lives and changing lifestyles, disrupting old jobs and creating new ones. It is triggering innovation and posing fresh conundrums.
Socially, we and the rest of the world are grappling with income inequality, social stratification and the dangers of polarisation. Our population is ageing; new births are not replacing the ones who pass on; and amidst all these, the ever-present shadow of terrorism.
Against this backdrop, the following questions arise: do we, this generation of Singaporeans, have what it takes to deal with these challenges and come out ahead? In this time of change, what anchors us? Who are we and what do we stand for? What kind of future do we want to make for ourselves? These questions go to the very heart of our identity.
We do have a unique identity and defining characteristics. We sometimes forget, but our history is not short. We achieved Independence in 1965. Raffles founded modern Singapore in 1819. But our story actually stretches far back to 1299, to the first founding by Sang Nila Utama. It is a 700-year journey through time and space that has made us the people that we are and given us the attributes that are now part of our uniquely Singaporean DNA.
From the 14th century, Singapura emerged as a thriving emporium built on regional trade. Open trade and commerce have always been in our lifeblood. That remains true today. Singapore declined in the early 1700s due to the rise and relocation of other economic centres in the region. That is an early lesson on what happens when you are overtaken by competition. You lose your relevance and slide into obscurity.
The founding by Raffles in 1819 gave us a new lease of life. The bold move to make Singapore a free port and an open centre of free trade not only re-established our economic importance, but it took us beyond the region, plugging us into global trade for the very first time. This global connection has carried on to the present day and continues to shape our economic outlook.
It also led to the coming of many peoples and the establishment of many cultures – the beginnings of our multiculturalism.
Over the next 150 years, sojourners became settlers. People sank roots. We were not yet one people; not yet a nation. But from a harbour, Singapore was becoming home.
As a colony, Singapore grew in economic and strategic importance. But in the 1940s, the winds of war swept the world and we were not spared. The year 1941 saw the fall of Singapore, an ignominious blow to the invincibility of the British Empire. It shattered forever the idea of the inevitability of colonial rule. The Japanese Occupation was a period of subjugation and suffering, sacrifice and bloodshed, experienced directly by our parents and grandparents. That is why, even to this day, the word \"Syonan\" evokes strong reactions.
With the end of WWII, came a global tide of anti-colonialism and the rise of nation states. Our response? The upswell of a strong nationalist spirit, and a fierce desire for the right to determine our own future. Next came the turbulent years of internal self-government, merger, Separation and, finally, Independence. In just 24 years, we made the tumultuous transition from subjugation to sovereignty. Our hopes and dreams for the future were captured in the Proclamation of Independence, which said: \"...Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.”
That was the day we became One People. A Nation. Sovereign. You could say that that was also the day that a nascent Singapore Identity emerged, shaped by the events of the preceding centuries, and to be further forged and honed in the next 50 years, as we made the journey from Third World to First.
Who then are we, the people who have made this journey? Well, we are a people with a strong sense of self-determination. Our history has made us so. We have a deep and abiding belief that our future should be charted, not by others, but by ourselves, and on our own terms. Our Independence was hard won. We will preserve and protect that inalienable right.
This is why the President’s Address makes securing Singapore’s place in the world one of our priorities. This is also why we do not allow external interference with our politics.
As a small country, we are often subject to external pressures. Countries larger and more powerful than us may, from time to time, try to dictate what we should do. However, we will act only in accordance with the best interests of Singapore. This takes courage, deftness and a healthy sense of realism. These, too, are our attributes.
We wish to be friends with all. But we will defend ourselves if the need arises. We advance and defend our right to self-determination through diplomacy and deterrence. That is why we act on principle and support a rules-based international order, where states must act in accordance with agreed rules and not purely on the basis of might or size. And that is why we have the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), and that is why we support National Service (NS).
Long before multiculturalism became a buzzword, we made it part of our identity as a nation. The power of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's words in 1965 still resonates today, when he said: \"We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion.\"
To be Singaporean is to accept that all can practise their faiths, as long as you do not do harm to others. To be Singaporean is to be able to have your own distinct racial identity while, at the same time, being part of a larger Singaporean family, and sharing a broader national identity with many other races. To be Singaporean is to be able to appreciate and celebrate other cultures, while retaining your own. To be Singaporean is also to be part of a uniquely Singaporean culture: Singlish, eating at hawker centres, the concept of \"choping\", especially with a packet of tissue paper, our habit of calling everyone Auntie or Uncle, whether or not they are related to us; our preferred dress style – casual wear and slippers. And when you say \"fun shot\", every Singaporean immediately knows they must put their thumbs up! These are things which cut across all ethnicities.
At the core of our Singaporean identity is our values. More than anything else, it is our values that define us: family, kindness, inclusiveness; honesty, integrity and anti-corruption; meritocracy and the aspiration for equality; justice, fairness and rule of law.
Because of our values, our hallmark is trust. People know they can trust us. In global and regional trade, many accord a premium to dealing with Singaporean businesses. Multinational corporations (MNCs) set up shop here and investors invest because they know we can be trusted. As a country and as a people, our brand is trustworthiness, reliability.
We are a committed people. When we say we will do something, we will. Our biggest commitment is closely interwoven with our identity. That is to be found in the pledge. What is the pledge but a commitment, by every Singaporean to one another, to build a better life together? In the pledge: we affirm our unity; we define the kind of society we want to build together – democratic, based on justice and equality; we set out our goals – happiness, prosperity and progress for everyone. This is instilled in every Singaporean schoolchild, every adult. Anyone who becomes a citizen must take that pledge as one of the first acts of citizenship and understand, through the pledge, what it means to be Singaporean.
The pursuit of excellence is also part of our identity. This is a function of our size and lack of natural resources. If we want anyone to pay attention to us, if we want to have a place at the international table, if we are to secure our position in the world, then we have to be better than merely good. We have to be exceptional. And through our combined efforts as a people, we are.
We are a tiny island of 719 square kilometres. We have a population of 5.5 million, of which 3.4 million are citizens. There are 193 member states in the United Nations. Almost all of them are bigger, more populous and far more generously endowed with natural resources than we are. Yet, we make our mark internationally.
Hub status. Singapore is the world’s busiest transshipment hub. In 2016, PSA Singapore was ranked Best Container Terminal Asia. Changi Airport, in 2018, it was voted the World’s Best Airport for the sixth consecutive year. Singapore Airlines (SIA) is the No 1 airline in the world. Singapore is the third most preferred seat of arbitration globally. Singapore is the fourth top financial centre in the world.
In global mobility, the Singapore passport is the most powerful in the world in terms of global mobility. Our water story has been an amazing one. We have taken the little we have and made it robust and sustainable. Singapore is a world leader in water recycling. In the 2017 benchmarking exercise by the European Benchmarking Co-operation Foundation, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) was ranked in the top 10% of water utilities benchmarked for (a) compliance with applicable standards for drinking water tests, and (b) wastewater treatment plant compliance with discharge standards. We have one of the lowest unaccounted-for-water (UFW) rates in the world. PUB received the Stockholm Industry Water Award in 2007 and was named Water Agency of the Year in 2006 for being an exemplary model of integrated water management.
Music, Art and Sport. Over the years, Singapore has had many child prodigies in music. The most recent is 11-year-old violinist Chloe Chua, who won first prize in the junior division of the Menuhin Competition, the Olympics of violin. Our designers are dressing Hollywood stars – Dzojchen’s suits are worn by Robert Downey Jr, Chadwick Boseman and Nick Jonas. So, when Ironman is not in his iron armour, he is in a Singapore suit! Heliopolis Accessories’ clutch bags have been worn by Emma Roberts and Janelle Monáe.
Our sportsmen and women have done us proud. Joseph Schooling won our first Olympic gold medal. Yip Pin Xiu and Theresa Goh – gold and bronze medals at the 2016 Paralympics. Jason Chee, table tennis gold at the ASEAN Paralympic Games. And we have scaled Everest – Dr Kumaran Rasappan and also Nur Yusina Ya’akob, the first Malay/Muslim woman from Singapore, to reach the world’s highest peak.
And we are not doing too badly in the fun stakes. Zouk is among the top clubs in the world. And The Manhattan Bar at the Regent Hotel is Asia’s No 1 for the second year running, not bad for a small little red dot that you can barely find on any world map. And this is not even the full list of our achievements. There are more which I will mention later.
Some of you may have felt slightly uncomfortable during my recitation of this long list of achievements. If so, you are displaying another very Singaporean trait, which is modesty. We are not given to blowing our own trumpet or puffing ourselves up. If anything, we are embarrassed by praise and accolades. We tend to duck our heads and mumble something about just doing our duty. But this is not about chest thumping or bragging. This is about understanding the significance of what I have just listed.
Those things could not have been achieved by any single person, organisation or the Government acting alone. Those were achieved by the collective effort of Singaporeans, each contributing in different ways. To have been able to achieve all those things despite the odds, despite our size, despite our lack of resources, tells you something about us. It tells you, we are determined. It tells you, we are resilient. We do not give up, not even when faced by seemingly insurmountable obstacles. We will turn a weakness into strength.
It tells you that we are resourceful and entrepreneurial. We are the kind of people who will create something out of nothing, based just on the power of an idea. It tells you we are innovative, able to adapt, to break new ground. If there is a worthy challenge, we will rise to the occasion and meet it.
We were once told that we were just a little red dot, a remark that was meant to put us in our place and remind us how small we are. Instead, we took that label and we turned it into a badge of pride and a mark of excellence.
But being Singaporean is not just about achievements. Our achievements are the manifestation of something much deeper and more fundamental – care. Above all, to be Singaporean is to care. To be Singaporean is to care about family, about others, about country. In this debate, much has been said about social mobility, inequality and the lack of social mixing. These are real concerns.
However, in the context of identity, the real point to note is not that this is becoming a problem. We know that it is a problem. The real point to note is that we care that it is becoming a problem and we are determined to do something about it. That is the essence of being Singaporean. We care enough to want to do something. If we see something wrong, our first instinct is to help, to fix it, to improve the situation.
Take education. We care about our people. We care about our children and their future. We want every child to fulfil his or her fullest potential, to give every child the opportunity to succeed, irrespective of starting point. And that is the reason why we put so much emphasis on education.
Our 15-year-olds are No 1 in the world for Mathematics, Science and reading in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, an international benchmarking test dubbed the World Cup for Education. Our students are also the world’s No 1 for problem solving through teamwork. That is PISA 2015’s Study on Collaborative Problem Solving. Likewise, our Primary 4 and Secondary 2 students are the world’s No 1 in Mathematics and Science. And this includes progress made by academically weaker students. That is from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015. Our Primary 4 students are No 2 in the world for Reading.
Again, I cite this data not for the sake of trumpet blowing, but to ask people to look at the story that this data tells you. The data tells the story of how, over the years, our educators have built an exceptional education system where our students outperform their peers internationally. This was and continues to be driven not by a desire to top the rankings but by the desire to ensure that our children succeed, and to give them the best chance to navigate the future and to help them be the best that they can be.
In this regard, I was struck by what the former Director-General of Education Ms Ho Peng said in her speech at the Appreciation Dinner upon her retirement. She said: \"We never went out to be a world-class education system but, through good thinking, planning and sheer hard work, we woke up one day to the realisation that we were regarded as world-class. The idea took some getting used to – and I hope never. Because education is such a complex business, it is, after all, to mould the future of our nation, that we must never be complacent, to always keep on our toes, to be forward-looking and yet, remain connected with the ground, the voices of students, teachers, school leaders, parents and the community.\" That is how our educators see their mission.
Yes, there is anxiety about stress and competitiveness. There is also a need to shift the focus from an over-emphasis on academics to embrace a broader skills approach. We have been working on that. We have made several moves in the last few years, and we will do more. But this, too, is an example of our Singaporeanness; we are never content to rest on our laurels. We will continually try to do better.
We care about adults, too. We worry for those who may lose their jobs to technology. We want our people to be fully employed. We want them to be able to cope with change so that they can secure their livelihoods, and care is the driving impetus behind SkillsFuture and Adapt and Grow.
We care about whether our people have jobs. We know and we understand the concerns about cost of living. However, we recognise that the best way to address this is by generating economic activity with real wage increases and real productivity so that our people can earn more in real terms. So, that is where we direct our efforts.
Singapore is the top investment destination in Asia and second in the world. We are the second most competitive economy in the world. Second among 190 economies for ease of doing business. We are top in Asia for best protection of intellectual property (IP). We are top in Asia for innovation.
Again, what story do these survey results tell? It is certainly not about growth for growth’s sake. What that data reflects is the enormous continuing effort that goes into trying to keep Singapore the best place to do business so that foreign investments will flow in, so that companies are anchored here, to make us a global exchange for goods and services. Why? For one purpose: to generate opportunities and jobs for our people so that we can make a better living.
Health. We care about our people's health. We are first in the world for life expectancy at birth, both sexes; first in the world for health-related sustainable development; second in the world for healthcare efficiency; and healthiest country in Asia and fourth in the world. I am not sure how many other countries’ prime ministers tell you to eat brown rice!
Again, this data speaks of our concern that our people should lead long and healthy lives. It is testament to the work that goes in to ensure that we are healthy and that, if for any reason we fall ill, Singaporeans can get the best possible healthcare.
Housing. We care that our people have good homes, to have a place where they can bring up their families. We have 90.7% home ownership, of which, 80% is public housing. The home ownership rate among resident households for Housing and Development Board flats is 92.1%.
In the last decade, we have expanded our social networks, increased social programmes and increased social expenditure. That includes the Pioneer Generation Package, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Silver Support, ComCare, MediShield Life, to name just a few – again, because we care.
Singaporeans are a caring people. We have big hearts. This can be seen in many ways, for example, our response to the tsunami in 2004 and the Nepal earthquake in 2015. Our volunteerism rate has grown over the years from one in 10 individuals (9%) volunteering in 2000 to one in three (35%) volunteering in 2016. Total volunteer hours have almost doubled from 66 million hours in 2014 to 121 million hours in 2016.
But our other Singaporean trait is that we are also pragmatic. It is not enough to simply care. Empathy without outcomes achieves little. Care has to be deliverable and sustainable, both operationally and financially. And that is the other part of our identity, too, that is, making sure that things actually get done. We work hard to translate care into reality. And that is why the Singapore Tourism Board tagline is \"Passion made Possible\", accompanied by the trust mark.
For us, it is not enough to get things done just for today. We are also a people who think about tomorrow, about the future of our children and the future of Singapore, our country. The Committee on the Future Economy and its work is about the future, as, indeed, is this debate. Our preoccupation with the future is driven by our sense of duty and stewardship, that we must not only tend to our own generation but plant seeds that will bear fruit for the next.
We are green, we care about our environment and we love nature. Long before the green movement, we had annual tree planting. From a Garden City, we have moved to being a City in a Garden. Our Botanical Gardens is a World Heritage Site. We have Gardens by the Bay, the upcoming Rainforest Park at Mandai. We are a Permanent Observer of the Artic Council. And we have designated this year as the Year of Climate Action.
We love animals. It is not only dogs and cats. Just look at our response to the animals which share our urban home – otters, owls, woodpeckers. Campus Creatures is a popular Facebook page on animals seen around our schools, junior colleges, polytechnics and universities. Animal rescue and shelters are gaining more prominence.
We are foodies. We love, love, love our food! Before we have finished one meal, we are discussing the next! We have our traditional hawker food, but young Singaporeans are coming up with creative new concepts. There is Baomakers by Pang Su Yi. That is traditional kong bak bao, but with innovative new fillings of salted egg yolk, chicken and prawn, chilli crab, crispy chicken with Japanese tartar sauce. Windowsill Pies, set up by brothers Jonathan and Sean Gwee – yummalicious sweet pies. There is the Hainanese chicken rice and laksa potato chips by F.EAST, a Singapore husband and wife team – Lee Yue Jer and Kee Vern Cheng. And salted egg yolk fishskin and chips from Golden Duck by Singaporean duo Jonathan Shen and Christopher Hwang. In fact, we have taken to putting salted egg yolk on just about everything! It is fast becoming part of the Singapore food scene. And, for those who have not tried the Golden Duck’s fishskin and chips, I have arranged for Parliament to put some packets in the Members’ Room during the break.
Then, we have a uniquely Singaporean sense of humour. Think Phua Chu Kang, the Noose and, more currently, the Ryan Sylvia YouTube Channel.
We are by no means perfect. We are champion complainers, although Ministers from other countries have assured me that we do not have a monopoly on this! We can sometimes be inconsiderate and selfish. And yes, we are kiasu; we are impatient. But overall, our positive attributes far outweigh our negative ones.
We value every individual. But what makes us truly unique is our strong sense of unity.
Singapore is exceptional not because everyone is a superstar. If you ask Singaporeans, many will say they are just ordinary people doing ordinary things. But we are exceptional – and we have achieved extraordinary things – because of our unity, the way in which we pull together.
Members will recall Our Singapore Conversation, which distilled the five things that mattered most to Singaporeans. One of these was “Kampung Spirit”. Why is that so important? It is because what keeps us going, what makes us able to take on all the challenges that we face – and there are many – is the knowledge that we are there for one another, supporting one another, leaving no one behind.
The Singapore Story is still being written. It must be written by all Singaporeans. But let me make a special call out to the young who are just starting out. You must help to write the next chapter. Earlier generations have done much. Now, it is your turn. You have the qualities, the values and the opportunity to do so. To the students of Tembusu College, not all the answers are clear right now because the story is being written. But you will be part of that story and you will write that story, together with the 4G leadership and with your fellow Singaporeans.
No matter what our background, each of us has a role to play. Each has something to contribute to make Singapore a better place. As in an orchestra, each instrument, taken alone, may not sound very musical. But, together, they produce a soaring symphony.
Together, we are exceptional. Together, we have achieved what we have. Together, we have beaten seemingly impossible odds time and time again. Together, then, is how we must tackle the future. And we will succeed because of who and what we are –Singaporean. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: I believe all Members are getting hungry. So, you would be glad to know I will be making some adjustments. Ms Rahayu Mahzam stands between us and tea break.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Thank you, Speaker, for the challenge, and apologies to the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to begin my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: This year, President Halimah Yacob delivered her maiden President’s Address. For me, it was a proud moment and a source of inspiration. Seeing a Malay lady as the President delivering an address charting the direction of our country, made me really think about progress in Singapore. In Singapore, a woman can occupy the highest position in society. In Singapore, a minority race can have the same status as the other races. In Singapore, if we are willing to work hard, there are pathways and opportunities to keep progressing.
I admit, and I am aware, that not everyone has the same situation in life. For instance, a particular family’s financial situation and the lack of social networks and social capital, can definitely impact one’s direction in life. Those who come from low-income families generally need to work harder compared to those who come from wealthy families. This turns the pursuit of progress into an unfair competition. This year’s President's Address has certainly outlined inequality as an issue that we must overcome. I am heartened to see the Government giving due attention to this issue and making it a national priority.
I recall when I was a student, and when there was an opportunity to take part in a study visit overseas, I did not even think about participating because I knew the cost was high and my parents could not afford it.
Overseas programmes are not necessarily a priority, but such activities, which are done outside the classroom, are opportunities to gain new experiences and knowledge. Each student should be able to grab any opportunity in the course of his or her education, regardless of background.
Life is different now. Many parents may be able to afford to provide more for their children. However, we must make sure that no one is left behind.
Now, there is an Opportunity Fund, a fund that can be used for beneficial co-curricular activities to further develop students from low-income families. I hope that the administration of this fund can be enhanced to ensure that students are aware of the various opportunities that are available and that more students can benefit from this fund.
We also have the KidSTART programme, which is a pilot programme that aims to provide comprehensive support to low-income families. It is hoped that this will increase the potential of children from such families, and these children will have the same opportunities as children from other families. I truly welcome this effort. However, I hope that this programme can be developed even more quickly so that it can benefit more families. I would like to also suggest that the Ministry look at how this programme can be right-scaled so that certain aspects can be replicated and applied to children from middle-income families. The reason is that although parents from this group may be able to afford certain things for their children, the cost of living may affect their ability to provide additional things. It will be good if support can also be rendered to these families.
The Government may be able to implement certain policies and programmes but, in the end, all of us play a role in ensuring that our society can progress together. We must make use of the available opportunities, provide support and assistance where possible, and work together to enhance the standard of living of all Singaporeans.
(In English): Mr Speaker, allow me to continue in English. Many of my esteemed colleagues in this House had shared their insights from their interactions and discussions with residents and other groups of people. Allow me to add to this and share some of my insights.
For one, the people want an efficient Government, one that responds to issues quickly and solves all problems immediately. The people I spoke to lamented about transportation woes, problems with shared bicycles, danger imposed by personal mobility devices. Whilst they acknowledge the current efforts in place to resolve the issues, many hope for a faster solution.
Secondly, there is a desire for the Government to allow for space to dissent and disagree. Some shared that the Government should not be high-handed in its approach in responding to criticism, and that there should be better acceptance of its inadequacies and a willingness to change and do better.
Above all, the people want to be assured that the Government is a compassionate one, one that would fight for its people, be on their side and do right by them. It seems that unpopular decisions like the Goods and Services Tax increases, imposing car park charges on teachers, no matter how logical they may sound, make people wonder if the Government has heard the people and really care. For some people, the many lofty plans and policies will not matter if at the end of the day it does not make their lives better.
The expectation on the Government is very high. As it should be, I feel. Our people deserve the best. The previous generation of leaders set high standards of efficiency, of integrity and we should build on these standards.
However, the challenge faced by the new generation of leaders is great. Issues about maintaining or, in fact, earning and building trust have surfaced. There are vocal groups who may be in the minority, but their dissent is strong and their views are amplified through social media. The landscape of information flow has changed. We all have confirmation biases and social media helps create echo chambers where already-held beliefs, no matter how unreasonable they may be, are reinforced.
It is an uphill battle, but I have faith in the leadership. I am heartened by the candour and humility of the Government. Over the last few days of this debate, I have heard the acknowledgement and acceptance of the people’s grievances, their feedback, and the plan and determination to do better. I have also personally seen the leadership at work with the people and even behind closed-door discussions. There is an earnest desire to engage, to lay out the various tradeoffs and explain why some things can or cannot be done. There is an earnest effort to review and make changes, where appropriate, to help ease difficulties. But there is also courage to make the right decisions, to make unpopular decisions, and to do what is important and right for Singapore. I feel that it is this earnestness and courage that define this current Government. Clearly, there is just no short cut to this except the hard work of engaging and helping each group, each person, each individual, and in earning their trust and respect, one heart at a time.
I also have faith in our people. As Minister Indranee articulately put it just now, it is our values that define us, and I believe that our values will guide us through any turning points in our journey as we continue writing our Singapore Story. The story of the resilience, grit and determination of our forefathers will continue to live in us. I have faith in our collective wisdom to choose what is best for the country in the long run, not just for the short term, and to distinguish the truth from falsehoods, to appreciate sincerity and hard work in building Singapore and to find common ground in the midst of many differing views.
Mr Speaker, I trust I have completed in good time. I support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Well done! Order. I think we all need a tea break now. I suspend the Sitting. And just to show a little bit more care, I will take the Chair at 2.05 pm. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 1.40 pm until 2.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 2.05 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
President's Speech – Address of Thanks
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Heng Swee Keat.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Over these past five days, Members have shared their concerns and also their hopes for Singapore and Singaporeans. Members of Parliament spoke about the immediate issues that Singaporeans are concerned with, such as jobs, cost of living, inequality. These are important. I am glad Members are listening to and reflecting the feelings of their residents.
We hear you. We are taking action to address our people's needs and concerns, including the cost of living. I explained in this year's Budget some of the measures that we are taking to meet the immediate concerns of Singaporeans. Members of Parliament also spoke about our longer-term challenges: geopolitical and economic shifts in our region and the world, technological advances and disruptions that will transform how we live and work, and new social divides that test our cohesion.
These long-term issues, too, are important. We must not only navigate the choppy waters that are immediately around us, but have a sense of where we are going, where we are headed towards. When it comes to the longer-term challenges, we are taking action, we are working to secure opportunities for our people. Our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and Community Networks for Seniors, among other things, are major initiatives in this regard.
Each generation must forge its own way forward. As the Prime Minister put it, a Government must govern.
Today, I would like to share some thoughts on how we can take Singapore and Singaporeans into the future. There are two vital parts to this: how we continue bringing out the best in our people; and, how we continue building a culture of partnership and trust in Singapore.
First, how will we continue bringing out the best in our people? This is the central question that should occupy each generation of leaders because Singaporeans are at the heart of everything this Government does. This stays constant, whichever the generation of leadership: 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G or 10G.
What does change are the circumstances. New circumstances call for new approaches from us. So, each successive generation must ask anew: how do we bring out the best in our people? How do we make life even better for our people?
Since 1965, we have delivered better lives. Singaporeans of all backgrounds enjoy a safe and secure environment, home ownership, world-class education and good job opportunities. Our people lead fulfilling lives and age with dignity, with the assurance of good quality and affordable healthcare. A child born in Singapore today has one of the best odds in the world of having a safe, healthy and fulfilling life.
We are at a more advanced stage of development now. With better lives, come bigger dreams. Can we do better to support our people? We can, and we must. In every sphere, from healthcare to education, from the economy to the creation of jobs, transport to security, we will push the bounds to continue to better the lives of all Singaporeans
Minister Ong Ye Kung spoke about how we must strive ceaselessly to tackle inequality so that Singapore remains a place of opportunities for all. Minister Ng Chee Meng set out how we will better support vulnerable workers so that they can face change with confidence. Minister Lawrence Wong described our city of tomorrow, one that embraces the future and is more innovative, inclusive and resilient.
I first said, \"Every School a Good School\" in this House. After I did, some Members of Parliament (MPs) said, \"every hawker centre a good hawker centre\" and \"Every MP a good MP\". Every school a good school is about bringing out the best in every child. This is what our schools have been doing, recognising that every child is unique.
How have we been working towards this? Through a combination of hard and soft ways. Resource each school well; fire up educators with a sense of mission and purpose; create diverse pathways and programmes that cater to the different interests and talents of our children.
Equally important is how we have built on one another's work, and this came through very clearly whenever I discuss with Education Ministers at that time with ministers around the world. In MOE, I was fortunate that past Ministers for Education, including Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Dr Ng Eng Hen in this House, passed to me and my team a strong foundation to build upon. I am glad that Minister Ng Chee Meng, and now Minister Ong Ye Kung have continued to build on this.
We are now taking this same aspiration beyond our schools to our whole economy and society. Just as we run our schools to bring out the best in every child, we can shape our economy and society to give every Singaporean the opportunities, skills and competencies to fulfill their potential.
Minister Chan Chun Sing spoke of Singapore Unlimited. Indeed, this is how we can broaden opportunities for our people. Minister Josephine Teo at the Ministry of Manpower and Minister Ng Chee Meng at the National Trades Union Congress are building on what their predecessors have built, by enabling workers to adapt and grow, and providing extra support for low-wage workers, mature workers and middle-aged middle-income workers.
Bringing out the best in our people is not just about helping Singaporeans to make a good life, to make the grade or make a living. It is about supporting Singaporeans to make a good life and to make a difference. For this reason, it is not only what we know or what we can do that matters. It is what we are made of, what we stand for, that counts.
Minister Indranee Rajah spoke on our values and how they define us as a people. Minister Masagos Zulkifli called for us to grow not just any meritocracy, but our Singapore brand of meritocracy where the successful give back to society, where we share common experiences, and where Government policies enable our people to move up.
There are some values and instincts that are intrinsic to the Singaporean. If we are to bring out the best in every Singaporean, we must stay true to these values. Our existing values of thrift, hard work, resourcefulness and resilience serve us well and we must uphold them. In a new world of greater change, we will need a new emphasis on our values and develop 21st century competencies. From our founding, we have been open to goods, ideas and peoples from around the world.
Going forward, we must also be open to change. And not only to the change that comes to us, but go out and actively engage with it, seek our place amidst the change. This means keeping a sense of adventure about new possibilities and having courage in the face of challenges. We have always embraced our wealth of cultures, languages and religions, and turned this diversity into a strength.
Going forward, I hope we also treat the growing diversity of perspectives, causes and success pathways as our endowment to treasure and nurture. Our Pioneers, in a spirit of self-determination, fought hard for us to be masters of our own destiny. Going forward, we must stay united against new forces, new fault lines, that may divide us. We must discern and guard against misinformation, stay aware of what is happening around the world, understand and defend what Singapore stands for. And when we chart our way together, we must do so with a respect for the truth and a sense of responsibility to one another.
To bring out the best in our people, we must continually find ways to respect, encourage and support Singaporeans to give expression to our values, whether it is through acts of service, such as Values-in-Action education and philanthropic programmes to act on their care and compassion for others; through platforms, such as the Global Innovation Alliance for our people to venture out into the world, to innovate and create value; or through opportunities, like Our Singapore Fund, to celebrate our identity, cultures and all that make being Singaporean special.
Our goal is to spark Singaporeans' sense of wonder and curiosity when young. Let us fire up their passion to explore and discover, and encourage them to invent and innovate, throughout their lives. We should move away from an over-emphasis on grades, build on the strengths and interests of each child, and develop each to his or her fullest potential. We must strive for multiple ladders of success, multiple peaks of excellence. This will take time, but we must continue to persevere.
Life is full of wonders and possibilities. To be Singaporean must mean to have the opportunities and abilities to see, seize and seek more of life's possibilities. Our goal must be to make this true for every Singaporean. That is how we will continue bringing out the best in our people.
Next, I would like to speak about building a culture of partnership and trust to keep Singapore a special place for all of us. Singapore can have a place in the world only as long as we stand for something special, and only as long as we stand united. We can stand for something special if we draw together the most of everyone's diverse strengths, from across all parts of our society. This takes a pervasive culture of partnership. And we can only stand together if we have strong bonds of trust among us.
Partnership and trust work together, nourish each other. The more we partner one another, the better we understand one another, the more the trust will grow. With more trust, we partner and work together more readily. A unity of purpose grows out of our diversity of strengths, through partnership. And unity matters. Other countries watch us. If there are divisions, these will be exploited. You see this in many parts of the world. If we stand united, we stand tall among nations.
In this House, we have Government MPs, Opposition MPs, Nominated MPs and Non-Constituency MPs. We engage in vigorous debate, as we should. But when it comes to the crunch, there must be no doubt about one thing: that every single one of us is totally committed to the long-term interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Whatever our views, let us come together to safeguard our sovereignty and serve the long-term interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.
President Halimah has called for us to foster a deeper people-Government partnership. This partnership must be sincere and grounded in trust, with all stakeholders playing meaningful and complementary roles. Each generation of leaders has worked to strengthen the people-and-Government and people-to-people partnerships, building trust between the Government and the people and among all parts of our society. At critical junctures, we came together to chart our course for the future – The Next Lap in 1991, Singapore 21 in 1999, Remaking Singapore in 2002. More recently, Our Singapore Conversation, SG50, SGfuture. The 4G political leadership is committed to building this partnership and growing the trust.
The Prime Minister said that we need new ideas, new bonds and new connections in every generation. The public is interested in how the 4G political leadership is taking shape. They recognise, rightly, that this is important for our country's future.
To build new ideas, new bonds and new connections, we must also develop leadership in all parts of our society. As our challenges become more complex, the Government will not have all the answers. We need to harness the diverse strengths of our society, through leaders at different levels in different parts of our society. By working together, we can achieve something greater than the sum of our parts.
So, we must go beyond political leadership, to develop and embrace leadership in every part of society – from our unions and trade associations to NGOs and VWOs. And we must be united by a sense of common purpose and galvanise whole-of-nation efforts to take Singapore forward.
Leadership in every part of society will define the quality of our partnerships. It is only when all parts step up, that we can best draw from diverse strengths across society to make a difference.
My own interactions with leadership in all parts of society has been enriching and humbling. Our Singapore Conversation and SG50 introduced me to leaders from many fields. They care deeply about an issue or a group of people, take proactive steps to make things better. This is leadership. More than that, they appreciate different points of view, engage in honest dialogue and work together with other groups. This is partnership.
The Committee on the Future Economy and now the Future Economy Council are energised and strengthened by the contributions of leaders in business, unions and academia. Mr Thomas Chua, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and our Labour Members have been involved, and they can attest. Many private sector leaders are also working closely together with our political leaders in a number of focused committees to develop and act on this.
Just last week, I shared what we are working on with an eminent visitor from a very advanced economy. When I described to him what we were doing with our ITMs, how we will bring in people together, he lamented that, \"We are not even thinking about these issues, much less to bring people together\". And he ended up our discussion by saying, \"This is why I am so impressed with Singapore and this is how you are going to stay successful\". So, I think what we have achieved is not something to be taken for granted and that it is not the natural order of things. We must continue to nurture this very carefully.
In fact, in our discussions, businesses, unions, experts, they develop new products, new business models to take their sectors forward. And this is an exercise of leadership. And with the experience they gained, they give back to the Future Economy process with ideas, feedback, even training programmes, to level up across the board. And this is partnership in action.
Whenever I join our charities and VWOs for their events, I meet passionate leaders who are actively building a more caring and cohesive community, showing leadership. Indeed, many Members of this House are serving your residents and Singapore in more ways than one, and through your own active philanthropic work – Ms Denise Phua at the Autism Resource Centre; Ms Rahayu Mahzam with the Malay Youth Literary Association; Ms Chia Yong Yong with the Society for the Physically Disabled; Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan with organisations in the legal field; and Mr Louis Ng at the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES), and many other Members – it would not be possible to mention every one. But this list shows how much all of you care. More and more, I see different charity organisations coming together to do more together, and businesses are doing skills-based volunteering, lending their unique strengths to charities. And all this shows partnership in action.
All this to the benefit of the whole society. And all this is possible because every individual, each organisation, is able to develop to the best in the first place. And this is something special and valuable that we must build upon.
I am sure Members of this House all want to see more of such leadership in all parts of our society, and partnership among all parts of our society. The Government will nurture this, even as we do our part to give support where it can make a difference, and to foster a stronger partnership between the Government and the people.
The Community Network for Seniors (CNS) is a good example of how we can partner one another to tackle one of our key challenges – an ageing society. CNS brings together Government agencies, VWOs and community groups as one team to help our seniors stay active and well.
The idea of partnership may appear simple, but the potential for this partnership to touch lives – about a million seniors by 2030 – is significant. CNS is evolutionary in design but revolutionary in impact. It is an example of the kind of boldness that President Halimah has called for.
It will be a big step forward in building a caring society. It will be a big step, too, in building our Singapore culture of partnership and trust.
And partnership and trust extend beyond our shores. We need to work closely together with our immediate neighbours, and strengthen our relations with ASEAN members and all our major partners. Singapore is ASEAN Chair this year and the Prime Minister has chaired some very significant meetings. We are using this opportunity to work together with our neighbours and to make our contribution towards a more integrated, innovative and resilient ASEAN.
I recently chaired the ASEAN Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting in Singapore, and co-chaired the ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting in Manila with the Korean Deputy Prime Minister. These were very successful meetings that bring forward our partnership in the region. And I am very encouraged by our enthusiasm to find ways and means to cooperate and partner one another. It augers well for the future of our region and for the future of Asia.
Members of the House have shared what we see are the key issues for our society in the years ahead, and what we would like to build for our future Singapore. You have raised important questions, issues and ideas, and we must take them beyond this Chamber. Singapore belongs to all Singaporeans, and we need a whole-of-Singapore effort to take this journey forward.
We will partner Singaporeans each step of the way in our journey of building our future Singapore. The 4G leadership will listen with humility and respect. We will consider all views with an open mind and adjust our course accordingly. We will communicate the thinking behind our decisions clearly. We will bring Singaporeans together and give everyone a role to turn ideas into concrete action.
The 4G leaders and MPs will launch a series of discussions with different groups of Singaporeans to kickstart this process. We will share our ideas and seek Singaporeans' views on them. In doing so, we capture the wider range of views and perspectives in our diverse society.
We will reach out to Singaporeans at different stages of life. Young Singaporeans are already coming forward through the ongoing Youth Conversations. Their views are important because they are our future. But we want to hear from others like the Generation X, Baby Boomers and Pioneers, too.
We will reach out to different segments of society – people in different occupations who have different interests and passions and who are contributing back to society in different ways. We will reach out to our workers through the unions. We will reach out to our communities through the grassroots and Community Development Councils. Beyond these efforts, we want to reach out directly to volunteer groups, hobby groups and others who are actively contributing to society in their own ways.
As there has been a variety of views shared in this House, we will take stock of them in the coming weeks, before providing further details on a discussion series.
Through our discussions, we will share our ideas and seek your views. We will build trust and ambition for Singapore and foster a common purpose. We will galvanise action and partnerships across society towards our common goals. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The building of our nation and homes are interconnected. We are able to build our homes and families only if the nation is strong. In turn, the development of our nation is dependent on our people.
We can only live and work in contentment and achieve happiness if our nation is prosperous and stable. The future of Singapore lies in the hands of all Singaporeans. The younger generation, in particular, has the responsibility of creating new possibilities for Singapore.
The rapidly changing external environment and new technologies bring challenges, but also opportunities. We will create the best conditions for Singaporeans to succeed, help them to seize opportunities, bring out the best in them, so that they can achieve their potential and aspirations.
We believe that every profession produces top talents. We hope that more successful people and leaders from different parts of society will come together to build our nation. We also hope that Singaporeans can demonstrate the spirit of “One For All, All For One”, and strengthen social cohesion.
The 4G leaders and MPs will continue to engage our people and consider all views with an open mind. We will conduct a series of discussions, strengthen communication with different segments of the society, including charities and community organisations.
The 4G leaders will remain true to our conviction, improve the lives of our people, and put the well-being of Singaporeans as a top priority. In doing so, the partnership and trust between the Government and the people will deepen.
As long as Singaporeans stand united, both during good and tough times, and work together towards our common goal, we will build a better Singapore.
(In English): The President has laid out the 4G leadership’s agenda for the coming years. Singaporeans want to be involved in this. We can face the future well if we continue to bring out the best in our people, and if all of us pull together in this spirit of partnership.
I have shared with the House our plans to engage Singaporeans in a series of discussions, and to give everyone a role to turn good ideas into actions. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I conclude with a line from our national anthem: \"marilah kita bersatu, dengan semangat yang baru\". Come, let us unite in a new spirit.
It has been decades since the National Anthem was composed. Today, we sing these lyrics in a profoundly changed world. Yet, the call has rung true across the generations and sounds just as clarion for ours. For our generation, unity is just as important as ever. For our generation, our new spirit must be one of greater partnership and trust. Let us unite in this new spirit of partnership and trust. Let us strive together as one people, united in our values, undivided in our diversity, giving our best as one for Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.
Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to round up this Debate on the Address of Thanks to the President. Over the past few days, 70 Members, including the Prime Minister, have passionately shared their vision and views, and actively debated on what is next for Singapore.
Members have covered several key themes around the President’s Address: a vibrant economy with equal job opportunities, social mobility and reducing inequality, building an inclusive society, visible leadership in building trust and strong partnerships between the Government and the people.
We acknowledge that Singapore is in an advanced stage of development. So, for the next 50 years, how can we do better as an economy, as a society, as one people and one nation?
Let me now broadly sum up the views from Members who have spoken in this Debate.
First, our future economy. With changing times, our future economy cannot simply be a measure of employment and gross domestic product growth. Our future economic metrics need to reflect societal trends and performance, such as sustainable income of the workforce, retirement adequacy, quality of life and intergenerational wealth transfer.
Singapore’s early economic focus was on industrialisation and job creation. Through an open economy and thriving on multilaterism, as Mr Vikram Nair said, we have made progress and continue to shift our focus to adapt to industry needs of the time. We have since moved from mass manufacturing to high technology manufacturing; and now we are embarking on industry value-add and digitalisation. With the ITMs and SkillsFuture, we are steadfast in our efforts to transform the sectors, upgrade our workers’ skills and create new opportunities, abreast with the future economy.
Tripartism has played a significant role in our economy in the past decades. Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Thanaletchimi have called for tripartism to help our workers to embark on the transformation journey at a faster pace and operationalise the ITMs. It is time to galvanise actions that create impactful initiatives on the ground. As with all efforts, they must ultimately translate into tangible jobs, reasonable real wage increases and skills that are relevant to changing business environment. We want quality and inclusive economic growth that can help provide jobs and help with the cost of living, as shared by Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Zainal Sapari.
We need to break new grounds, build new capabilities and transform vision into reality. New partnerships of public and private service model have to be forged. Support has to be given to prevent unfair practices against small businesses. This new world and its changes impact not only our citizens and businesses but also the regulators and the Government. They, too, need to adapt to social, political and global market dynamics. They must be more agile. Speed and mindset shift are essential.
Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Desmond Choo urged the Government to study how the new models of technology like artificial intelligence will impact our workforce and the need for new legal framework around it. Similarly, human resource support for freelancers and new models of contract workers that Mr Ang Hin Kee and I shared. This calls for boldness in the way we do things. Such bold shifts could mean a deviation from what we know best – the structured processes, well-trotted known sectors, MNCs and strict compliance.
In my speech, I suggested to create an ecosystem of industries with more small and medium enterprises abroad, a point that was also alluded to by Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Teo Ser Luck and Mr Thomas Chua. They further added that we need an effective trade mission, local trade associations and chambers to do more in implementing ITMs, to help our companies hunt better as a pack overseas and overcome the steep learning curve while venturing into foreign emerging markets.
For all these to work, it boils down to a key element in our economy – talent. To build a future workforce, we have to cultivate and attract talents. Mr Saktiandi Supaat reinforced the importance of having labour laws that can ensure fair and inclusive employment practices to protect our local talents. Ms Foo Mee Har and Assoc Prof Randolph Tan suggested a differentiated intake approach of talents to help businesses, tap on technology to identify the future skills landscape and why the need for equality of opportunity through our industry transformation push.
To cultivate such a workforce, it has to begin young and it starts from our education. We must develop students with varied abilities, not just knowledge but applied learning and emotional quotient that make each individual holistic. Such soft skills of empathy and character building are ever more critical as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Miss Cheng Li Hui highlighted.
As the saying goes, \"All roads lead to Rome\". So do the pathways of our students. We should enable diversity in their learning process and broaden the definition of success. Reward them for having learnt and not \"mugged\". Appreciate each child for their values and their demonstrable soft skills. In the long run, such students would intrinsically have embraced the concept of lifelong learning and are always skillfully deployable in different fields. Lifelong learning must also continue beyond tertiary education, as pointed out by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Denise Phua.
With digitalisation and an immense economy outside Singapore, all talents – local and global – are not bounded by geography. Minister Chan Chun Sing rightly pointed out that we need to have the skillsets and mindsets to compete internationally. As we build local talents, we need to be mindful that we include global talents, too, particularly from fields that we currently lack. There must be a balance to address the immediate and long-term needs. I see the key role of the Government in ensuring there is cross-cultural learning and knowledge transfer to gradually build our local talents over the long haul.
Not many economies in the world have evolved at our pace or are as well-organised as us. But having a good start is only the beginning. Looking at the growth and rapid advancement of ASEAN countries and other economies like China, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. I hope we continue to sprint, to create and be a creative inventor or early adopter in the race, and not a follower. So, we must embrace emerging technology, turn them into useful innovations, and nurture new markets in our Smart Nation and beyond.
Mr Henry Kwek suggested harnessing the value of data and digitalisation to create a single national digital platform where businesses can find new opportunities. Ms Tin Pei Ling also highlighted that we must not neglect our seniors in the digitalisation process. Instead, we should engender smart communities to support digital access programmes that can help the needy and vulnerable.
To achieve all these, our economy needs to continuously create sufficient diversity and attractive jobs, provide work-life balance and develop a positive work culture to appeal to a young and dynamic workforce. After all, it takes a motivated and innovative society to produce outstanding results, as Mr Faisal Manap emphasised. So, let us continue to enlarge our economic pie to ensure there will be more opportunities for our people to pursue, and more outcomes for our people to share.
Second, our future society. We must strive to do good together and further ensure we can reduce income inequality and enhance social mobility throughout all segments. This topic was vigorously debated upon by Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and many more other Members I cannot mention in detail here. I agree with Minister Ong Ye Kung that we have unfinished business of tackling inequality and it requires ceaseless efforts and drive and continued refinement as we progress in our nationhood building, be it through education, jobs, housing or urban planning. Our future city should be one that embraces diverse ideals and uplifts our fellow citizens from different backgrounds, a society where every generation has equal opportunities to achieve their dreams better than the previous generation.
Whilst finance, family conditions and job cycle vary for every individual, the duty of the Government is to ensure that every citizen has a place in the country, a home to live in, and every child grows up with equal access to education, jobs and a safe environment. But these do not occur by chance. Meticulous planning, social strategies in place and precise execution are necessary.
Social cohesion in Singapore was brought about by many factors. We need to continue to work on and strengthen the values that define us as a society. Values of social good, what it takes to be an active citizen, how do we give and share with others – these are areas that we should promote, as noted by Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Azmoon Ahmad, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Chong Kee Hiong. We need to get the basics of the society right and not discard what works just to be bold. Only a good society with strong values and virtues can withstand the test of time. This is a point that Mr Seah Kian Peng also referred to.
Further, I say that the Government and the people should begin making our own Tetris safety net. A Tetris safety net is one weaved from layers of support, one that is expandable in scope and one that is fundamentally stronger when the layers fall in place. It takes many hands to further ensure that no one is left behind.
I appreciate what Mr Louis Ng’s father has taught him, \"There is beauty in giving than receiving.\" Many Members suggested, too, that we must encourage the spirit of community giving. We are fortunate today that we have volunteers, social workers and civil society activists; people who have stood up for causes, listened to other people, gave back and helped others. But we will always have a need for more such helping hands in our society.
While the lower-income group is always supported, we have to begin considering expanding our reach in different aspects to give more protection and peace of mind to a burgeoning middle class. This explains why it is even more pertinent that we continue to work on options to cater for everyone.
From education, healthcare, social networks, housing and integration policies, I hope that, with the additional resources in place, more people can benefit from the assistance available, more can express their individualism, achieve success of their own definition, and eventually pay it forward to help others along.
Third, we must strive to do more together as one people, one nation. There is much we want to achieve in the second term of this Government for our people, with our people. But we need to set our sights way beyond the current time, because nation-building is a journey with no end.
A common thread amongst every theme that we touch upon as a Government is people. As Minister Heng Swee Keat just said, people are at the heart and core of every policy and implementation that we do. How do we bring out the best in our people? This is also a point that is made by Mr Alex Yam, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin. In Singapore, people are and will always remain our most precious asset. They represent the talent, the essence of our society, and our hope for the future.
I share what fellow Members have raised. We are here to build a home, a home that brings happiness, warmth, developments and one that allows every elderly, especially the seniors ahead to age in a dignified way. Family units remain as the bedrock of our society and is our first line of support. But the people in our community can make a difference to our lives, too. They can become the extended family – neighbours and volunteers who help other needy families, seniors, working mothers, families with few dependants. This, in the words of Ms Joan Pereira, and also described by Minister Indranee Rajah, is the true kampung spirit we have – the care for the people around us. Each action, each step, is a sign of strength, unity and hope to fellow Singaporeans.
In all that we do, as a citizen, student, parent, caregiver, worker or employer, we must always bear in mind the goal of making this country a more inclusive one. From inclusive growth to inclusive learning to inclusive workplace, we should rally behaviours that promote meritocracy, diversity and inclusion. And encourage social norms, adoption of standards for age-friendly, women-friendly, worker inclusive workplaces, as advocated by Dr Amy Khor, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Heng Chee How and Ms Low Yen Ling. Mr Darryl David also added how we can provide education support for neuro-divergent students and one which I strongly support, too. Dr Chia Shi-Lu spoke about the need to further bridge the gaps in healthcare services for senior patients, individuals with mental health needs, and strengthening our primary healthcare.
As we strive to do well as an economy and do good as a society, the process is just as important as the outcome, exactly what Ms Sun Xueling mentioned earlier. I trust the Government will strive to constantly work and give of their best to Singaporeans. As we have heard from Members in this House, leadership, teamwork, empathy and trust are very important characteristics to have in our 4G leaders.
The Government must strengthen the engagement with our people so that there will be a greater sense of alignment of concerns and aspirations, and a stronger sense of shared ownership. The need to work together as a team, to listen with compassion and humility, open to alternative views, deepen engagement and build trust with the people was strongly echoed by Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Ganesh Rajaram, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Kok Heng Leun.
As citizens, we should also share our views and ideas, endeavour to work with the Government in the spirit of encouragement and experimentation for an optimum outcome each time. We must create our future Singapore together, because Singapore belongs to all of us. We can best succeed when we share this journey together.
Mr Speaker, let me end by sharing a story. I brought my parents to the Frances Yip concert last month. Before the close of the concert, Frances introduced a Singaporean songwriter and music producer, Mr Eric Ng, on stage. Eric went on to share his background and talked about his career and how he got into this industry. In all his excitement, he told us that it really started because of a mentor who was willing to give him that first opportunity that truly, indeed, became his first big break into the music industry. He seized the moment and sincerely appealed to all in the audience. This was what he said, “Most of you present here tonight, I believe, are Singaporeans. For what I have been through, I know it would not have been possible without my teacher and a mentor who gave me the opportunity. So, here with me tonight, I have here my own mentees and potentials who will become big in this industry. Thus, I am appealing to all of you to do the same and support local talents. Give these talents a chance, because I know they will make their mark someday.”
His appeal was a simple one, but it moved me. It made me reflect and think. Yes, actually many of us should really be doing this for our fellow Singaporeans, be it mentorship, guidance, giving and sharing our experiences and knowledge. This is the spirit we want to have in Singapore. We are able to build things together, look out for one another, not judging others by their backgrounds, but actually treating them with dignity and giving them a chance based on their merits.
So, looking ahead, what do we aspire to have in Singapore? I say one where we share common values and spaces, one where many voices are represented, and, certainly, one that enables social mobility and continued equitable wealth distribution. In short, it is a place where we find anchors in a country that we are truly proud to call our home. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]
[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Second Reading, I would like to remind Members, while I appreciate the familiarity and camaraderie that all of you share, do refrain from addressing fellow Members by their first name. So, do address one another a bit more formally. Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vulnerable Adults Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an A4 copy of an infographic on the Vulnerable Adults Bill?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Sir, this Bill seeks to protect individuals, 18 years and older, who cannot protect themselves from abuse, neglect or self-neglect, because of a mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity.
In the course of our work as Members of Parliament, we would have come across households seeking help and assistance, as they juggle the many roles expected of a family: breadwinner, caregiver to elderly parents, and parents to young or teenage children. It gets harder when elderly parents lose mental capacity because of dementia or become bedridden because of illness. Double the challenge if they have children with disability or special needs to provide for.
Through various schemes and programmes, we want to better enable our families as they carry out their caregiving roles as the first line of care and protection for their vulnerable members. Indeed, one of the key priorities for the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Health (MOH), both now and in the years ahead, is to enhance support for the elderly and people with disability and special needs, and to better enable their family members and loved ones to carry out their roles as caregivers.
From time to time, we hear about sad cases where elderly persons or persons with disability or special needs are abused or neglected. Currently, we have in place a network of community and social service agencies which support families through social intervention, such as counselling, case management and case monitoring.
Take the case of \"Mdm Chua\". It is not her real name; we will not use any real names in this Chamber on this topic. Mdm Chua is a 68-year-old lady with early-stage dementia. When neighbours spotted Mdm Chua wandering around the estate with bruises on her arms and around her left eye, they alerted the Family Service Centre (FSC). The FSC found out that Mdm Chua’s daughter would beat her mother every time Mdm Chua soiled herself or left the stove on. When social workers contacted the daughter, she expressed remorse for using force against her mother. We found out that the daughter’s anger stemmed from her frustration and stress. Not only was she coping badly with her mother’s failing health, she also needed to care for her own son who has special needs. The daughter agreed to participate in counselling and assistance programmes to help her manage Mdm Chua’s failing mental and physical health.
To provide the daughter with caregiver respite, the FSC also persuaded another of Mdm Chua’s daughters to step in to care for Mdm Chua on weekdays. Assistance was also given to help her care for her son, who had special needs. Since our involvement, there have not been further incidents of violence reported to date.
Cases, such as this, remind us of the complexity of family relationships, and the crucial role that family and community intervention plays in helping vulnerable individuals.
But Singapore’s population is rapidly ageing. Today, more than 450,000 Singaporeans are 65 and above. In 12 years, by 2030, one in four will be aged 65 and above; that is more than 900,000 elderly individuals. The number of residents living alone is also projected to increase to more than 80,000 in 2030.
Our changing demographics impact our household structures. And this can complicate family dynamics. In our midst are vulnerable Singaporeans who may not be able to care for themselves, as they have physical or mental infirmities or disabilities. Some of these vulnerable individuals may not be able to depend on their families to provide adequate care for them; others may not even have family members or friends to rely on.
While our adult protection framework has functioned well, there are instances where family and community interventions may not be effective. Since MSF’s Adult Protective Service (APS) was established in 2015, the number of referrals to MSF has increased. On average, we have handled about 110 cases annually involving vulnerable adults 18 years and above, though not all of these cases eventually required our intervention. Our experience, validated by feedback from our stakeholders, indicates that family matters are never clear-cut, never black and white.
Caregivers who abuse vulnerable adults may themselves be victims of difficult circumstances and be under tremendous stress. They are sometimes unable to control their emotions, which may cause them to hurt vulnerable adults or other family members. One of the cases where MSF had to intervene involves “Sam”, again not his real name. Sam is a 29-year-old young man with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism and an intellectual disability. Sam is an only child and lived with his elderly parents. However, his parents were not able to understand his condition and, hence, care for Sam. Sam’s father would hit him to try and control his behaviour. This resulted in severe cuts and bruises on Sam, all of which required medical attention. But Sam’s behaviour also caused his father a lot of stress. When MSF spoke with Sam’s family members, they mentioned that Sam’s father had entertained thoughts of killing his son and then ending his own life. Sam’s father refused assistance and therapy for himself and his son, insisting that Sam be medicated to control his behaviour. Given the high risk of Sam being hurt again, Sam was placed at a facility that was equipped to address his care needs.
In cases like this, the Government must take a proactive approach and intervene early, as any delays may lead to further harm, or worse.
Sir, I am, therefore, putting the Vulnerable Adults Bill before the Members of this House to seek their support to strengthen the existing adult protective framework. The Bill will allow the Government social services to intervene, assist and protect vulnerable adults when social work-based family and community interventions are inadequate. It will complement other existing laws that protect vulnerable individuals, such as the Women’s Charter and the Mental Capacity Act.
We hope to achieve two objectives. First, we want to ensure that we have the ability to move quickly to protect and support vulnerable adults as well as their caregivers, when the need arises; and second, we want the protection for vulnerable adults to be effective.
In drawing up the Bill, we consulted our community partners and public agencies. Together, we reviewed cases where vulnerable adults were abused, neglected or self-neglected themselves, and discussed how best to calibrate the powers that the Bill should give. This was an important exercise that we did not want to rush, as we should not be excessively intruding into the sanctity of the home and eroding the autonomy and responsibility of the family.
During our consultations, we received strong support for the Bill. I met our community partners earlier this year and the draft Bill was finalised, and I was encouraged by their continued strong support. I would like to thank all stakeholders who provided valuable insights. We have studied these views carefully and incorporated them into the Bill where appropriate.
Before I go into the main provisions of the Bill, I would like to assure Members that the Bill does not and must not replace the social work that supports vulnerable adults and their caregivers. Social work intervention is, and remains, the main form of external intervention in such cases. This Bill, if passed by Members, should be a law of last resort; state intervention through the exercise of statutory power into the family for family matters will be applied judiciously and only when necessary. This is because personal care arrangements are largely matters for individuals and families to decide on. This Bill does not seek to supplant or diminish the role of the family and community.
Sir, let me now bring the House through the main features of the Bill, which fall broadly into four categories. Members can refer to the sheet that I passed around which gives a broad summary of the rest of my presentation, so I hope it is useful.
So, four categories: first, the scope of the Bill and the guiding principles that underlie our intervention; second, MSF's ability to intervene and protect vulnerable adults; third, I will talk about Court orders that will enhance the protection and support for vulnerable adults and their caregivers; and, fourth, I will talk about community involvement in protecting vulnerable adults. I will start with the first, which is the scope of the Bill.
First, the Bill protects vulnerable adults and explicitly sets out the guiding principles underlying state intervention. Clause 2 of the Bill defines a vulnerable adult as an individual, aged 18 or older, who because of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, is incapable of protecting himself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. For individuals above the age of 16 but below 18, we are looking to amend the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) to extend statutory protection under the realm of the Child Protective Services, which is the sister agency of the Adult Protection Service (APS).
Since its formation in 2015, MSF’s APS has seen a range of vulnerable adult cases involving abuse and neglect. “Abuse”, under the Vulnerable Adults Bill, refers to physical, emotional or psychological abuse. “Abuse” also includes any conduct or behaviour which causes an individual to fear for his safety or well-being, or unreasonably deprives, or threatens to unreasonably deprive, him of his liberty of movement or well-being. Hence, an individual who excessively controls another individual’s day-to-day life and social relationships and, as a result, causes the individual to suffer adverse emotional health effects, may be regarded as having abused that individual. A vulnerable adult may also require protection if he has been neglected. “Neglect” refers to the lack of provision of essential care to an individual, to the extent of causing or being reasonably likely to cause injury or pain. Not providing food, clothing, medical aid, lodging, supervision and other necessities of life are examples of neglect.
A vulnerable adult may also neglect himself. “Self-neglect” refers to the failure of an individual to perform essential tasks of daily living, such as eating, drinking and seeking medical aid. Vulnerable adults may, as a result of self-neglect, live in grossly unsanitary or hazardous conditions, suffer from malnutrition or dehydration, or suffer from untreated physical or mental illness or injury.
Since 2015, APS has seen close to 50 cases of such self-neglect. Many do not have families to care for them. Take Mr Wong, for example. Mr Wong, again, not his real name, is an 85-year-old elderly man who lives alone. He has diabetes and has developed diabetic-related wounds on his feet. When community workers found him, he had not bathed for months. He did not keep his medical appointments despite running out of medication and was not able to take care of the wounds on his feet. As a result, maggots had infested the wounds on his leg and he required urgent hospitalisation. But despite repeated engagements by community workers and by our social workers, Mr Wong refused to be admitted to a nursing home or a hospital. MSF persisted, and found his step-daughter. Together, they persuaded him to accept medical care in his home, after getting assurances that his leg would not be amputated.
APS also managed to get help for Mr Wong to manage his swollen legs and to monitor his condition. As of today, nursing staff from a social service agency visit Mr Wong weekly to clean his wound and this has reduced the stench of rotting flesh from his right leg. Three meals are delivered daily to him. Each week, staff from our Senior Activity Centre visit him. They also arrange for a doctor to see him whenever necessary. Mr Wong’s step-daughter also plays her part, dividing her time between work, her own family and children, and looking after Mr Wong. We are supporting her with caregiver support to help her cope. Cases like Mr Wong's highlight the need for adult protection legislation that will provide Government social services with powers to better support these vulnerable adults.
When drafting the proposed definitions, we wanted to ensure that the Bill complements, but does not supplant, existing laws and support networks. Certain scenarios are, therefore, not covered. For example, an individual who is physically abused by a family member, but who is capable of protecting himself – in other words, he does not meet the vulnerability threshold under the Bill – may instead apply for a personal protection order (PPO) under the Women’s Charter. Individuals with suspected mental illness, who are not vulnerable adults, may also be assisted under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act (MHCTA), if their behaviour places them at risk of harm.
Next, clause 4 of the Bill sets out the five key principles that guide how we will exercise and carry out the duties or exercise the powers under this Bill. The powers of the Bill are intrusive into the family and, hence, must be exercised within limits and with the right intent. We have, therefore, embedded these key principles in the Bill, to balance the need to protect a vulnerable adult with his right to autonomy and self-determination. So, what are these principles?
First, when we exercise the powers or perform the duties under the Bill, it must be to protect vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect and self-neglect. The Bill is not intended to solve community disputes, nor remove persons from their homes just because they may be perceived by their family members or by neighbours to be a nuisance. We will intervene if we assess that doing so is the only way to protect the vulnerable adult. That is first.
Second, we recognise that a vulnerable adult with mental capacity is generally best placed to decide how he wishes to live, and whether or not to accept any assistance. The Bill does not seek to override an individual’s freedom of choice nor coerce individuals to behave in a certain manner. MSF will seek an individual’s consent before intervening. Having said that, there may be circumstances where we should intervene, even though the vulnerable adult has mental capacity and refuses to accept protection. Such intervention will only take place in extreme cases involving the safety and protection of the vulnerable adult.
Third, we must consider the previously expressed views, wishes, feelings, values and beliefs of a vulnerable adult who lacks mental capacity, where reasonably ascertainable. MSF will, as far as possible, respect an individual’s choices and beliefs when we intervene.
Fourth, we must intervene and assist in a manner that is less restrictive of the vulnerable adult’s rights and freedom of action. In order to do this, MSF will work closely with the vulnerable adult and involve his family and caregivers, where possible.
Fifth, the welfare and best interests of the vulnerable adult must be the paramount and first consideration.
Sir, I will now move on to MSF's ability to intervene and protect vulnerable adults.
The next category of provisions sets out the state’s powers. Cases, such as Mr Wong, which I referred to earlier, illustrate why it is crucial for MSF to have powers to enter private premises, assess and, if necessary, remove a vulnerable adult. The Bill will only be effective if it allows us to intervene quickly to prevent further harm to the vulnerable adult.
So, Part 2, Division 1 of the Bill empowers MSF to enter private premises, to assess a person whom we suspect to be a vulnerable adult, if we have reason to believe that the individual has suffered from, is suffering or is at risk of abuse, neglect or self-neglect. In severe cases, the vulnerable adult may no longer be safe within his place of residence or home. Under clauses 10 and 11, MSF may remove vulnerable adults from their residence and commit them to gazetted care facilities, or to the care of a fit person. This allows swift assistance to be rendered to the vulnerable adult while other care arrangements are worked out. MSF must apply for a Court order within 14 working days after the removal, unless the vulnerable adult is earlier permitted to return to his residence. This requirement was included because we recognise that placement can significantly impact the vulnerable adult’s way of life.
I wish to assure Members that committals to these care facilities will only be done as a last resort, for an appropriate duration, until the vulnerable adult can be safely reunited with his family. To ensure the vulnerable adult’s well-being and safeguard his health, MSF may require him to be treated by a registered medical practitioner or registered dentist before or during his stay in these care facilities. Once committed to a care facility, the vulnerable adults must be protected from further harm. So, clause 19 requires the care facilities to undertake security measures to ensure the safety and protection of the vulnerable adults residing within their premises, while clause 20 empowers MSF to establish a Review Board to ensure that proper care plans are in place for the vulnerable adult. The Review Board will also advise MSF on whether a vulnerable adult can be discharged when the period of committal ends.
By and large, the Bill is premised on the vulnerable adult’s autonomy to make his own decisions. That said, our experience working with vulnerable adults is that there are exceptional circumstances where we may have to intervene to ensure his safety despite his refusal to consent to intervention. This includes instances where the vulnerable adult refuses to consent to assistance because he is under duress or undue influence. Clauses 7 and 10 will, therefore, allow MSF to apply for a Court order to assess and commit a vulnerable adult to a care facility, where a vulnerable adult with mental capacity refuses assistance. Let me explain our considerations for this.
First, during our consultations, some stakeholders highlighted actual cases where they were unable to help a vulnerable adult, because he refused to accept their assistance. Some of these adults were abused or neglected until the day they died.
Second, we looked at other countries which have longer experience with vulnerable adult legislation. Some of these jurisdictions have laws that allow a vulnerable adult’s stated wishes to be overridden. For example, in Scotland, the Adult Support and Protection Act permits the state to intervene despite a vulnerable adult’s refusal to consent, if there is evidence that the adult is unduly pressurised, and there are no other reasonable steps that can be taken to prevent further harm to that adult.
Similarly, in British Columbia, Canada, the state can intervene, without the vulnerable adult’s agreement, to remove an adult, provide them with emergency health care and take any other emergency measures necessary to protect the adult, if the adult is suffering from abuse or neglect. The state can do this if it is of the view that it is necessary to act without delay, in order to preserve the life of the adult; prevent serious physical or mental harm to the adult; or protect the adult’s property from significant damage or loss.
Like the adult protection laws in these countries, our Bill will similarly allow MSF to intervene despite a vulnerable adult’s wishes, if it is necessary to protect him and ensure his safety. But, as a safeguard, we will get a Court order to do so.
Ensuring the vulnerable adult's welfare and best interests is paramount. However, we must also hold abusers accountable for their actions if they are culpable. Clauses 26 to 29 empower MSF to investigate offences under the Bill. And to deter people from harming vulnerable adults, clauses 40 and 41 make related amendments to the Penal Code and Protection of Harassment Act respectively to enhance the maximum penalties of specific offences by up to one and a half times if these acts are committed against the vulnerable adult. This aligns with the enhanced penalties for Penal Code offences against domestic workers who are also a vulnerable group.
Clause 42 also amends the Women's Charter to enhance the penalties for breaches of the Women's Charter, Personal Protection Orders (PPOs), to maintain parity with the Bill. These enhancements receive strong support during consultation.
I will now move on to the orders that the Court may make to protect vulnerable adults and support their caregivers.
Clause 14 empowers the Family Justice Courts to make intervention orders to protect vulnerable adults from further harm. The need to apply for a Court order serves as a safeguard against excessive statutory intervention. When considering whether to make orders and what orders to make, the Court must have regard to the same five principles in the Bill that I have articulated earlier. But it may also take into account any other relevant matters it deems fit. There are three categories of Court orders. First, Core Protection Orders. These Core Protection Orders protect the vulnerable adult from any third party who may cause him to suffer from abuse or neglect. It includes Restraining Orders, Exclusive Occupation Orders, and orders prohibiting a person from visiting or communicating with the vulnerable adult.
Second, Alternative Placement Supervision Orders, and what are these? These orders ensure that the vulnerable adult is relocated to a safe environment. The Court may order a vulnerable adult to be committed to a care facility for a specified period of time, or order that the vulnerable adult be placed under the supervision of an appointed person. This appointed person may include a protector or an approved welfare officer.
Third, the Court can also make other protection and intervention orders, including orders to make the vulnerable adult's residence a safe living environment, and an order requiring the vulnerable adult or any other person to attend counselling or any such programmes as directed by the Court. This includes the power to order a vulnerable adult or any other person, including a caregiver who may have caused the abuse or neglect to go for counselling or training and get additional support.
Some vulnerable adults may face difficulties applying for such Court orders on their own. So, clause 12 allows approved welfare officers to apply for Core Protection Orders. More importantly, clause 12 preserves the role of the family as it also empowers family members, including a vulnerable adult's donee or deputy, to apply for protection orders. By donee, I refer to a person who has been appointed by the vulnerable adult under a Lasting Power Attorney (LPA) to make decisions on his behalf for his personal welfare, property and financial affairs, if and when he loses mental capacity. And by deputy, I refer to a person appointed by the Court to make such decisions on the vulnerable adult's behalf if he no longer has mental capacity to decide for himself and did not make an LPA earlier.
Our aim is to help every vulnerable adult to turn to the love and care of his family eventually. So, I would like to come back and talk about Sam, that 29-year-old young man whose father had hit him in order to control his behaviour.
The Bill, if Members support it, will allow Sam to be placed in a care facility, where he will receive the support necessary for him to manage his condition and recover from physical abuse. Having Sam temporarily away from his home may also provide respite for Sam's parents. MSF can then continue to engage Sam's father and ask that he attend therapy and counselling sessions to help him better understand and care for Sam and, if he refuses, we can try to apply to Court for an order requiring him to go for such counselling or other such programmes that the Court deems necessary as an added push.
The Bill allows us to calibrate the level of intervention necessary for each case, through a combination of statutory orders as well as social work interventions. This complements our existing adult protection system which seeks to support both the vulnerable adult as well as their family and caregivers.
Finally, I will now explain how the Bill enables our wider community to play a bigger role in preventing family violence and the abuse and neglect to vulnerable adults.
Members will recall the sad and tragic case of Ms Annie Ee. Ms Ee was a 26-year-old intellectually disabled waitress who left home because she wanted to work and be independent. She stayed with people whom she believed were her friends. Unfortunately, she was severely abused by her flat mates and eventually passed away. This was a horrible and tragic case.
While the Bill will allow the state to step in to protect individuals like Ms Ee, none of the intervention powers in this Bill will be meaningful unless those who meet and interact or come across vulnerable individuals like Ms Ee step forward and raise the alarm bells for community agencies and the authorities to intervene.
For example, in the case of Mdm Chua, in the first example I gave, her neighbours saw bruises on her arm and around her eyes and promptly sounded the alert. Our FSCs were, therefore, able to enquire about the circumstances and alert us to take action.
We have, therefore, included clauses in the Bill to strengthen the roles of both the family and community. Specifically, clause 23 protects people who report such cases to the relevant authorities. These whistleblowers will be protected from civil and criminal liability, as long as they had acted with reasonable care and in good faith. They will also not be regarded to have breached any professional etiquette or ethics. This will protect professionals, such as doctors, counselors, lawyers and so on.
Clause 22 also places restrictions on the publication of information identifying a vulnerable adult. Any information that may lead to the identification of a vulnerable adult cannot be published or broadcast. This is to safeguard a vulnerable adult's privacy and allow him to recover; this privacy will also allow the vulnerable adult and the family to focus on repairing their relationship.
That said, clause 24 allows the disclosure of confidential information relating to a vulnerable adult to MSF, and by us to any other Government agency, statutory body, Police Officer or prescribed person or body. This would include MSF's community partners, such as our Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) and FSCs, as well as medical and healthcare professionals. This is to ensure that swift action can be taken by different agencies to protect the vulnerable adult, hold perpetrators accountable, and ensure that appropriate assistance is provided to their families.
MSF recognises that working with vulnerable adults sometimes requires submitting of difficult professional judgements. If we want those who work with vulnerable adults to carry out their duties diligently and professionally, we must provide them peace of mind. So, clause 34 protects anyone performing a function or exercising powers under the Vulnerable Adults Bill from legal liability, so long they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Such protection is extended to any member of the Review Board, any person appointed by Court, and any person working in the care facilities. However, protection will only be afforded if they act professionally and responsibly. Mr Speaker, allow me to say something about the Bill in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Our population is ageing rapidly. By 2030, about one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. As our demography changes and more individuals, along with their caregivers, age, more may face abuse, neglect and self-neglect.
The Vulnerable Adults Bill will better protect vulnerable adults living in our midst.
Under the law, when caregivers did not take good care of the vulnerable adult in their family, the relevant authorities will have the power to intervene by appointing suitable family members to care for the vulnerable adult. Family members may also apply for Court orders to prevent a perpetrator from having access to the vulnerable adult for his safety.
Individuals will be protected from legal liability, when they whistleblow and report alleged harm caused to a vulnerable adult or perform their duties to help a vulnerable adult. Such protection is given to anyone in the community who has acted in good faith, including professionals, family members, neighbours and members of the public.
Only where necessary, MSF will intervene to protect vulnerable adults, as a last resort. Where family and community intervention has failed, MSF may enter a vulnerable adult's premises, assess his condition and relocate him for his safety. To deter abuse and neglect, the law provides for heavier penalties for offences committed against vulnerable adults.
Mr Speaker, caring for family members is never easy. At times, it can, understandably, be overwhelming.
We want to tell those caregivers who face challenges that you are not alone. We recognise the stresses you face. Partners in the community, such as FSCs, stand ready to support you. Based on your family’s needs, they may provide counselling and support and, if required, link your family with agencies like the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) or SG Enable. There, your family members may benefit from care services for vulnerable seniors or persons with disabilities, such as day care or residential services. Those of you who are caregivers may also receive respite care services so that you may take a break from your caregiving duties.
In order to care for our loved ones, we must also exercise self-care. Let us not wait until we are distressed and unintentionally harm those whom we love. While helping others, do reach out to seek help early if you yourself need help. Mr Speaker, I will now conclude my speech in English.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill will only be effective if each and every one of us in the community continues to play our part. We must look out for the safety of vulnerable people and extend warmth and a helping hand to families who care for their vulnerable family members. But the abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults are not a private matter and must not be tolerated. Everyone, including family members, neighbours, community leaders, employers and healthcare professionals, have a role to play to prevent vulnerable people from being abused, and to stop it if it happens.
So, let us step forward to break the silence by reporting suspected cases of abuse, neglect and self-neglect. Beyond the Bill, MSF will continue to facilitate the community's efforts in reaching out to vulnerable adults. We will reinforce our existing help networks, such as our Social Service Offices' local networks and the Community Network for Seniors programme, to better reach out to vulnerable adults and their caregivers. Even as we operationalise the Bill, we will continue to work with families, professionals and volunteers to strengthen the care networks across the community. Together, we can all do our part to keep an eye out for the most vulnerable members of our society. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in full support of the Vulnerable Adults Bill. This is a Bill that has been in the making for a long time and aims to protect vulnerable adults in our midst from abuse and neglect. The comprehensiveness of the Bill is testament to the diligent and good work put in by the MSF team.
My work with some of the vulnerable adults reminds me of the usefulness of the Bill. I have an elderly resident, a second-hand goods seller who hoards his entire rental flat and corridor with goods that he picks up in trolleys that he took from the nearby supermarkets. With the flat completely filled with old goods, he sleeps instead at the void deck or the staircase nearby and incurred the resentment and wrath of his neighbours. His hygiene and daily living habits become a great concern to the people around him. He refuses help except for the money he receives from passers-by who thought he was begging. And his social worker and his only nephew are at their wits' end.
I have another resident who suffers from mental illness, with violent tendencies. Her husband refuses to send her for treatment or supervise her well-being. Neighbours who were physically threatened by her could not get assistance by the Police who claim there is nothing they can do until the neighbours get physically hurt first.
Sir, these are but real-life examples that can be added to the unfortunate case of the intellectually disabled Ms Anna Ee whom the Minister has mentioned was tortured to death by her flat mates.
With the rapidly increasing numbers of elderly Singaporeans, the number of persons diagnosed with special needs, and the increasing number of persons with mental illnesses in a highly urbanised society like ours, the Vulnerable Adults Bill will provide the final safeguard to protect persons, such as them.
Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification in several areas.
First, on the big picture. As there is a current slew of many legislation and services which covers the same target group of vulnerable adults that the Minister has mentioned, can the Minister explain how the proposed Bill will complement exactly at the operational level existing Adult Protective Services and legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act and the Women's Charter? How will practitioners on the ground or even members of the public learn, understand and interpret and apply the various provisions to assist persons who are vulnerable?
Second is on balancing the state's right to enforce versus the citizen's right to choose. The Bill, in general, accords power to the Ministry which then appoints a director or protector, as stated in Part 2 of the Bill, such that the state can exercise the power to assess, enter premises, obtain information, remove and commit the vulnerable adult to a place of care and protection, sometimes against his will, if the state so decides.
Mental incapacity falls upon a continuum of severity from mild to moderate to severe. And there are also varying degrees of abuse, neglect by another person, or even self-neglect, which are all criteria applied in identifying a vulnerable adult in the Bill.
I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on when and how the state actually decides that an intervention is in order and not a violation of a vulnerable adult's basic human rights? Hence, in the case of the elderly second-hand goods dealer I shared earlier, who appears not to have totally lost his mental capacity and yet showed serious signs of self-neglect, I am interested to know the course of action that the Ministry would undertake to support him. How does the Bill balance the tension between state enforcement and a citizen's right of choice under such circumstances?
My third area of seeking clarification is on placement decision. Sir, clause 11 of the Bill commits the vulnerable adult, upon removal by the state, to be placed under temporary care and protection in an assigned place or under a \"fit person\". In the event that a vulnerable adult is removed and placed in the gazetted care facility, what measures are taken by the Ministry to ensure that that these places of abode are suitable, dignified and staffed by persons who are properly trained to handle, especially the vulnerable elderly and/or the very severely disabled, some of whom would need specialised and expert care?
Fourth, on the role of the community. Since the formation of the Adult Protective Services by the Ministry, I understand from somewhere I read that the data is that about 250 cases were identified, largely involving adults with intellectual and physical disabilities, psychiatric conditions and illnesses. This is a small number – those who are supported in this way – compared to the universe of, I am sure, a much larger pool of adults who are potentially vulnerable. So, are there any robust ongoing strategies to engage and equip the community, including neighbours, grassroots leaders, medical, social, Police and disability groups, so that suspect vulnerable adults in their midst are identified and supported earlier and not till damage is done either to themselves or others?
Without strong community support, many of these adults would fall through the cracks and remain unidentified until something tragic happens. So, legislation is, hence, only a small part of the solution.
To this end, Sir, I recommend that the Ministry seriously consider the formation of a National Vulnerable Adults Support Services Association, similar to that started elsewhere in the world, such as the US. The association should aim to help organise, educate and train local residents and partners, community partners on the ground, to identify and support vulnerable adults in each private or public residential zone in Singapore. It can form local care groups, much like the cell groups that we commonly find in Christian or Buddhist organisations.
It can play the role of an integrator, a social service integrator, to provide a tighter coordination of the many diverse voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) specialising in disabilities, elderly and mental health support organisations, FSCs, Residents' Committees (RCs) and other security and social support agencies. The association can also look at providing scalable upstream and downstream services to meet the diverse needs of the ever-changing and enlarging population of vulnerable adults. With such an association, many more adults with varying degrees of vulnerability would be able to then receive the needed support upstream in their neighbourhood.
In conclusion, Sir, let me end off with a story of two vulnerable adults, two men with special needs, whom I personally know.
John, not his real name, was a young man who had severe autism. He was living with his very protective mother who also had special needs. Mom, his sole caregiver, rejected treatment for John, sometimes refusing to send him to school when he was younger. Mom was also very insistent on doing things her way, often verbally abusing and avoiding the agency staff who tried to assist. John's life was prematurely ended when he fell to his death, reportedly trying to climb out of the flat he was locked in. We wept when we paid respects at his funeral wake.
Another man I know with a developmental disability had a better fate. He is a resident whom I found during my house-to-house visits as a Member of Parliament. Er Ge, as he is now fondly known, was locked up in his rental flat as well whilst his elder brother went to work. Fearing for his safety and well-being, my grassroots and I approached the nearby PeaceConnect Senior Activity Centre. The Centre and many of its volunteers then offered him daily daycare services even though he was only in his 30s when we found him and not exactly a senior citizen. Today, Er Ge has a whole community supporting him in a day centre and a very vibrant social life at least, compared to me. His brother could even become a volunteer after work because of this respite that he now gets.
I share this tale of the two men to highlight the usefulness of the Vulnerable Adults Bill in the case of John; and the importance of community support in the case of Er Ge.
Sir, as rightly pointed out by the Minister, the Bill is only a tool of final resort to offer protection for the vulnerable adults amongst us, albeit an important one. Unless we seriously organise and harness the potential of the community around them, these adults will not be found nor liberated. So, Sir, with that, I fully support the Bill and thank the Ministry for this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
3.39 pm
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to give the state certain powers to protect adults from abuse, neglect and self-neglect, and focuses on adults who are not able to protect themselves. Nobody can quarrel with such an aim.
Even as our intentions are noble, our perception of what is in the vulnerable adult's best interest may not accord with theirs. There is a Bible passage that literally captures the powerlessness that older people feel as they become more dependent on others. In the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is recorded as saying to his disciple Peter: \"When you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted, but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go\".
In this regard, I endorse the fundamental principles set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 provides that in exercising any of the powers under the Bill, a vulnerable adult must be respected and have the right of self-determination and not be subject to any unnecessary restrictions on his rights and freedom of action.
While I support the rationale for the Bill, there are a few aspects of the Bill that concern me, which I shall summarise as follows.
First, what will be the division of work between the Ministry under this Bill and the Office of the Public Guardian?
Second, what is the rigour of assessment to be applied before the state decides to intervene to change a person's living arrangements? I am worried about possible Government overreach, causing unnecessary institutionalisation of vulnerable adults, which, itself, would have harmful effects.
Third, would the definitions of \"abuse\", \"neglect\" and \"self-neglect\" in the Bill inadvertently discriminate against the poor?
I raise these issues so that the Ministry can clarify, in order to have greater public understanding of how the Bill will operate. In addition, I will touch on some areas that need further attention to enable vulnerable adults to live fuller lives.
First, division of work under the Bill and the Office of Public Guardian. Under the Mental Capacity Act, the Public Guardian's Office was set up to perform certain functions vis-à-vis mentally impaired persons. These functions include supervising the way donees and deputies perform their duties under Lasting Powers of Attorney and Court Orders. The Public Guardian is tasked with looking into complaints about donees or deputies who do not act in the person's best interest, either in managing his personal welfare or his property and affairs.
When this Bill is in place, there will be some overlap when it comes to a vulnerable adult's personal welfare. I assume that this Bill will tackle the cases where there is no donee or deputy appointed. But the Bill also covers cases where there are donees and deputies, as seen, for example, in clause 6. The question then arises: should there be a case involving donees or deputies that requires state intervention, to whom should a complaint be made? Is it to the Director of Social Welfare under this Bill, or to the Public Guardian under the Mental Capacity Act, or can both be pursued concurrently?
Additionally, the Bill does not cover abuse of a vulnerable adult's financial assets. Where there are donees or deputies appointed, a complaint can be made to the Public Guardian that the donee or deputy has acted in bad faith. But if there is no donee or deputy, the Ministry has stated that the Police would investigate any criminal offences reported. While the criminal justice system is geared towards punishment, how does one undo or reverse financial transactions, so as to restore monies or properties to the vulnerable adult? One can always apply to Court if one has the means. But what if a person does not have the means or does not have any family member to do so? How would this be resolved?
My second point is about the rigour of assessment and the risk of Government overreach. In discussing this area, my concern is about mentally impaired persons and the state's power to remove a vulnerable adult from his current residence. The state can do this if the person is assessed to be suffering from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.
I believe that the Government would not wish to be over-zealous in exercising such powers. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister did reaffirm that social work interventions would basically need to be exhausted first before the Bill will be triggered. Indeed, excessive intervention will harm the vulnerable adults and also be an unreasonable burden on public resources.
To this end, the state's power under the Bill is correctly limited. According to clause 4, a vulnerable adult's views must be respected if he is able to make his views known. Clause 4(b) states that where he has mental capacity, he is generally best placed to decide how he or she wishes to live and whether or not to accept any assistance. Even where he lacks mental capacity, clause 4(c) makes it clear that his views, whether past or present, wishes, feelings, values and beliefs, where reasonable ascertainable, must be considered.
Sir, ascertaining the wishes of a person with dementia can be tricky. From my personal experience with family members and constituents with dementia, dementia is not a static condition. There are good days and bad days, with moments of lucidity when the person seems to think normally. Dementia patients may speak clearly at times, but do they always understand the implications of the wishes they are expressing?
Sir, I would be slow to support the institutionalisation of dementia patients even if things are not ideal at home. Being institutionalised generally comes with a loss of pride and a loss of autonomy, having to live by an institution's rules. Dementia patients can be very agitated and difficult to handle in unfamiliar environments or when surrounded by strangers. Moving such a person from his home to an institution would likely be very damaging to the person's psychological and emotional well-being.
What rigour of assessment will be used before such drastic intervention will be triggered? What standard of care do we expect from caregivers when they care for vulnerable adults?
We usually see caregivers being spouses or children, who love their family members deeply. However, caring for dementia sufferers is onerous, exhausting and physically risky. Spouses are often elderly and frail themselves. Caregivers may also have other obligations, such as work or caring for other family members. And earlier, I think the Minister gave an example of a Mdm Chua and I think her family fits this description which I have just made. Such caregivers are often not medical or healthcare professionals. By what yardstick will they be assessed if a complaint is made?
In this regard, there are somewhat wide definitions in the Bill about what amounts to abuse, neglect and self-neglect.
According to clause 2, a vulnerable adult may be considered to be abused if he is subject to physical, emotional or psychological abuse, is subject to domination or has been unreasonably deprived of liberty of movement or well-being. This raises some pertinent questions.
For instance, if a caregiver decides not to bring the person out because she cannot manage him in public, is that an unreasonable deprivation of liberty? As for being unreasonably deprived of well-being, the illustrations in clause 2 also need closer scrutiny. Let us take illustration (b). It states that if a caregiver does not dress the adult after bathing her and leaves her unclothed in a room with windows open that can be seen by neighbours, that amounts to depriving a person of her personal dignity. While the modesty of the individual certainly needs respect, there could be valid reasons why the caregiver left the adult as such after a bath. For instance, it could be that the caregiver needed some time to prepare medicines that need to be applied on the person's body. Perhaps, the caregiver needed to attend to an urgent phone call or other task. Illustration (c), too, is worth noting. It speaks of a caregiver who refuses to allow a vulnerable adult to receive visitors. But what if the caregiver did so because the adult had reacted badly to visitors in the past, shouting at them and even pushing them away? What if the visitors are young children, who might be traumatised to witness such behaviour?
Before the state exercises its drastic powers of intervention, I would expect that a case-by-case and subjective assessment would have to be made.
Next, does the Bill risk inadvertent discrimination against the poor? How will the definitions of \"abuse\", \"neglect\" and \"self-neglect\" impact poor families or individuals? For instance, we sometimes see multigeneration families living in small rental flats. Will a vulnerable adult sleeping on a mattress without a proper bed be considered \"neglected\"? What if the vulnerable adult would benefit from certain treatment which requires payment, but he does not have the means to pay for it? For instance, there are psychiatric drugs to treat aggression, but some of these drugs are not subsidised and are costly, especially when prescribed long term. Will the vulnerable adult be considered neglected if the family cannot afford such treatment?
How will the Government approach such cases? I am not saying that the Bill intends to discriminate against the poor, but could this be an inadvertent result?
Finally, Sir, some areas for review.
The Government has been increasingly active in addressing issues, such as ageing and mental health. For instance, the Government has enabled parents of disabled children to access a simplified, low-cost procedure to be appointed as deputies when their children reach adulthood.
Another scenario I have come across is that of adults who lose their mental capacity later in life and have modest bank balances. From time to time, they also receive some top-ups from the Government, which go into their bank accounts. Because of their lack of capacity, they are unable to sign documents and family members are unable to access those monies for their medical treatment or upkeep. With small balances like, say, $5,000 or $10,000, it does not make sense for family members to fork out, say, $6,000 in legal fees to apply to Court to be appointed deputies, especially when the money has to be paid upfront by them. Can the Government look into how the process of deputyship in such cases can also be streamlined and made cost-effective?
My next point is about increasing the social space for vulnerable adults to engage in public activities. Sir, we have made concrete efforts to introduce barrier-free access for those who have physical disabilities. In the case of mental impairment, however, there is less public understanding of the condition.
Families with dementia sufferers tend to limit their social lives, due to the discomfort caused in public by the odd behaviour of their family members. Families often reduce or even avoid outings. This is an area that we can all continue to work on. With greater public understanding of dementia and its manifestations, society can show kindness and support towards families and individuals stricken with mental illness and be more welcoming and understanding towards such families. Public education efforts can be stepped up to increase awareness of conditions like dementia, and I agree with the Minister that all of us can play a part in this.
Finally, if institutionalising a vulnerable adult is unavoidable, how can we cushion the transition to institutional life? The institutions involved could make life more bearable by little gestures to preserve the person's individual identity and autonomy. For instance, instead of requiring residents to wear a uniform, could they be allowed to don their own clothing? Could residents be encouraged to have a space to place family photographs and other effects from home? These seemingly small gestures will go a long way to reassure the individual in an unfamiliar institutional environment.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
Sir, in summary, I am in support of the Government's efforts in this Bill to plug a gap in protecting vulnerable adults. As mentioned earlier, the powers given in the Bill need to be judiciously used, so as not to result in Government overreach and unnecessary separation of vulnerable adults from their family and home settings. There is also room for improvement to give vulnerable adults the assurance that society as a whole understands their plight and sees them as integral members.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Sir, may I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD), and board member of SG Enable, both serving vulnerable persons.
The Vulnerable Adults Bill seeks to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. Everyone has the right to live in safety, free from neglect, abuse, free from fear and coercion. This is so, whether the person is powerful or vulnerable, or has or does not have mental capacity.
This Bill has been a long time coming, and I am glad it has finally come. It is a good start, but I am sure the Minister will agree with me that there will be more to be done to protect vulnerable adults. This Bill has been a long time coming because it touches on sensitive matters – a person's right to live where he chooses; a person's right to be cared for; a family's right to care for a vulnerable adult. But when we enter into sensitive family spaces, we can expect to deal with deep-seated family tensions and grievances, strong and overwhelming family dynamics, family reputation; strong ties of love, loyalty, kinship and obligation, feelings of guilt, resentment, contempt, financial challenges, emotional and relational dysfunction, misguided action or inaction. And, very often, many, if not all, in one set of relationships.
So, understandably, the Government does not want to be interventionist. And, understandably, my hon colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, also cautioned quite wisely against a judicious exercise of power. And yet, we need to strike a balance -- a balance against the right of another person to act, as opposed to the need to protect the vulnerable. And this balance must be prudent and yet bold, and it must be struck in favour of protecting the vulnerable. If I may share that this may well be a difference in perspectives.
A few years ago, someone shared with me from the social service sector that in the earlier years, when there were voices calling for transport concessions, there were people in the social service sector serving people with disabilities who opposed those voices. In their view, it was the dignity of people with disabilities that mattered more, that, by virtue of upholding that dignity, we should not concede and ask for transport concessions. Strangely, the person then shared that when the Government announced these policies, and they consulted people with disabilities, the people with disabilities said they wanted it. So, it just could be a matter of perspective. Is it not? We could be professionals and we could be very well-meaning and say we want to preserve your dignity. But if I am a vulnerable person, maybe, I want more to be protected. By this, I suppose a balance and an assessment that the Government and the professionals have to assess, have to make. But again, I urge it must be struck in favour of protecting the vulnerable.
Let me now come back to the issue of sensitive family spaces. When a \"stranger\" enters into any family space, he or she will be confronted with the question: \"who are you?\" What it really means, in our context, is: \"what right have you to interfere in my family matters?\" What right do you have?
Currently, not much right. Hence, social workers, support service providers and Government offices, while actively engaged on the ground to assist and support vulnerable adults and their families, are hampered in their attempts to protect such adults – not much right. It is not much that can be done and, hence, we welcome this Bill.
Take another step back. Nobody in our right mind or heart will ask, \"what right have you to protect the vulnerable adults?\" But we should not, indeed, be surprised that family members will demand, \"what right have you to interfere in my family matters?\"
And that is, in fact, a fair question, and that is a question that must be answered by this House now, unequivocally. We must answer this question clearly and unequivocally by, firstly, setting out clearly the scope of the protection for vulnerable adults. Anyone whose circumstances do not fall within the scope of production, will not be able to claim such protection. So, I think it has got to be clear in our minds that we must have a Bill that is broad enough to protect. The protection must be sufficiently significant to an adult.
Secondly, we must empower the Director, protector and others to act boldly and courageously to protect vulnerable adults without fear of complaints, fear of having to put out so many reports to explain their decisions. Despite section 34, clarity on the scope of protection and a strong adherence to the principles set out in section 4, will empower the Director and such other persons to act boldly and courageously to protect the vulnerable person.
And thirdly, persuading the community that each person has a role to play in the protection of vulnerable adults.
These three questions we must answer unequivocally today.
Sir, a vulnerable adult is defined as an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and is, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.
Let me, first, address the scope of protection but I will address the first two issues together – the issue of the definitions and the empowerment of the Director and the protectors. Both issues relate to the scope of protection, and I will share my views as to what I think the limitations in certain definitions are and state my proposals for amendments. In the interest of time, however, I will not repeat the definitions word for word, and I seek the indulgence of hon Members to refer to the Bill as I speak.
Sir, \"abuse\" has been defined to mean: (a) physical abuse; (b) emotional or psychological abuse; (c) conduct or behaviour by A that in any other way controls or dominates B and causes B to fear for his or her safety or well-being; or (d) conduct or behaviour by A that unreasonably deprives, or threatens to unreasonably deprive, B of B's liberty of movement or well-being.
Sir, \"emotional or psychological abuse\" is further defined. But I have to admit I am not comfortable with the word \"mean\" or \"means\" in that definition. It limits the definition as opposed to the word \"includes\". When I read the definition of \"emotional or psychological abuse\", together with the illustrations, I believe, Sir, that the question is left open as to whether non-action, such as indifference or just complete inaction in treatment constitutes emotional or psychological abuse. I hope the Minister can clarify.
I move on to the definition of \"Neglect\". It means the lack of provision to the individual of essential care, to the extent of causing or being reasonably likely to cause personal injury or physical pain to, or injury to the mental or physical health of, the individual. Again, the word \"means\", is very limiting, as opposed to \"include\".
Next, \"self-neglect\". Also, it means the failure of an individual to perform essential tasks of daily living to care for himself, resulting in the individual suffering certain prescribed consequences or conditions.
At this point, I would like to propose that the Minister consider amending the three definitions by replacing \"means\" with the word \"includes\". This amendment broadens the scope of protection and empowers the Director with clarity, confidence and courage in the exercise of his powers to protect vulnerable adults.
With reference to the definition of \"self-neglect\", there are also other limitations. In order for the requirement of \"self-neglect\" to be fulfilled, the failure of the individual to care for himself or herself must result in the individual: (a) living in grossly unsanitary or hazardous conditions; (b) suffering from malnutrition or dehydration; or (c) suffering from an untreated physical or mental illness or injury.
The three consequences are extreme. At least one of the three must occur before the Director can intervene. In other words, the Director cannot intervene to protect the individual until something extremely terrible has happened. That should not and cannot be the intention of the Minister. Certainly, it should not be condoned or be the intention of this House. The Director should have the power to intervene if the failure to care for oneself could reasonably be expected to cause any of those three consequences.
In addition, I would also propose that the word \"grossly\" be deleted from (i) of the definition. It is bad enough to live in unsanitary or hazardous conditions. We should not require such living conditions to be gross in order to justify intervention. The deletion of the word \"grossly\" will also remove ambiguity as to whether “grossly” qualifies only \"unsanitary\" or qualifies \"hazardous\" as well.
Sir, as I said earlier, definitions are important. The narrower the definitions, the narrower the scope of protection. I urge the Minister and this House to consider my proposals.
I now move on to three aspects of the protection.
Firstly, the removal of the vulnerable adult from his place of residence for \"assessment\". This is provided for under section 6. However, again, the definition of \"assessment\" seems somewhat limited to me. It is not clear as to whether psychological assessments are included. I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify. If, indeed, \"assessment\" does not include psychological assessments, then I urge the Minister to consider amending the definition to include the same.
Notwithstanding that there may be many non-legal triggers for the protection of a vulnerable adult, assessment itself is an important trigger. Beyond re-examining the definition of \"assessment\", we should also re-examine the requirement for a Court order where a vulnerable adult, notwithstanding his or her mental capacity, refuses, under coercion, to give consent for his or her removal for such assessment.
Sir, given that I have similar considerations and arguments in relation to section 6 and section 10, I would like to make my submissions on both sections together.
For the ease of recollection by Members, section 10 empowers the Director to remove a vulnerable adult from the place where the vulnerable adult is residing or staying if the Director is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the vulnerable adult has experienced, or is experiencing or is at risk of, abuse, neglect or self-neglect. Unfortunately, it also requires an order of Court where a vulnerable adult, notwithstanding possessing mental capacity, refuses to give consent for his or her removal.
Two important considerations from the basis of my submissions on the inadequacies of section 6 and section 10.
One, where the individual or vulnerable adult does not give consent, but is also not acting freely, for example, where he or she refuses consent for fear of reprisals from or unhappiness of caregivers or of family members.
Secondly, there is also a spectrum of abilities in reasoning and judgement. Under the Bill, mental capacity is used in the same sense as under the Mental Capacity Act. This leaves a large group of persons who may have inadequate reasoning faculties, but who may not lack mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act, for example, those with low intelligence or suffering from certain spectrum of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), or in the early stages of dementia.
In both groups, the lack of financial independence, lack of social support network, and emotional attachment to familiar people, the Stockholm syndrome, may increase their dependency on their family members or increase their fear in reporting. We know that it is common for caregivers who refuse medical assessment. This is a problem that we need to address. We cannot assume that these two groups of people do not require protection simply because they have refused to give consent.
I support the provisions, in fact, that the Director may, without the consent of the relevant donee or deputy, assess a vulnerable adult without mental capacity, recognising that some donees or deputies are themselves abusers.
But, here, the two groups of persons whom I referred to above are no less vulnerable than those who lack mental capacity. In fact, they could be more vulnerable simply because they have the capacity to consent. And should they give consent or should they in any way intimate fear or convey simply a need for protection, they are more likely to be held to account by their abusers, caregivers and family members. The abuse or neglect may intensify. The family alienation may deepen. The fear of the vulnerable adult is thereby accentuated.
I have noted that the Bill provides for the Director to make an application to the Court for the vulnerable adult to be removed, whether for an assessment under section 6, or for removal under section 10. I submit that the Director should be given broader powers than to be constrained in this manner. My reasons follow from my analysis as to how a Court order may be obtained for the assessment of an individual or a vulnerable adult.
In a Court application, first, the Director must make the application to the Court.
Second, the Director must (a)\tsatisfy the Court that, on a balance of probabilities, the individual or vulnerable adult has experienced, or is experiencing or is at risk of, abuse, neglect or self-neglect; and (b)\tpersuade the Court that such an order for assessment is necessary for the safety and protection of the individual or vulnerable adult.
If the Director is able to satisfy both requirements, should he not be empowered, in the first instance, to remove the vulnerable adult for the protection of the vulnerable adult? Any concern as to whether the Director may be acting too intrusively may be addressed by amending section 11(1)(b) as well as related provisions accordingly.
If I may, I would also like to share an additional concern in relation to the removal of the vulnerable adult for assessment. Section 7(1) provides that the Director is not required to exercise any power under section 6 if consent is refused by the vulnerable adult with mental capacity. Making the application to Court becomes discretionary. In other words, the Director may also choose not to make an application to Court.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia, you have one-and-a-half more minute.
Ms Chia Yong Yong: Thank you, Sir. As such, I would propose the amendments that I have suggested, and I would also like to ask that the Minister consider other amendments; consider provision of facilities to cater to the needs of vulnerable adults. I also ask that we not be shy to exercise and to apply for powers of exclusion of the abusers.
If I may also add, the role of the community cannot be underestimated. The case of Annie Ee and other unfortunate cases tell us that there will be many out there in the community who would have fallen through the gaps. Neighbours play an important role. They have, in some cases, played a critical role in saving someone. So, I urge neighbours, it is better to report to save a life or even a family, than to report to retrieve a body. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Vulnerable Adults Bill has been a long time in the making, with the public consultation on a draft Bill having been conducted nearly two years ago. The Bill is a welcomed piece of legislation to protect some of the most vulnerable in society but also raises difficult questions of the role the state should play in intervening in the most intimate of relationships, and in interfering with decisions and preferences of an adult on matters of their own care. The long period of gestation for the Bill reflects the delicate process of balancing protection and respect for individual autonomy and freedom.
I stand in support of the Bill and the principles set out under section 4, which articulates the restraint and proportionality that should guide the exercise of the extensive powers under this Bill.
I have a few points of clarification on the scope of protection offered by the Bill, the mechanisms for checks on the exercise of powers, and measures for protecting vulnerable adults beyond those set out under the Bill.
My first point really is what I started this speech with. Why did it take so long to introduce this Bill? What were the various considerations or challenges MSF faced in introducing this important Bill?
Next, under the Bill, a vulnerable adult is defined as an individual who is 18 or older. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for setting 18 years old as the lower age limit for a vulnerable adult? The Children and Young Persons Act protects individuals who are under 16. What are the forms of equivalent legal protection and recourse available to those who are between 16 and 18?
Next, sexual abuse is not listed as a type of abuse under section 2(1). Instead, \"physical abuse\" is defined to include coercion or attempts at coercing an individual to engage in sexual activity. This definition of sexual abuse as being a subset of physical abuse is too narrow because not all sexual harassment is physical. For instance, vulnerable adults may be subject to verbal sexual harassment not amounting to coercion in engaging sexual activities. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for subsuming sexual abuse under physical abuse, and also clarify how verbal sexual harassment will be dealt with under the Bill? Further, would the Minister consider introducing or including sexual abuse as an independent head of abuse?
Similarly, the definition of \"abuse\" under section 2(1) does not include financial abuse. There is also a lack of provisions in the Bill that address financial abuse of vulnerable adults. Financial abuse, such as financial exploitation, is a significant problem faced by vulnerable adults and is a form of elder abuse recognised by MSF. A 2014 survey conducted by Trans Family found that 29% of elderly mistreatment in Singapore involves financial exploitation. There appears to be a gap in the current legal framework for addressing financial abuse and exploitation of vulnerable adults.
For instance, finance-related offences under the Penal Code, such as theft, extortion and cheating, may not be sufficiently nuanced to address financial exploitation in the context of an existing relationship of trust or dependency. Protection orders under the Women's Charter does not extend to financial abuse. The definition of ill-treatment under the Mental Capacity Act, which protects mentally incapacitated elders from ill-treatment by their caregiver or donee or deputy does not include financial abuse. Will the Minister consider extending the ambit of the Bill to protection against financial abuse in the future? What are the current legal protections available to vulnerable adults subject to financial abuse?
Next, the Director and protectors have extensive discretion and powers under the Bill. Caregivers may legitimately worry about disruption and interference in their lives, such as the possibility of entry into their homes and premises. Excessive intervention may also further strain relationships between elderly parents and their children. These extensive state powers must thus be exercised with great restraint and proportionality. Can the Minister clarify what mechanisms exist for review and oversight of the powers granted to the Directors and protectors?
Would the Minister consider instituting a formal approval or reporting process for the most intrusive powers exercised by the Directors and protectors? This would include the powers to remove an individual for assessment without consent, to enter premises, to remove a vulnerable adult from their place of residence and to require medical treatment. Can the Minister also clarify the instances where the Director or protector need not seek a donee or deputy's consent before assessing or removing a vulnerable adult under section 6(2) and section 10(2)?
Given that cases of abuse, neglect or self-neglect often occur outside the public eye, effectiveness of the Bill, as the Minister has mentioned, is contingent on detection and reporting of such cases. Will training be provided to frontline staff to sensitise them to indicators of abuse, neglect or self-neglect? I understand that Social Services Offices and other community partners can call MSF to report cases of vulnerable adult abuse, but vulnerable adults who are not in contact with community partners may fall through the cracks. Would the Minister consider setting up a public hotline under the Adult Protective Services for reporting vulnerable adult abuse, as has been done with the MSF Child Protective Services Helpline?
Further, can the Minister clarify the ways in which the Adult Protective Services are similar or different from the Child Protective Services? Will every case of vulnerable adult abuse be reported to the Police? There is an existing mechanism under section 8 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act that allows a Magistrate to investigate a report from any person or Police Officer that a mentally disordered person is not under proper care and control or is ill-treated or neglected. Can the Minister clarify how this provision will operate in relation to the Bill?
Lastly, can the Minister also share the plans for ensuring successful reintegration and adequate care of vulnerable adults when they are returned to their homes from place of temporary care and protection?
Sir, clarifications and suggestions for Ministry's consideration notwithstanding, I stand in support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, protecting vulnerable adults treads a fine line between respect of dignity and compassion for the vulnerable. The Vulnerable Adults Bill is a timely and necessary creation to address the needs of a rapidly ageing population, and to bolster our existing legal frameworks.
We have spoken much about bold ideas, but less about real action. This is an example of a small but significant change that we can make. A change that is literally a matter of life and death for thousands of older Singaporeans. The urgency and scale of the problem cannot be denied. By 2030, over 900,000 residents in Singapore will be aged 65 and above, and an increasing number will be living alone, from 31,200 in 2012 to 83,000 in 2030. Sir, I believe the number of adult abuse and neglect will increase going forward.
The law, as it currently stands, is inadequate insofar as the state lacks the authority to intervene. For example, the state has been unable to enter the homes to render timely assistance to vulnerable adults who might be abused by their caregivers or are in a serious state of self-neglect, if the owner of the home refuses them permission to enter. The case of Mdm Ee, a 79-year-old single woman who lives alone, shows us this in real life. She is mentally incapacitated – a schizophrenic – and she has no next-of-kin. She rebuffs all attempts at treatment and intervention from healthcare professionals and social workers alike. Meal delivery services were also ignored as Mdm E left delivered meals at her gate. Hence, the risk of self-neglect is very high. The mentally-ill elderly who live alone, such as Mdm E, are prone to untreated falls and illnesses and may not have ready access to food.
Another case shows how timely this proposed Bill is. Mrs A, she is an 81-year-old woman suffering from dementia and is incapable of activities of daily living. She was abused physically, emotionally and psychologically by her 87-year-old husband who himself is prone to violent outbursts. They used to stay together alone and away from their adult children. But their children's fear of the father made them unable to supervise the elderly couple, leaving Mrs A without any protective figures at home.
The new Bill allows for such cases of self-neglect and abuse, which usually also involve uncooperative or non-communicative vulnerable adults, to be addressed efficiently, without the need for lengthy and unproductive negotiations with either the aggressor or the victim. Assessments of mental capacity can be enforced, the power of entering a vulnerable adult's premises can be exercised and, most importantly, there is a power to remove the vulnerable adult from the premises and to a safer place. This Bill allows us to act pre-emptively to protect vulnerable adults against caregiver abuse and neglect, and victim self-neglect.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wanted to point out a few ways in which I believe we can make this Bill better.
What is missing from this Bill? My first suggestion is to implement a mandatory reporting system for all stakeholders involved in providing care and services for vulnerable adults. Stakeholders, such as medical and social workers, AIC, the Police and perhaps even finance professionals, could be legally obliged to report suspected abuse as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable adult has been neglected or abused.
The underlying principle is that with a group of people as vulnerable as those considered here, those who are unable or unwilling to voice their pains, worries and concerns, it is wiser to be wrong than sorry; it is better, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution, because under-reporting of abuse is likely to be the norm.
The difficulty, as is always the case, lies in the details – who is required to report? Do we restrict the obligation to care professionals or should we include neighbours, friends and family members? What about finance professionals? Which types of abuse must be reported? Should less-tangible forms of abuse, such as psychological and emotional abuse, be covered? Would it be overly onerous to penalise the third party for non-reporting of such less tangible abuses? What about financial abuse, which my fellow Parliamentarian Mr Louis Ng just talked about? What sanctions will be imposed for failing to report, taking into account the bystander effect, that witnesses of abuse are more reluctant to shoulder the burden of reporting if there are other witnesses?
Lessons can perhaps be drawn from overseas jurisdictions. Washington has a mandatory reporting requirement in cases of elder financial abuse, though relatives, friends and neighbours are exempted from this obligation. Likewise, the state of Illinois imposes an obligation to report on \"includes employees of the state of Illinois who provide medical or rehabilitation services to adults, law enforcement officers and social service workers\" to guard against elder financial abuse.
More fundamentally, we must strike an acceptable balance between protection and intrusion into personal affairs, taking into account Singapore's cultural norm of non-interference.
It is my view that the Bill, which already protects whistleblowers, can be tweaked to include mandatory reporting and yet protect these stakeholders from liability arising from provision of such information or breaches of any code of professional conduct. Penalising the willfully blind heightens stakeholder awareness of their wards' vulnerabilities and improves oversight over the welfare of vulnerable adults. The social need for adequate protection of the most vulnerable amongst us charges us with a moral duty to find this balance, regardless of how difficult it is.
My second suggestion is to consider including financial abuse of vulnerable adults under the ambit of this Bill. Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Dr Lily Neo and Mr Chia Yong Yong, and professors, such as Prof Chan Wing Cheong, and non-government organisations (NGOs), such as the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), have repeatedly raised this concern. And again, Mr Louis Ng just raised this as well.
As it currently stands, the proposed Bill only includes physical, sexual or emotional/psychological abuse. But financial abuse can be as devastating as other forms of abuse and neglect. They can also be precursors to physical abuse. As AWARE observes, financial abuse is \"often accompanied by threats of physical violence, and compounds the vulnerability of a victim to further abuse and neglect\".
Vulnerable adults, due to their physical or mental infirmities, are less able to safeguard their financial security, or may be held hostage by their live-in caregivers, or lack the financial resources to take civil action. We are well-aware of cases of over-trusting parents who part with their assets out of love for their children, children who subsequently forsake them, whether due to a lack of filial piety or disagreements in the family. Too many cases. Too many sad cases.
Other cases include deceiving or coercing an elderly parent to sign a will or deed or taking money from them without providing support in return. Furthermore, financial abuse is under-reported, due to its subtle, non-tangible nature. In fact, one-in-three cases of elder abuse involved financial abuse as well, according to a 2014 study by Trans Safe Centre.
Including \"financial exploitation\" under the definition of \"abuse\" in the Bill would, I believe, be a good starting point in securing the financial interests of vulnerable adults. The definitions used in other jurisdictions, such as in New York, Washington and Illinois, can potentially be transplanted with modifications. Some US states even go so far as to impose a mandatory reporting obligation on professionals who are aware of elder financial abuse.
In fact, this is not the first time that the financial interests of the vulnerable have been debated in this House. The Maintenance of Parents Act, passed in 1996 and amended in 2010, allows elderly parents who are unable to maintain themselves adequately to apply for an order to have their children sustain him or her financially. The Bill tabled before us today gives us the opportunity to act more pre-emptively; to treat the scourge of financial exploitation at its root.
Instead of ensuring that the vulnerable receives financial maintenance after the act of abuse has taken place, is it not more effective to remove the threat in the first place? Such pre-emptive action ensures that whatever financial resources that the vulnerable adult still possesses are not taken away by abusers.
As some points of clarification, this pertains to the issue of cost: who bears the costs of intervention under the Bill? For example, who pays for the permanent care or relocating of the vulnerable adults? Would it be from the vulnerable adult's Central Provident Fund, or the abuser or the Government? I think this point was raised by the National University of Singapore Centre for Biomedical Ethics, and I agree that some clarification would be good.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have argued that there is a case to be made for mandatory reporting and the inclusion of financial abuse into the Bill. As is often said, a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. The Bill, in combating the social ill of the abuse of vulnerable adults, not only meets the changing needs of Singaporeans – its ageing population, falling birth rates and elders who live alone – but also affirms the values of the Singapore that we all know and are proud of.
The Vulnerable Adults Bill must recalibrate our traditional aversion to interventionistic laws, against the reality of the everyday lives of older Singaporeans on the ground. It should not be an obstacle against protecting the highly vulnerable, whether they be children or adults, exceptions must be made where called for. The welfare of vulnerable adults is one such instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is broad support for this proposed law from the social services sector and the public, and I would like to echo the support. It is an important instrument of last resort to be used to safeguard the well-being of vulnerable individuals facing abuse.
I personally witnessed a case where multiple Government and social service agencies were scrambling to intervene to safeguard an elderly woman's well-being after community and family interventions have failed to rescue the mentally incapacitated lady from self-neglect. The crux of the problem was who had the power to compel the lady to accept assessment and assistance. It took years to finally get help to the lady in need which had, in the meantime, caused much distress to the family and the neighbours.
I have three points to raise about the Bill. But before I raise these points, I would like to ask an important question of clarification. MSF first mooted the Vulnerable Adults Bill in 2014, and it was said that the Bill would likely be enacted in 2015. That did not happen and the public consultation on the Bill took place in 2016. Almost two years have passed since and we are here at the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a wait of three years.
Every year, we see about 200 reported cases of abuse of seniors and people with disabilities. This is sufficient reason, in itself, for the urgency of the Bill. The frequently asked questions accompanying the public consultation documents for the Bill stressed that the rate of abuse of vulnerable adults is relatively low and that the Bill is important to keep this rate low as the Singapore society ages and the number of senior citizens increases to 900,000.
The ageing society is also cited as the impetus for the Bill in the other documents. While the ageing society is the crucial context, I believe the central motivation of the Bill should not be about keeping rates low as the society ages. It should be about reducing abuse to the minimal and safeguarding vulnerable adults in all cases of abuse regardless of the societal context because one abuse is one too many and should be stopped. In other words, the motivation and the spirit of this law should be more humanistic and less bureaucratic in the sense of measuring abuse in terms of a key performance indicator.
Therefore, this rate of three years for the Bill to be tabled needs to be accounted for. There must be a good reason or good reasons for the delay. The Minister said we should not rush this Bill in his speech. I hope the Minister could elaborate.
Let me move on to the three points I would like to raise for the Bill.
The first point is about the definitions and the scope of the Bill. It is very good that the principle in clause 4 states that, \"In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act, the welfare and best interest of the vulnerable adult must be the first and paramount consideration\" has been added to the Bill after public consultation. This is the most important principle. It signals that the main motivation for the Bill is not about keeping abuse rates low, but in protecting the basic human dignity of the weakest members of our society.
However, there appears to be two gaps in the definition. A vulnerable adult is defined in the Bill as an individual aged 18 and above who is incapable of protecting himself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect due to physical or mental incapacity.
Our young persons aged between 16 and 17 are left in no-man’s-land in terms of protection from abuse or neglect. This means that close to 200,000 individuals each year entering what is arguably a very emotionally volatile phase of growth as late teens would neither be protected under the Bill nor under the Children and Young Persons' Act, which defines young persons as under 16 years of age.
The second gap is that the definition of abuse does not include financial abuse when the vulnerable adults' resources are being exploited by perpetrators for their financial gain or personal benefit. While financial abuse is not as physically apparent as other forms, it is equally harmful to the vulnerable adult's well-being and best interest.
Feedback during the public consultation phase highlighted these two gaps. MSF responded to the feedback by implying that the two gaps are covered by other laws. Regarding older young persons, MSF stated that the Women's Charter provides protection for victims of family violence of all ages, and that there are many services and programmes on the ground catering to older youths. However, the whole point of having the Bill is precisely to give MSF protectors the powers to intervene to stop the abuse when family and community interventions have failed.
The Women's Charter does not provide these important powers of last resort. It will be tragic if, because of this definition handicap, MSF protectors would have to wait for two years to intervene to rescue a young person aged 16 facing abuse by reason of physical or mental incapacity. Therefore, would the Minister consider amending the definition of vulnerable adults to lower the age to 16 years, or amending the Children and Young Persons Act to cover young persons who are up to 17 years of age?
Regarding financial abuse, MSF stated that the Police can investigate financial offences under the Penal Code, and the Office of Public Guardian can apply to Court to suspend or revoke the powers of a vulnerable adult's donee or deputy. However, financial abuse is much more insidious and hidden. And it often involves elements of psychological and emotional abuse.
With all due respect to the abilities of the Police and the Office of Public Guardian, they are not as well-equipped as the MSF protectors and the powers under the Bill to investigate, detect and assess incidents of financial abuse. Again, the whole point of having the Bill is to enable the MSF protectors to intervene to stop the abuse and harm caused to the vulnerable adults, which is something the Police and the Office of Public Guardian cannot do.
The second point I would like to raise for the Bill is that while the statutory powers of intervention should generally be deemed as powers of last resort compared to the family and community interventions, there is scope and justification for some of the powers to be deemed as intermediate powers. What I mean by this is that the MSF protectors should be allowed to exercise some powers of the Bill while family and community interventions are ongoing so that the latter – the family and community interventions – could be supported and enhanced. This pertains to the powers of getting information of the suspected vulnerable adults, entering private premises to assess well-being, and compelling vulnerable adults to receive medical or dental treatment.
Of course, these powers have to be assessed judiciously so as not to compromise family and community interventions. The power to remove and relocate the vulnerable adults should remain the power of last resort.
Would the Minister comment on how these powers would be operationalised and exercised vis-à-vis the family and community interventions on the ground?
At this point, I would like to go back to the question of financial abuse. If, in the course of an investigation and ongoing family and community interventions, it is discovered that the vulnerable adult is facing financial abuse in having his or her resources exploited for the perpetrators personal benefit, what recourse does the MSF protector have to intervene to protect the vulnerable adult? Can the MSF protector refer the case to the Police or the Office of Public Guardian? Would the evidence be sufficient to bring charges against the perpetrators for fraud or dishonesty offences and the process be quick enough to stop the harm being done to the vulnerable adult?
I am asking this because the Office of Public Guardian can only apply to Court to suspend the powers of the donee or deputy if the donee or deputy has been charged for a financial offence.
There is one more issue I would like to raise with regard to intermediate powers. This is regarding situations where vulnerable adults face economic abuse in not having their needs being met because of the lack of financial support from family members. The power to remove and relocate the individual under the Bill may actually not be in the best interest of the vulnerable adult as she may benefit more in residing and receiving care in their own home.
It appears that the intermediate power is needed here. I am not keen to suggest that the MSF protector be empowered to apply on behalf of the vulnerable adult for maintenance from his/her children under the Maintenance of Parents Act as I am instinctively wary of quipping state intrusion into the prerogatives of the family. But what other intermediate recourse is available to MSF officers?
The third and last point I would like to raise about the Bill is the connection and potential overlap with the provisions in the Women's Charter catering to the protection of victims of family violence. While this Bill appears to be motivated by the need to especially protect the vulnerable elderly from the risk of abuse in an ageing society, the definition of vulnerable adult is broad enough to encompass victims of family violence, particularly family violence of the most egregious kind. Whilst spousal victims of family violence are most likely not in the first instance, be it the mentally or physically incapacitated, in many cases of egregious abuse, spousal victims, and most of them being women, become mentally incapacitated because of sustained abuse, and are incapable of protecting themselves from further abuse.
I would like to seek the Minister's clarification, therefore, on whether the Bill does, in fact, cover victims of family violence, and whether the MSF protectors are effectively empowered to intervene in cases of family violence under this Bill. If, in fact, it does, then I would like to ask the Minister what the division of labour and powers would be like in the provisions in the Women's Charter and in the Bill. I am asking this because there could be quite a lot of confusion on the ground after the enactment of the Bill. Social service agencies and concerned whistleblowers may choose to report incidents of family violence to MSF for more immediate intervention under the Bill instead of the more laborious route of helping victims to apply for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) from the Court.
I am personally in favour and open for spousal victims of family violence who have become mentally incapacitated by abuse to be deemed as vulnerable adults so that they can receive the needed assistance from MSF.
On the other hand, I am concerned that MSF resources could be stretched and overwhelmed if MSF officers have to investigate even a proportion of family violence cases to determine whether intervention under the Bill is warranted. One compromise could be for the law to be amended to allow immediate family members of victims of family violence and perhaps selected social service agencies, the Police and MSF protectors included, to apply for PPOs on behalf of victims. The idea is to avoid concerned family members and friends of victims of spousal abuse expecting and going for the nuclear option of removing the victims from their homes unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe the Bill would become a landmark law in our legislative history. It has far greater ramifications and the express intentions to keep abuse rates low in an ageing society. In fact, the Bill has raised, and the Act will continue to raise, many issues regarding human dignity and human rights and the role the state plays to protect and provide for the more vulnerable members of our society. The conversations and debates should be welcomed and embraced because I think they will push us forward as a people grappling together with the issues of human vulnerability.
Already a number of cases of abuse of neglect and self-neglect have made headlines recently and sparked intense discussions. This Bill is timely and actually somewhat delayed. Nevertheless, I support the Bill and look forward to tracking closely the effectiveness of its implementation on the ground.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the MSF officers who work very hard to not just care for the needy, but also proactively consult VWOs as we change the law.
Members from the VWO sector whom I spoke to are supportive of this amendment. It strengthens how we protect our seniors, especially during a crisis. I especially appreciated the part about protecting whistleblowers because we do need our community to come in and tell the state when people most need help.
Today, I would like to propose two things: how we can better stay in touch with vulnerable adults prior to a crisis which requires intervention; and how we can minimise the number of vulnerable adults through the Lasting Power of Attorneys (LPAs), by getting as many Singaporeans as possible to predetermine their caregiving arrangements in the event of a mental incapacitation.
Let me touch on the first point. A collaboration between MSF and Silver Generation Office (SGO) can go far for us to stay in touch with vulnerable adults regularly. I understand that the Government has a database called the Developmental Disability Registry (DDR) to track our vulnerable adults and children. This database likely contains a large percentage of them. But it is possible that some of them are not captured in the database.
To improve on this matter, during regular SGO’s outreach to seniors, a small group of vetted and well-trained Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) can be assigned to visit the vulnerable adults already in the registry. These SGAs can refer them to social workers, if necessary, and also update the registry.
In addition, when other SGAs chance upon any vulnerable adults or children in their outreach session, they can also include that information into the registry. SGO’s involvement will go very far to help us in the know about every vulnerable adult or children in Singapore and, in doing so, can potentially forestall some of the tragedies involving vulnerable adults later on.
Next, I will speak about getting Singaporeans to do up their LPAs. With our ageing population, there will many more adults who, through illnesses or accidents over their lives, grow dependent on their family and friends. If these adults get mentally incapacitated, their caregivers could have difficulties mobilising enough resources to help them. Without a strong support network, some of these mentally incapacitated Singaporeans will become vulnerable adults.
We should tackle the problem upstream, by encouraging all Singaporeans to create LPAs, which identify and authorise a \"donee\" to act on his/her behalf, including on financial matters, when he/she is mentally incapacitated.
Should no LPA exist after mental incapacity sets in, there are still options to deal with it, but it gets complicated. Family members and friends can apply to be Court-appointed deputies, which is time-consuming and costly. MSF's new Community Kinship Service pilot can get social workers to be Court-appointed deputies and, therefore, take charge. But most of us here in this Chamber would agree that MSF's limited resources should focus on only the most pressing of cases.
Therefore, to minimise the number of vulnerable adults ahead of the coming Silver Tsunami, LPAs play a major part. I have assembled a team of lawyers and community leaders to think about this issue. We believe a major LPA adoption drive is necessary and would like to propose three steps.
One, integrate the LPA into relevant Government processes. This will give many Singaporeans the chance to think through this issue and make a decision and draw up their LPAs. For example, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) can insert the LPA process automatically within the 55-year-old identity card re-registration process as well as passport renewal for Singaporeans over 45 years old. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) can insert the LPA process within all deed transfers and name insertions for people above 55. MOH can get hospitals to advise moderate to high-risk and senior patients to get LPAs and offer that process in major hospitals.
Two, we can minimise the cost of LPAs. The current cost is not costly, but to get mass adoption of LPAs by seniors and retirees, we can try to bring down the cost even more. MSF can extend the waiver of LPA application cost. At pre-selected Government offices issuing large numbers of LPA certifications, we can include an onsite team of certifiers, that is, lawyers, doctors and psychiatrists. And the benefit of this is that we can then offer out bulk-contracts for these certification services to further reduce the cost from lawyers, doctors and psychiatrists. Another option is for us to train civil servants who know about these issues to act as certifiers at key locations.
Our third point is that we need to communicate extensively. We can explain about LPAs through videos in different languages. These videos can be made and screened on television, within cinema and online. SGO can explain the importance of LPAs to seniors, and we can also communicate the importance through various community health screenings.
I am sure a big push will increase the LPA numbers and we must monitor the adoption very carefully. However, if the situation does not improve within a few years, I hope we can consider even more decisive steps. One is to make LPA mandatory. The other way is to revise our Mental Capacity Act to include a \"default LPA\". By \"default LPA\", it means having the law to automatically determine the right person to take charge, in the absence of an LPA made voluntarily.
Talking to my team of lawyers and community leaders, the tricky part of the default LPA option is how the law should determine the donees. The most obvious way the law can determine the donee is to use the succession rules from the Inter-Succession Act. But even if we go down that path, we need to consider whether the default donee should be an individual, or a group of natural heirs with collective responsibilities. And if there are collective responsibilities, how should responsibilities be divided up, and how do we reconcile the difference in views and motivations among the natural heirs in the process? So, this is quite tricky.
If we go down the path of default LPAs, it would also be good for us to clarify the powers of donees with regard to utilising the assets of the donors. This could include clear guidelines on what constitutes reasonable cost for medical and long-term care of the donors and caregiving of the donor's direct dependants.
I understand that Minister Desmond Lee has set up the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System (RERF) recently to review family law issues. Perhaps, the Committee can take the lead to explore the default LPA issue very carefully in consultation with the lawyers, the legal community and the people sector, so that we can have at least one additional option to minimise the number of vulnerable adults. But, of course, the first logical no-regrets move we should do is to push for the mass adoption of voluntary LPAs.
To conclude, I warmly welcome and support the amendments. With stronger laws in place, I hope we can improve how we care for our vulnerable seniors. Moving forward, I also hope we can focus on the urgent task of minimising the number of vulnerable seniors, and one good way is to get all Singaporeans to write up their LPAs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.
Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am heartened that the Bill will further strengthen the Government's ability to intervene to protect the vulnerable adults who may have fallen through the cracks of family, friends and community support and subjected to abuse and neglect. Such individuals may include the elderly, as well as persons with disability and special needs. It is about time that the Vulnerable Adults Bill is set to complement existing laws that address violence, maltreatment and abuse against vulnerable adults. Therefore, I rise in support of the Bill.
Sir, however, I have the following clarifications in two broad areas of the Bill, that is, one, empowering state intervention and, two, relocating of vulnerable adults. On empowering state intervention, I have the following four questions.
An \"adult\" is defined as 21 years of age in the majority of Singapore's laws. How has the age of 18 been decided in this Bill? As the Children and Young Persons Act covers children below age 14, and this Bill covers persons from 18 and above, how would the vulnerable persons between ages 14 and 17 that are not covered under this Bill be supported?
Two, how do we first establish early identification of this group of vulnerable adults?
Three, how can MSF take on a more active than reactive role when it comes to identifying vulnerable adults? I am sure most of us remember the case of 26-year-old Annie Ee Yu Lian, who had intellectual disabilities and suffered torture at the hands of a trusted couple. Eight months of agony and suffering, and yet no one knew – no one even suspected that something was wrong. What more can we do? How else can we educate Singaporeans to look over one another and be bold enough to report? Is there any other hotline to report suspicion as many may hesitate to report to the Police as it is not yet known to be a fact that such abuse is taking place in the first place? Moreover, some may want to report but do not want their identity to be known for fear of souring their relationship with neighbours, relatives or friends. Can MSF do more to create awareness amongst the public, riding on SG Cares, which is a national movement to support the efforts in building a more caring and inclusive society?
Four, even if a deputy or donee has been appointed, their consent is not required for the power to assess, power to remove and for the medical care to take place as stated in sections 6(2), 10(2) and 18(3) of the Bill. Under the Mental Capacity Act, however, their consent is required for medical care. Will this cause a conflict?
On relocating vulnerable adults, I have the following question. MSF is given the mandate to arrange for temporary care location. Who would be responsible for the cost of care and any other costs, such as those requiring medical attention deemed necessary by professionals?
Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I am optimistic that with the support and cooperation of Singaporeans at large, complemented by robust law and SG Cares initiatives, we can minimise or perhaps eliminate such inhumane abuse and exploitation inflicted upon vulnerable individuals who trust the very people that cause them pain.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Having encountered vulnerable adults and their families in my Henderson Dawson Division, I feel this Bill is very timely. There are more people who live longer lives but not always able to care for themselves for one reason or another and becomes vulnerable adults.
I am pleased to note that the Bill aims to provide a safe environment for whistleblowers to report abuse and suspected abuse to the authorities. One common reason the neighbours and even relatives and co-workers do not lodge reports is because they are afraid that they will be identified. So, confidentiality is important. But this will pose a challenge under certain circumstances if the authorities decide to take the abuser to Court where evidence from witnesses are required. One solution would be for the Court to allow voice evidence recorded by Police as admissible in Court, without disclosing the names/addresses. Or it could be a video recording, but the face of the witness be blurred out to protect the identity of the witness. What is most crucial is that the evidence deduced from the whistleblower, and evidence thrown up in the Police investigations, such as the injuries sustained by the victim, are the critical factors in the case in convicting the accused person(s).
Second, abuse and neglect often occur when the caregivers are at wit's end. We all would know how difficult it is to handle individuals when they suffer from mental distress. The person may refuse to eat, bathe, take medication, may throw tantrums, create a ruckus and disturb his or her neighbours.
Let me share an example from my Henderson Dawson Division. On some days, as early as 5.00 am, my resident – let us call him Mr S – gets up and yells vulgarities very loudly. Mr S lives with his spouse, and the family puts in effort to get him treatment and to take his medication. The spouse does her best to make sure Mr S takes his medicine regularly and the VWOs assist when she cannot. However, it is not working out and she has sort of given up. Meantime, the neighbours suffer along with the family. Thankfully, the neighbours are understanding and compassionate. Still, there is a need to find a solution.
However, a lot would depend on what resources there are available to the family. Hospitals would not keep an individual in the ward unless there is a medical need to do so. Caregiving homes and hospice care may be out of reach for some and some fall through the cracks as they do not meet the per capita income for Government help but are unable to afford on their income level.
Here is where the family members need help. It is a real dilemma for them. The family members must work, yet the distressed person needs their care and attention. I would like to propose that MSF set up a platform where a family/caregiver who needs help can turn to for assistance or guidance. The ComCare hotline is very visible to residents. I propose that this hotline extends its scope to help families to point them to the right organisation. It would help to lighten their load to know who and where they can get help to meet their needs. An intervention by a Government agency can save the distressed individual from being relegated from being a loved one to becoming a burden to the family. Once they are seen as a burden, then that is where the person becomes vulnerable to abuses of all kinds.
There are many cases where because of the pull between filial piety and financial affordability, the relationship between husband and wife becomes strained, or relations between brothers and sisters become strained. Accusations and finger-pointing create quarrels and you see a family divided. And worse, the vulnerable adult is abused because the family is unable to find a solution to care for him/her. I hope that in cases where MSF has to intervene, it will weigh the family's circumstances so that the action taken will not result in the breaking up of family ties. I know it is heart-wrenching for the family. No one wants to \"abandon\" their loved ones.
Lastly, although this Bill is targeted at vulnerable adults, similar problems can be observed in children with health problems requiring extensive care, as well as their parents, caregivers and neighbours. Similar intervention and help should also be extended to such families. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Vulnerable Adults Bill. I have always been concerned about the vulnerable adults and have, since 1999, raised the issue on better protection of our vulnerable adults and, especially the abused seniors. I have spoken about the predicament of vulnerable adults being abused and have beseeched our Government to better assist them at least nine times in this House. I am glad, indeed, that MSF will soon put into law to better safeguard the vulnerable adults.
Over the years, during my speeches on this topic, I have raised the issues of neglect of the vulnerable, physical abuse resulting in injuries, emotional trauma, psychological anguish, deceit of funds and financial abuse. I am glad most of these are now covered in this Bill. However, this Bill does not cover financial abuse, as mentioned by other Parliamentarians earlier. We need to address financial abuse in these vulnerable adults. Let me elaborate.
As mentioned by my Parliamentary colleague Mr Seah Kian Peng earlier, a 2014 study by Trans Safe Centre, a charity that specialises in tackling elder abuse, showed that about one in three involved a senior who had been financially abused. With each passing year, the growing numbers of seniors will reach 900,000 by 2030. Many of them would have some savings from their long working years and they may be subjected to financial abuse. This will be an increasing problem with time. I have heard residents and patients relating to me that they had to give in reluctantly to their difficult children who might be drug abusers, ex-convicts or gamblers when they demanded money from them. The seniors said they were afraid of their children; scared of their tantrums, tempers and abusive words if they did not give in. There were also stories of unpaid borrowings by children, deceit in transferring of HDB ownership and so on. Thus, this Bill is not complete with the omission of the financial abuse issue.
During one of my house visits, I saw one debilitated senior on her bed through her house gate. She was too weak to even sit up or talk to us. The home was in an unhygienic state. Her gate was locked by her only son when he left to work early in the morning and would only come back late at night. I considered it as a case of neglect, either due to circumstances or willfully. But the senior would not complain as she was too afraid to lose whatever she had left and had resigned to her fate. Thankfully, we managed to find her son and persuaded him to allow us to assist with his mother's daily needs and medical needs henceforth. I hope this Bill will enable individuals like this to be identified early and help rendered before it is too late.
The role of the community is important to better protect the vulnerable adults. Extended families and neighbours are usually the first to know of the vulnerable adults at risk. Publicity and raising awareness on this topic and information on the kind of assistance available are thus very important.
I welcome Part 4 of clause 23, which provides protection to whistleblowers for providing the information on abused or neglected cases. This clause protects whistleblowers from liabilities. This fact must be well publicised to encourage more people in the community to report. In publicity materials, tips on what to look out for will be useful to further raise the awareness. Such relevant information includes poor hygiene, malnutrition, dehydration, physical injuries like bruises and fractures, unexpected injuries, mental trauma, depression as well as social isolation.
The people in the community, the family and friends as well as the neighbours, and the frontline personnel, such as medical doctors, nurses and social workers, play an important role to ensure the success of this Bill when it is enacted. In our society, there is a strong disapproval of abuses, especially so on the vulnerable. I hope MSF will spare no effort in facilitating the community to play their part in our responsible and caring society. There is a need for easy one-stop reporting and good follow-up provided by MSF. The convenience of a designated 24-hour hotline to call for reporting on information will be useful. I hope that with this Act and the good execution efforts by MSF, we can prevent another case of Ms Annie Ee who died from the injury of frequent abuses over a long period.
May I ask the Minister whether this Bill goes far enough in creating a criminal offence for the abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult? Does this Bill send a strong signal to the perpetrators on their wrongdoings? Now that there is this Act, we need to have a deterrence to ensure that family members do not push their dependants away to MSF by causing neglect. Otherwise, perpetrators can walk away from their responsibilities, if they know that they can get away easily.
Under Part 3, clause 19(1) and (2) of this Bill, the Minister is empowered, by notification in the Gazette, to designate any premises in Singapore as a place of temporary care and protection for the care of vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. I welcome this. In many cases of abuse, the best way to end their plight is to remove the vulnerable from their homes and place them at designated facilities that can provide better support and care. May I ask MSF what are these places and whether we have such avenues and such facilities available before enacting this Bill. We have to make sure that the vulnerable are not worse off with our intervention. I also hope that MSF will ensure that the vulnerable adults at risk receive as much information on their alternate care and assistance available to them. The fear of the unknown, away from their familiar environment and the fear of losing whatever little care and support they are getting may prevent the vulnerable adults at risk from giving their consent for interventions involving removal and out-of-home placements. This is especially so for the seniors at risk.
Under Part 2, clauses 5 and 6, this Bill empowers the Director or a protector to assess an individual or a vulnerable adult to be assessed by a qualified assessor. May I ask the Minister if the assessors can do both the physical health assessment, such as detecting malnutrition and body injuries, as well as mental assessments, to detect mental anguish, trauma and depression? Every assessment can only be complete with both physical and mental well-being taken together. Will these assessors be at hand on the enactment of this Bill?
I hope that MSF will implement this Act thoroughly to ensure its success. Areas of priority are good publicity, getting the buy-in from the community and enough personnel that will carry out their duties diligently. The success of all these will save our vulnerable adults from unnecessary pain and suffering and this is only rightly so in our inclusive caring society.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As we intensify our efforts in being more inclusive and providing for the less fortunate and the vulnerable, this Bill is timely which seeks to provide for the safeguard of vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. In the course of our daily interactions with others in our community, we would have come across adults who are deemed vulnerable, either because they have some form of special need, or because of age, they suffer from illnesses or conditions that diminish their ability to remember or communicate effectively, such as dementia, aphasia – which is an impairment of the ability to speak because of stroke –or multiple sclerosis, among others.
A few months back, a female resident, Ms N, came to see me at my Meet-the-People session, panicky and in tears. Ms N shared that her elderly father, whom she said had dementia, was missing and that she received a call from a Home for destitute persons informing her that her father was there. Apparently, he was found begging on the streets and could not recall where he lived. When Ms N went down to the Home to try and bring her elderly father home, she was told that she could not do so as the Home would need to get the go-ahead from MSF before they could release her father. She managed to talk to her father whom she said appeared scared and had suicidal thoughts. I managed to get in touch with MSF through Minister Desmond Lee and, with the Minister's kind help, managed to get Ms N's father released from the Home within the next few days. I must extend my sincerest gratitude, on behalf of my resident, for the Minister's timely intervention and assistance in this case.
While that incident turned out well for Ms N and her father, the reality remains that there will be adults among us who may not recall who they are or where they live, or who may do things that can compromise their safety or the safety or others. These are the vulnerable adults who live amongst us. There needs to be a better framework and set of laws to manage how we are able to provide for them and ensure their well-being and safety, as well as that of others around them.
While I generally support the intents of this Bill, there are some clauses within the Bill which I seek clarifications on.
First, for clause 3(2), it is mentioned that the Director may appoint any public officer with suitable qualifications and experience as protector under the proposed Bill. What qualities are needed before a public officer can be appointed as a protector? What are the functions and powers of the protector? How is the protector different from the Director? Is the protector a deputy to the Director? Or is the protector supposed to play the role of a counter-check to the Director or enforcement officers to ensure, for example, that the safety of the vulnerable adult is ensured, or that excessive force is not meted on any vulnerable adult that is being removed from a place that exposes that adult to abuse, neglect or self-neglect?
Second, for clause 6(1)(d) and clause 10(2), it is stated that the Director or protector may remove a vulnerable adult from the place where that vulnerable adult is residing or staying for the purpose of an assessment, with or without the consent of that vulnerable adult, their donee or deputy. To what extent can the Director or protector ensure this vulnerable adult is to be removed? What if the vulnerable adult becomes hysterical or has an emotional breakdown or a meltdown and starts to protest? How will the Ministry manage this delicate balance between state intervention and individual rights and choices?
Third, for clause 10(5), the Director or protector may use such force considered necessary to remove the vulnerable adult. Will physical force or coercion be used against this vulnerable adult? Who will provide that counter-check against the use of excessive physical force or coercion against a vulnerable adult? Will there be a standard engagement procedure employed when dealing with such adults, where engagement, communication and cajoling are applied first and foremost? What if the vulnerable adult in question turns violent? What will be done then?
Fourth, for clause 11(1)(a), in having removed a vulnerable adult, the Director or protector must commit the vulnerable adult to a place of temporary care and protection or to the care of a fit person. Similarly, for clause 19(1), the Minister may designate any premises in Singapore as a place of temporary care and protection, or as a place of safety for the care and protection of vulnerable adults. What would be these places of temporary care and protection? Are they in hospitals? Or are they in specific VWOs? Will family members be allowed visitations? How long will the vulnerable adults be committed to such places of temporary care and protection? And in terms of \"fit persons\", how are the competencies and qualities of these \"fit persons\" defined? Will there be considerations of prior interaction or relationship to the vulnerable adult in question, so as to ensure some level of familiarity or comfort? Will there be considerations of prior relevant experience or similar language ability to the vulnerable adult, so as to ensure minimal miscommunication?
Fifth, for clauses 20(1) and 20(2), a \"proper care plan\" has to be in place for a vulnerable adult. What are some criteria of the \"proper care plan\" for vulnerable adults? Will this \"proper care plan\" be made in consultation with family members should the vulnerable adult be committed to a place of temporary care and protection? Would the Review Board or Director or protector be the one to review or audit this \"proper care plan\" on a regular basis to ensure adherence?
While there are many causes and levers for intervention in the case of vulnerable adults among us, there are equally as many sensitivities in calibrating the balance between state intervention and individual rights and choices. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my request for clarifications from the Ministry, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to laud the efforts that have been done to present this Bill to Parliament. As my other colleagues have said, this has been a long-awaited Bill, with many hoping to see more teeth in legislation to help safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. I understand that for far too long, social workers have been left frustrated with the inability to take action in situations where they feel that more could be done. I note the great balancing act that needs to be put in place to ensure that while we do what we think is necessary for the group that cannot help themselves, we do not inadvertently trample on individual rights and liberties.
Therefore, although personally, I share the sentiments of some of my colleagues who feel that the Bill could extend to protect against issues like financial abuse, I appreciate the caution with which we proceed on this Bill. I hope that the Ministry would review the matter further and consider other recourse available to the elderly in this respect.
For the purposes of this speech though, I would like to focus on the implementation of the Bill. In my humble opinion, for this Bill to be effectively administered and for the true spirit of the Bill to be embraced, we need to ensure that there are appropriate support, resources and manpower in place to respond to the circumstances that would arise in the course of enforcement of this Bill. I, therefore, have some clarifications to make.
Firstly, I would like to understand who would form the team of qualified assessors on the ground. What would be the requirements of these assessors and would there be specified training given to them?
Secondly, I note that there would be instances where the vulnerable adult would have to be taken away from the care he or she has. Do we have sufficient manpower, support and spaces like the care facilities that the Minister referred to, to ensure that the care of these vulnerable adults, temporary or otherwise, is seamless and comprehensive? Further, what are the measures or support framework in place to ensure reconciliation with families where appropriate? I know that the Minister had earlier shared that Court orders could be made to direct family members to attend counselling. Are there other mechanisms to assist with reconciliation and appropriate follow-ups with the family members?
Thirdly, I believe that the cases that would fall under this category would be complicated and potentially emotionally and logistically challenging. The social welfare officers need to be trained in various aspects. They should be equipped with skills in dealing with, for example, violent relatives, they need to understand the Court processes and also have greater depth in dealing with and recognising psychological on top of physical harm. Are all our officers fully trained and equipped to handle various circumstances? I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the matters I raised. Notwithstanding my request for clarifications, I support this Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Deputy Speaker: Whip.
The Government Whip (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Desmond Lee's speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of Minister Desmond Lee's speech. – [Mr Chan Chun Sing.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Vulnerable Adults Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Desmond Lee.
Mr Desmond Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken passionately on this Bill. Let me now take some time to respond to the Members' queries.
Some Members suggested identifying vulnerable adults early, to ensure their well-being, to be as proactive as possible. Ms Thanaletchimi and Ms Denise Phua asked what the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) can do to educate our stakeholders and Singaporeans generally, to report suspected abuse cases that they come across.
Sir, this Bill will be effective only if all of us play an active part. Let me elaborate.
First, everyone should actively report suspected cases of abuse, neglect and self-neglect. MSF launched a three-year \"Break the Silence\" campaign in late 2016 to encourage open conversations about family violence, including abuse of vulnerable adults, to urge bystanders to action. We went onto social media, we went onto radio, television (TV), cinema screens, outdoor media and roadshows to campaign for greater public awareness that family abuse is not a private matter and cannot be tolerated. And, Sir, this has gone some way to shape public attitudes towards family violence.
Last year, one in three callers to our hotline who reported family violence matters were do-gooders, such as neighbours, friends and passers-by. This is an increase from one in five, prior to the campaign.
MSF has also been training community partners and grassroots volunteers. They are on the ground and can help us detect formerly \"invisible\" cases. We will continue to step up on our efforts in this area, as the work of public education and capacity building can never end. The whistleblower clauses in this Bill will support both of these efforts.
Second, we want frontline staff in relevant agencies to be well-trained and equipped to identify cases of abuse, neglect and self-neglect. These include our Family Violence Specialist Centres (FVSCs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) as well as medical and healthcare professionals. To Mr Louis Ng's question on their training, MSF has established protocols and training platforms that equip them to handle and detect family violence. These include training modules at the Social Service Institute on identifying and managing vulnerable adults.
MSF is also building on our existing Integrated Family Violence Manual, which agencies rely on to guide their intervention into family violence. This manual will soon also cover the safety of vulnerable adults – so, work in progress. To more effectively identify and help vulnerable adults, MSF is currently working with our community partners to co-develop relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and assessment guides.
Third, the Government must provide avenues for easy reporting and react quickly to reports that come in. Ms K Thanaletchimi, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira asked about a public hotline where people can report abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults. Mr Louis Ng also asked if every case of vulnerable adult abuse will be reported to the Police for action.
So, who should the public call if they come across suspected cases? They can alert the nearest FSC, they can call any of the three FVSCs set up by MSF, the numbers for both are available on our website, or they can call MSF's ComCare Hotline at 1800-222-0000.
Where there are immediate safety concerns or danger to a vulnerable adult, the public can call the Police.
But not every case of harm to vulnerable adults may necessarily warrant Police involvement, at least from the get go. Where the safety concerns are not so clear or immediate, our FSCs and FVSCs will first look into the matter and alert us at MSF if state intervention is necessary and then we will move in together.
Mr Seah Kian Peng suggested implementing a mandatory reporting system for stakeholders who interact with suspected vulnerable adults. We did consider this. But we decided against it for now for two reasons.
First, professionals have expressed to us concerns that mandatory reporting laws, such as this, especially in a family violent situation, may prevent abusers from seeking help for themselves or their victims, as they fear being taken to task.
Second, we understand that mandatory reporting laws in overseas jurisdictions have led to over-reporting, many of which were also unsubstantiated. So, we prefer, for now, to assure people who step forward, through whistleblower protection. So, let us see how it goes.
We will also be developing protocols and guidelines, similar to those used in the child protection sector, to educate professionals and the public on when, how and who to report such cases to. So, for those Members who are familiar with the Child Protection Scheme, there is a Child Abuse Reporting Guide which we share with our network, preschools, schools, clinics, the Police, medical professionals, hospitals, and using methodical approach, guide them on what to look out for, what to ask and what information to get and who to report to. So, we are looking at the same protocol for adult abuse.
Ms Denise Phua recommended forming a National Vulnerable Adults Support Services Association. It sounds very much like our Community Network for Seniors where we rely on community and partners and people on the ground to form networks to look after seniors and, in this case, to look after vulnerable adults. We thank her for her suggestion and we will certainly explore this in greater detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to questions relating to the scope of the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked why the Bill only protects vulnerable adults aged 18 and older. How about legal protection for those above 16 but below 18, since the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) only covers individuals below 16?
First, vulnerable individuals, aged 16 to 18, have some protection under existing legislation, such as the Women's Charter. The Women's Charter protects individuals, regardless of their gender and age, from family violence. A personal protection order (PPO) may be applied for under that Act on behalf of the vulnerable person.
Secondly, and could be more importantly, as I have mentioned in my earlier speech, we are reviewing the CYPA in order to extend the statutory protection to those above 16 but under 18 under the Child Protection Framework as opposed to the Vulnerable Adults Framework.
A number of Members, including Dr Lily Neo, asked why the Bill does not cover financial abuse. Indeed, many of the Members have come across cases where parents have provided for the children, sold their homes and helped their children buy their new homes only to find themselves ejected out of those homes, or to be financially abused in any other case. I agree with Assoc Prof Daniel Goh that cases of financial abuse often involve elements of psychological and emotional abuse. So, where financial abuse occurs alongside other forms of abuse and neglect that are already covered under the Bill, the state can intervene.
There are also some other levers in place to deal with financial abuse against vulnerable adults. In cases where vulnerable adults have been exploited by caregivers, we often do see other family members, such as children, stepping forward to put a firm stop to this. If need be, our social work agencies can nudge next-of-kin to act. So, the family can take action to resolve financial abuse within their own families.
But in cases where the vulnerable adult lacks mental capacity and the alleged abuser is a donee appointed under an LPA or a deputy appointed by the Court, the Public Guardian may seek a Court order to suspend or revoke his powers to make decisions on the vulnerable adult's behalf, to prevent further abuse. Criminal charges or criminal investigation are not the only ways by which the Public Guardian can apply to Court to take action, again in cognisance of other facts, such as the donee or deputy not acting in the best interest of the elderly person, including financially abusing the elderly person. In fact, family members can also make such an application to Court.
If the vulnerable adult lacks mental capacity and has no family members, a deputy may be appointed by the Court to manage his property and affairs as well as his personal welfare matters. Under our upcoming Professional Deputies and Donees Scheme which will commence in the second half of this year, a professional deputy can be appointed by the Courts to step in. The professional deputy will be subject to the same requirements as any other deputy.
If the caregiver who financially abuses the vulnerable adult is neither a donee nor deputy, MSF and our partners will carry out social work interventions and assessments to look at what the situation is about. We may ask the Public Guardian to step in to ask for the Court to appoint a deputy to look into the vulnerable adult's financial situation. Again, this is also open to next-of-kin to do so, to solve this problem within the family. If there is suspicion that offences have been committed, and the Police will also investigate.
So, for now, the Vulnerable Adults Bill's focus is on physical and emotional abuse. Let us gain more experience in operationalising this vulnerable adult protection framework, while we continue to study the complex issue of financial exploitation among family members. We have ideas. Members have raised ideas to us in the course of this debate and the recent Motion on protecting our seniors and, of course, in many other debates and other platforms. As I said, we have some ideas. Let us continue to look at them and, at an appropriate time, we will bring it to this House.
Mr Louis Ng asked why the Bill does not define sexual abuse as an independent head of abuse, and how it considers verbal sexual harassment.
Sexual offences are covered under the Penal Code, for example. If there is conduct or behaviour that coerces or attempts to coerce an individual to engage in sexual activity, this is \"physical abuse\" under the Bill, and action can be taken. For verbal sexual harassment, this can fall under \"emotional or psychological abuse\".
Ms Chia Yong Yong asked why the definitions of \"emotional or psychological abuse\", \"neglect\" and \"self-neglect\" are definitive, as compared to the definition of \"physical abuse\" which is non-exhaustive.
This is by design. Physical abuse already has a limiting factor, in that the abuse must be physical in nature. There is unlikely to be largely differing views on what would constitute physical abuse. This is less clear for emotional and psychological abuse, neglect or even self-neglect. There may be differing opinions among professionals as well as members of the public on what these would constitute. These definitions are, therefore, crafted definitively, to provide as much clarity and certainty as possible on who the powers in the Bill apply to, and limit our discretion on how these terms are interpreted.
Ms Chia Yong Yong also asked why psychological assessment was not included in the definition of \"assessment\" under the Bill. The current definition of \"assessment\" allows interviews and examinations to be conducted to determine a person's mental state. This allows psychologists or psychiatrists to interview and examine a vulnerable adult to ascertain if there are any psychological concerns.
But, Deputy Speaker, let me take a step back from all the points that have been raised, whether on financial abuse or on the definitions of abuse, neglect or self-neglect, and assure Members that these scope the statutory powers that we can exercise under the Bill. The FSC, FVSC and our Adult Protective Service (APS) and our Rehabilitation and Protection Group (RPG) units in MSF are not prevented from social work interventions, reaching to the family, reaching out to the community, reaching out to neighbours, reaching out to the vulnerable adult because of the scope of definitions in this Bill. If there is a concern, our community and social work agencies and MSF will respond with social work as our primary tool, but as far as the exercise of these intrusive statutory powers are concerned, then we are limited by the definitions under the Bill. So, I hope Members understand that these definitions and the scope of the Bill do not prevent us from acting as we have always done, both now and in the past.
Ms Denise Phua asked about how the Bill will complement existing services, including that by APS. Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about the qualities required of protectors and their roles under the Bill. Sir, APS will assist the Director of Social Welfare in exercising powers under the Bill. Protectors will be our senior officers in MSF's APS who have suitable qualifications and experience to handle vulnerable adult abuse, neglect and self-neglect cases.
Mr Louis Ng asked about the similarities and differences between APS and Child Protective Service (CPS). The principles guiding APS and CPS' work are similar in that the best interest and welfare of the vulnerable adult and child respectively must be paramount. Beyond the distinct age groups each Service looks after, APS' work requires them to look into the vulnerable adult's mental capacity so that the client's right to self-determination is upheld as far as possible.
This leads me to Ms Denise Phua and Ms Sylvia Lim's question on how MSF decides when to intervene, and the rigour of our assessment, particularly when we remove a vulnerable adult. I agree with both of them that mental incapacity is a continuum, and that mental capacity is not a black-and-white concept. Indeed, there are good days and there are bad days.
Mr Speaker, under the Bill, MSF may intervene so long as the adult is suffering or at risk of abuse, neglect or self-neglect, and has physical or mental infirmity that renders him incapable of protecting himself. This will be confirmed by a qualified assessor who can conduct physical and mental capacity assessments or it might be different assessors would have come in together and do the assessments.
Assessing the mental capacity of a vulnerable adult is important because, as far as possible, an adult with the capacity to make decisions should do so. To ensure that we protect his right to participate in the decision-making process, MSF has been working with our partners to develop a mental capacity assessment form. This form sets out certain requirements and checklists that will determine if a vulnerable adult lacks mental capacity. For example, if the vulnerable adult is unable to understand information that is relevant to the decision at hand, to retain that information or to communicate his decision to others, then he will be considered as lacking mental capacity.
On Ms Denise Phua's example, where the vulnerable adult has mental capacity but shows signs of self-neglect, MSF can intervene to protect him from further neglect.
On Ms Sylvia Lim's examples, MSF will not remove a vulnerable adult without assessing the situation holistically. Where a caregiver is willing and able to look after the vulnerable adult but lacks the skills to provide adequate support, we will help him enhance his caregiver skills, instead of removing the vulnerable adult. We will invoke removal only when the vulnerable adult's safety and well-being have been compromised or are at risk. Neither will we remove a vulnerable adult because his family members do not have financial means to provide care. In such cases, we will work with our social service agencies and other agencies to provide assistance to the family.
Ms Sylvia Lim had given examples of cases where a person fulfills the example in the illustration but in her view and certainly in mine, I should not invoke a removal of the adult, for example, if the vulnerable adult is unclothed after a bath but the caregiver needs to go and prepare some medication, for instance. This would not be the way in which APS and our agencies act. It would involve concerns being raised; it would involve interviews, talking to the caregiver, talking to the family members, talking to the neighbours, speaking to the community, speaking to the vulnerable adult. It is not a case of looking at a snapshot of facts that within these 10 seconds, what you did and, therefore, I come and use these powers. It cannot be so. That would not really be within the ambit of how we do social work.
And as I mentioned in my opening speech, we will be judicious in how we exercise the powers under this Bill. When we identify a vulnerable adult, the default, where possible, should be to rely on social suasion with the support of his family and the community, because that approach is often more effective and sustainable, internalised by the vulnerable adult and the family. Only when this is ineffective, will we rely on the Bill.
Sir, Members asked about MSF's powers to intervene despite the vulnerable adult's refusal to accept this assistance. On the state's power to remove, Ms Chia Yong Yong said that MSF should be able to remove a vulnerable adult for assessment of placement if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an adult is withholding consent due to some form of coercion. Other Members felt that we should be more judicious in the exercise of powers.
Again, as Ms Chia Yong Yong has rightly pointed out, it is a matter of perspective, whether you are focusing on the needs of the vulnerable adult or whether you are concerned about whether there is statutory overreach. In fact, both are valid concerns and we want to strike the right balance, avoiding overreach while ensuring that the first and paramount interest is that of the vulnerable adult, as enshrined in clause 4 of the Bill.
I agree that a vulnerable adult’s right to self-determination should be respected. And that is why we hardwired this as one of the key principles in the Bill, and also why there are safeguards in the Bill against unnecessary intervention.
But there may be exceptional situations where intervention may be necessary even when the vulnerable adult has mental capacity and refuses assistance. As Ms Chia Yong Yong highlighted, there may be instances where the adult is under duress or pressured by their loved ones to refuse external assistance. I also mentioned the case of Mr Wong earlier, the elderly man who refused admission to a hospital or nursing home to treat his diabetes and wounds. There is a real risk that Mr Wong's life will be in danger in the future, if the state cannot intervene. That would not be right.
So, where the need arises, MSF has built in a safeguard. We can only intervene in such a situation after a Court order has been obtained. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a suspected vulnerable adult is withholding consent because of coercion or undue influence, for example, we will bring this to the Court's attention. The Court can then make an order for MSF to intervene to protect the vulnerable adult. If there are concerns whether it is expeditiously enough, especially where the case is particularly urgent, then there are provisions in the Bill that allow ex-parte application.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked if engagement and communication should be applied first before we invoke the law to remove a vulnerable adult, while Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if MSF can exercise some of its powers under the Bill while family and community interventions are ongoing. Allow me to reiterate that family engagement and social work intervention by community partners, supported by MSF, will be the principal response to cases involving vulnerable adults. But statutory intervention and family or community interventions are not mutually exclusive and there may be times when a combination is necessary.
To Dr Intan Mokhtar's questions on how a vulnerable adult will be removed from his place of residence, if this is necessary, MSF is currently developing its SOPs to guide the actions of officers when dealing with vulnerable adults, including removal from their homes, where understanding and training are absolutely key.
To ensure that the experience does not traumatise the vulnerable adult, MSF will engage the help of support persons, which may include social workers, psychologists and community partners who have interacted with the adult, to assist with this removal. Friends and close family members may also be present as a form of assurance and support for him.
Some Members raised questions about care facilities and arrangements for vulnerable adults. First, Dr Intan Mokhtar and Dr Lily Neo asked which premises will be gazetted as places of temporary care and protection and how long a vulnerable adult would reside in these premises. Some existing residential care facilities, such as some of the adult disability homes and sheltered homes, will be gazetted as places of temporary care and protection and places of safety. A few medical facilities may also be gazetted to cater to situations where the vulnerable adults have clear medical needs. These facilities are intended to protect vulnerable adults who cannot remain safely in their place of residence, while allowing them to receive appropriate care.
The choice of gazetted care facilities and period of committal will depend on a vulnerable adult's care needs. However, places of temporary care and protection are only meant to house vulnerable adults for an interim period, so that investigations can be carried out and longer-term care plans made. Therefore, the length of stay in these premises will generally not be longer than six months. Again, this depends on specific circumstances of the vulnerable adult and the family or lack thereof.
Second, Ms Denise Phua asked whether these facilities and staff are equipped to care for vulnerable adults. These facilities have experience providing for residents who are vulnerable and have in place suitable standards of care to provide for their care and protection. As I have said earlier, MSF is also working with frontline officers of relevant agencies to ensure that they have the capabilities to provide support to vulnerable adults under their care.
Third, Dr Intan Mokhtar also asked how the competencies and qualities of a \"fit person\" are defined, and about the care plan that will be put in place if a vulnerable adult is committed to a facility. \"Fit persons\" are individuals or organisations whom the Director of Social Welfare thinks are competent to provide care and protection to the vulnerable adult. The main consideration as to whether one qualifies to be a fit person is whether he has the ability to provide the necessary care and protection to ensure the vulnerable adult’s safety and allow him to recuperate. Hence, a fit person could actually be a family member or a friend who is willing and able to care for the vulnerable adult. As for care plans, MSF will put them in place to ensure that the vulnerable adult receives the care and protection he requires while in the facility. The care plan sets out a care and recovery framework based on a comprehensive assessment of the vulnerable adult’s social, mental and physical state. MSF, together with a Review Board comprising professionals, will review these plans regularly.
Fourth, Dr Intan Mokhtar asked whether family members are allowed to visit vulnerable adults in gazetted facilities. Indeed, they are allowed and encouraged to do so. But there are exceptions. For instance, a Court may issue an order preventing the alleged perpetrator of abuse or neglect from visiting or contacting the vulnerable adult. MSF may also limit the contact between the vulnerable adult residing in gazetted facilities and individuals if such contact does not serve the best interest of the adult. Again, all these need professional assessments. Ms Sylvia Lim also provided several suggestions to help vulnerable adults adjust to their new environment. I note her suggestions and we will explore these ideas with the management of the facilities to ensure that these vulnerable adults feel safe and comfortable even while they are there.
Fifth, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked who will bear the costs of the care of a vulnerable adult. Families are primarily responsible to provide for their vulnerable members. Hence, if families have the means, the costs of placement and any other services or treatment of the vulnerable adult requires should be borne by them. But we recognise that not all families can provide for their vulnerable family members. In such instances, the state will pay for the temporary placement of these individuals in gazetted care facilities and related costs that may be incurred to ensure the vulnerable adult’s well-being. Let me assure this House that a vulnerable adult's or his family's inability to pay for such services will not be a barrier to him receiving the necessary intervention, treatment and care.
Sixth, Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about reintegration of vulnerable adults with their families. It is not ideal for a vulnerable adult to stay in a care facility for the long term. We will engage both the vulnerable adults and their families to establish safety and care plans at home. The vulnerable adult will only return home after we deem it is safe for him to do so. We will then work with a community agency to monitor the case and provide necessary support, until it is assessed that no further risks exist. I agree with Assoc Prof Daniel Goh that the Government must exercise restraint before interfering with family prerogatives with regard to a vulnerable adult’s personal care arrangements. Where possible, MSF will help facilitate the family in caring for their vulnerable members. This may include the provision of social support.
Several Members, including Ms Denise Phua, asked about the Bill’s interface with other legislation. The Bill complements the existing legal framework that protects vulnerable individuals. As the Bill covers a wider scope of vulnerable individuals, there will inevitably be some overlap. But the Bill will, ultimately, strengthen the current framework by allowing MSF to take a more proactive approach to protecting vulnerable adults. MSF can only do our work when we have the support of the community. We will work with community partners to put in place robust protocols. If practitioners based in the community are unsure, they can approach MSF and we will advise them on the best approach to take in relation to that particular case. This already happens on the ground and will remain so, going forward.
I now move to Ms Sylvia Lim’s question on whether a complaint against a donee or deputy should be made to the Director of Social Welfare under the Bill, or to the Public Guardian under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).
The Bill overlaps with the MCA in that both protect vulnerable adults who lack mental capacity. But both Bill and the Act complement each other and strengthen the protection afforded to these vulnerable adults. The Vulnerable Adults Bill allows the state to intervene swiftly to assess and remove a vulnerable adult to safety and apply for the necessary Court orders to ensure his protection. The MCA then allows the Office of the Public Guardian to intervene, by applying to Court if the powers of the vulnerable adult’s donee or deputy need to be suspended or revoked to prevent further abuse of the adult and, if necessary, another deputy brought in, or a professional deputy, as the case may be. Where such incidents occur, it actually does not really quite matter to whom the complaint about the donee or deputy was made. MSF, including our APS and the Office of the Public Guardian, will have to assess each complaint holistically before determining the next steps.
Ms Thanaletchimi asked if there is any conflict between the MCA and the Bill. Let me clarify that under the Bill, a doctor or dentist may administer the medical or dental treatment to a vulnerable adult, despite the existence of an appointed donee or deputy, if the doctor or dentist is of the view that such consent from the deputy or donee cannot be obtained within a reasonable time; or that such consent is unreasonably withheld by the donee or deputy. While a donee or deputy appointed under the MCA can give or withhold consent to treat a vulnerable adult, the MCA actually already allows for doctors or dentists to override the donee’s or deputy’s decision. This occurs when the person providing healthcare reasonably believes that treatment is necessary to prevent serious deterioration of the adult's condition.
A similar principle now applies in the Bill. MSF has sought to limit a deputy’s or donee’s powers to consent or refuse treatment for the vulnerable adult under the Bill, as there may be situations where the donee or deputy cannot be contacted in time, or – and this is pertinent – the donee or deputy is the abuser of the vulnerable adult and, thus, out of fear or some other reason, may refuse to give consent to treatment. In such situations, we have allowed for treatment to be administered, as withholding treatment would, in such circumstances, go against the best interests of the vulnerable adult.
Mr Louis Ng asked how the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA) will operate in relation to the Bill. Not all vulnerable adults will fall under MHCTA.
First, not all vulnerable adults suffer from mental disorders. Some of the vulnerable adults that APS sees today may only suffer from physical disability or infirmity but not mental disorder.
Second, not all vulnerable adults should be admitted to a psychiatric institution when found to be suffering from ill-treatment or neglect. Some, with mental disorders, may benefit more from living in a gazetted care facility or with a fit person, and may even be able to live alone, as these arrangements may better meet their care needs. Again, it is very specific to the individual's case. Others may actually be able to live alone and just require protection from the perpetrator. In such cases, a protection order may be applied for to ensure the vulnerable adult’s safety.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the interface between the Vulnerable Adults Bill and the Women’s Charter. The Women’s Charter protects individuals of all ages from violence committed by family members. In cases of family violence, individuals can apply for a protection order against the perpetrator under the Women’s Charter. But we recognise that there may be situations where victims of family violence, after prolonged or intense abuse, may become physically or mentally incapacitated, or both. The Bill will be invoked as these victims may no longer be able to protect themselves. As I have mentioned earlier, the public as well as community agencies can approach MSF and we will review all reports holistically.
Ms Joan Pereira raised the issue of caregiver support. I agree with her that caregiver support is important. Caregivers can face tremendous stress caring for vulnerable family members and, indeed, family matters which involve family violence and abuse are not always black-and-white. In the case of Sam, which I described earlier, the vulnerable adult is a 29-year-old man who is both a victim but, in a way, also the cause of the tremendous stress on the part of his father.
Let me briefly sketch out the options available for caregivers, and I encourage all Members of this House to return to your communities and help share this information to those who need it. For caregivers of vulnerable seniors, they can reach out to the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) as they provide coordinated support to families with vulnerable adults and help them to access care services and schemes. Caregivers can call AIC's Silver Line, 1800-650-6060. This is the AIC's Silver Line for information on referrals to services. Caregivers can also approach the AICareLinks at hospitals and their office at Maxwell Road. These are one-stop resource centres for caregivers to get information and advice on the appropriate services for their loved ones. There are several support services that the Government has put in place for vulnerable adults and their caregivers.
First, we have centre-based care services where seniors can receive care during the day. This includes day care, dementia day care and day rehabilitation services.
Second, respite care options are also available so that caregivers can take a break. They can opt to send their family members to eldercare centres for a few hours on weekends so that caregivers can recharge. For caregivers who need a slightly longer break of several days to a few weeks, they can tap on nursing home respite care.
Third, the Caregivers Training Grant supports caregivers, including foreign domestic workers, to enhance their caregiving skills.
Fourth, Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concessions are also available for those who need to hire a domestic helper at home.
For caregivers of persons with disabilities, they can also reach out to SG Enable.
Support for caregivers range from day care to long-term residential care. They include the Drop-in Disability Programme – these are centres located within the community that provide social activities to higher functioning persons with disabilities who are able to travel to the centre independently for a few half-day sessions per week. Day Activity Centres (DACs), which are day programmes to equip persons with disabilities with daily and community living skills and provide care relief for caregivers. Adult Disability Hostels (ADHs) are available as alternative housing arrangements for adults with disabilities who do not require institutional care but are unable to live with their families. And VWO Transport Subsidies are also available for persons with disabilities who need to take dedicated transport provided by VWOs to access care services.
Sir, the effectiveness of Singapore’s adult protection framework is dependent on the strength of our family units in Singapore and the support of the community. Mr Henry Kwek asked how we can better stay in touch with vulnerable adults. MSF remains committed to working with families and community partners to build capabilities and competencies to support vulnerable adults and to detect abuse or neglect. Therefore, while we seek to operationalise the Bill, the Government has already been working on strengthening the social-health integration framework.
First, as part of SG Cares, MSF will strengthen the role and capabilities of our Social Service Offices (SSOs) over the next five years. We will build even tighter networks with Government agencies, FSCs, SSOs, VWOs and other community partners to improve work processes and share information relating to the needs of our seniors and persons with disability that will help close the gaps in the adult protection landscape.
Second, MSF has transferred our functions under the Senior Cluster Networks, such as the Senior Activity Centres (SACs), Cluster Support, Caring Assistance from Neighbours (CANs) and other programmes, such as befriending services, over to MOH. This will allow MOH to bring a host of preventive health and healthcare services that will twin the social support provided by the SACs to seniors in rental precincts and studio apartments. These include exercises and nutritional programmes, chronic and functional screening, as well as nursing posts set up at the SACs to help seniors better manage their health conditions.
Third, with the merger of the Silver Generation Office (SGO) with AIC, SGO has trained our Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to proactively reach out to, and identify both social as well as health risks and needs among our elderly, and encourage seniors to step out of their homes to participate in preventive health screening and active ageing programmes to draw them away from social isolation.
Fourth, MOH will expand the Community Network for Seniors island-wide. Through this effort, AIC links up different Government agencies and community partners to sew up care across both the health and social domains for seniors, especially those living alone. In particular, AIC works with various community-based organisations and grassroots organisations to recruit and train befrienders to look out for seniors living alone in the community. Where SGAs or grassroots leaders identify vulnerable seniors, AIC will coordinate both social and health support from various Government agencies and community partners to help them and, there, the SSOs and the Silver Generation officers will work very closely on the ground in the local communities. This includes financial assistance, aged care services and health services. Similarly, if persons with disabilities are identified to have unmet needs, they will be linked up to the relevant agencies, such as SG Enable.
Finally, the social care and health care aspects of aged care have become integrated to support seniors, especially those who are frail and/or have weak social support. For example, MOH has integrated home and day care packages, as well as home medical, home nursing, home therapy and home personal care services, to support seniors more holistically so that they can age in place. MOH has also expanded senior care centres into Active Ageing Hubs (AAHs) which not only provide day care and day rehabilitation to frail seniors but also seek to engage seniors who are healthy in active ageing programmes. With this framework in place, the Government will be able to tap on the skills and the networks in different sectors to ensure a more robust support system is in place for vulnerable individuals.
Mr Henry Kwek called for a stronger push for LPA adoption to prepare our society for potential loss of mental capacity. I agree. The Office of the Public Guardian has embarked on a Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) exercise precisely to enable us to be future-ready in protecting our seniors who may lose mental capacity. One key objective is to see how we can move towards universal adoption of LPAs in a citizen-centric yet efficient manner and adopting a life stage approach. An interagency workgroup has been formed to do this, and will consult the public and stakeholders, and I will ask the workgroup to work and study Mr Kwek's ideas further.
Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that MSF look into streamlining the application process of deputyship to make it less costly and to make it more expeditious. The Family Justice Courts, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and MSF had convened the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System (RERF) in January this year. One of the tasks that we have assigned them is to see how the deputyship application can be made simpler, more affordable and accessible, especially for straightforward and uncontested cases. More details will be provided when the Committee finalises its recommendations.
We will also continue exploring ways to ensure that the vulnerable among us are supported. Where eligible, a vulnerable adult could be supported under the Community Kin pilot, where VWOs can apply for a Court order to manage small and specific sums of an adult’s money for his day-to-day needs. This will enable the vulnerable adult to remain in the community with assistance from existing care networks, rather than have to be prematurely institutionalised.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Louis Ng have asked why it took three years for the Bill to be introduced. This Bill involves intrusive statutory intervention in the realm of family and personal matters, so we did not want to rush this. Indeed, as a Member has pointed out – was it Assoc Prof Daniel Goh – this Bill heralds more conversations in the future about the extent to which external state power should be brought into the realm of the family to enable, intervene and support. So, this is not just a Bill that involves operational details. It does involve quite a lot of that. But also very fundamental questions that we have to debate both internally and with our stakeholders. We had to consult our stakeholders extensively and review how past cases were handled to see where the law needed to come in. We also studied overseas jurisdictions.
In drawing up the Bill, we had detailed discussions with public agencies and community partners, such as our FVSCs, FSCs, SSOs, hospitals, the Police, the Courts and so on, on implementation, on SOPs – and work is still in progress on that front – capabilities, resourcing and training, not to mention the philosophical discussions that we have to have with various partners who are concerned about whether the Bill was sufficiently interventionist or whether it is overly intrusive. And, of course, during all this time, it was not the case that vulnerable adults were not supported and abuse left unattended. Social work intervention by our FSCs, FVSCs, SSC Cluster support, our APS, RPG, Office of the Public Guardian, AIC and the Police continues, as they have always been doing. With this Bill, we hope to be able to add on to that framework with the suite of powers that we are seeking your support on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while the Government invests efforts to strengthen the adult protection framework, we will only succeed in protecting vulnerable members if we work with our stakeholder and the wider community. I thank Members and I seek your support for this piece of legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have a clarification for the Minister about his earlier explanation about why the cut-off age for the purposes of this Bill is set at 18. I think he mentioned that the Government is reviewing raising the age in the Children and Young Persons' Act from 16 to 18. I would like to have his confirmation as to whether this decision, in principle, has already been decided that it will be done, that the age will be raised from 16 to 18, or is the Government still thinking about whether this should be done.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for the question. We want to ensure that there is seamless protection for both children and vulnerable adults. The CYPA is being reviewed for a range of possible amendments, including this increment of the age to close that gap. And this is something that we will do.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.
Mr Seah Kian Peng: Just a clarification for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in response to my suggestion for mandatory reporting that overseas jurisdictions showed that there was a case that when you have that, it leads to over-reporting. I concede that could happen. But why I proposed that was because I felt it is better to err on the side of caution. If there is no mandatory reporting, we will suffer the other consequence that there will be under-reporting. I also note that the Minister said, therefore, he is relying more on whistleblowing. That being the case, I would urge the Minister and the Ministry to really step up so that this whistleblowing awareness is a lot heightened because I am worried that under-reporting will lead to real consequences for the vulnerable adults.
Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member. Indeed, as I have said earlier, a mandatory scheme was, indeed, considered by MSF. We discussed this with our partners. There was considerable concern by professionals as to the efficacy and necessity of a mandatory reporting scheme. So, we adopted this where we strengthen and expand our network of care. Just like in child protection and adult protection, you also have to rely on a wide range of partners, both the community services, as well as professionals in healthcare and elsewhere that we share with them the importance of reporting suspected cases of abuse, that we guide them on what to look out for. As I have said earlier, there is a child abuse reporting guide.
We will do the same for adult abuse, neglect and self-neglect so as to uplift the capabilities and awareness of all our frontline stakeholders who are nodal points in this important community-based network to look out for vulnerable adults and children. So, let us put this whistleblower framework in place. Let us continue to strengthen our partners' awareness and their understanding that this is actually a very important role that they have to play in addition to the primary function, whatever that may be, and let us see if we can identify more cases that might be previously invisible. But as I have said, for now, we are not going to implement a mandatory scheme. But let us look at it in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.
Ms Chia Yong Yong: Sir, I seek two clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, in relation to the financial protection of vulnerable adults, the Minister mentioned that he is considering certain steps to be taken. So, I would like to understand a little more about what steps will be taken. Will the Government also be prepared to look into amendments and steps to overturn even established principles of law, such as presumption of advancement and so on, for the protection of vulnerable elderly persons?
My second clarification relates again to the definitions which I had earlier submitted were far too narrow. The Minister clarified that by scoping the definitions, there is greater clarity for the exercise of the powers by the Director. On the other hand, the scoping of the definitions also means that the Director may be less able to exercise discretion. So, I would like to know how the Director would be able to balance considerations of protection and also in relation to applications for expedited orders.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Member had given some very useful ideas at the last Motion debate on seniors. If I recall, there were five ideas that the Member had raised. We are studying each and every one of them. Members, over the course of debates in the last few years, have also raised concerns about financial abuse of the elderly and abuse of parents financially. This is something that we continue to look at.
There are existing frameworks, such as the Commissioner of Maintenance of Parents and the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. We are looking at all possibilities. It is a complex matter. Members who come across cases where even though an elderly constituent comes to tell you that he has been financially abused, when you offer some suggestions, they would not want to act on them. They want your listening ear. They do not want services to come in, they do not want you to report to the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents. They do not want the FSCs to get involved. It is a complex family and personal matter. But it is not a trivial matter, and I am sure Members will continue to look at possible solutions.
As to the point about whether long-established principles we are prepared to overturn, we will look at what can work and what will be acceptable.
The other question is about the scoping of definitions. Indeed, the Member has articulated that kind of balance we have had to strike between on the one hand having clarity and giving assurance that these interventionist powers will be limited to a very clearly defined scope and, on the other hand, always fearing that if you scope things too definitively and do not have discretion, for example, if the definition does not say \"it includes\" but it is not definitive, it includes other things as well, that you might just miss that opportunity to act in that one right case as it is. We want the best of both worlds actually. But I think we have drafted the definitions with sufficient breadth and yet need to assure the community and members of the public that there will be some clear definition that we operate on. So, let us develop experience operationalising these powers and then we can continue to review whether there are gaps that need to be plugged in the future.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.17 pm
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics and Profiles of Private Hire Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many private hire drivers are there as at 31 March 2018; (b) what is the gender/race/age profile of these drivers; (c) what is the number of full-time private hire drivers; and (d) what is the number of drivers who are doing it on an ad hoc basis.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: As of 31 March 2018, there are approximately 54,000 private hire car drivers. More than 90% of them are male. About 70% of the drivers are Chinese, 17% are Malays, 8% are Indians and 5% are Others. About half the drivers are between 20 and 39 years old; 40% between 40 and 59; and the rest between 60 and 74. We do not have the breakdown between drivers who drive full-time, and those who drive on an ad-hoc basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation on Statutory Rape and Sexual Misconduct Involving Minors, Children and Young Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
2 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Law (a) whether current legislation regarding statutory rape and sexual misconduct involving minors, children or young persons will be enhanced in light of the recent cases involving persons known to the victims; and (b) whether current legislation has sufficiently accounted for the increasing use of online platforms for the sexual grooming and engaging of unsuspecting victims.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have provisions in the Penal Code, Children and Young Persons Act, and Women's Charter that cover sexual offences against children and young people. For example, rape of a woman under 14 carries a mandatory minimum of eight years' imprisonment, and a maximum of 20 years. There is also mandatory caning of not less than 12 strokes.
As part of the ongoing Penal Code Review, we are reviewing these laws and seeking to enhance protection for such vulnerable persons.
To the Member's second question, sexual grooming of a minor under 16 is currently criminalised under section 376E of the Penal Code. This offence is also being reviewed, and we are also looking to enhance protection for minors against online communications of a sexual nature.
The proposals from the Penal Code Review will be tabled for public consultation later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Permits for Public Assemblies Issued under Public Order Act in 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with respect to the over 900 permits for public assemblies issued under the Public Order Act in 2017 (a) what proportion of permits related to events held at Speakers' Corner as opposed to events at other venues; (b) whether there have been any permits issued for outdoor assemblies at venues other than Speakers' Corner and, if so, what has been the nature of these assemblies; and (c) for the permits granted for events at Speakers' Corner, what are the reasons for requiring a permit for those events.
Mr K Shanmugam: Of the over 900 Police permits issued for public assemblies in 2017, only one was for a public assembly at Speakers' Corner.
The rest were for public assemblies held elsewhere. Eight hundred and thirty-five of them were outdoor events. These events were mostly religious celebrations, and constituency events organised by grassroots organisations. Under the Public Order Act, a Police permit is required for a public assembly if the purpose of the gathering is to:
(a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any persons, group of persons or any government;
(b) publicise a cause or campaign; or
(c) mark or commemorate any event.
As for Speakers' Corner, there were 40 public events held there in 2017. A Police permit is not required if the event meets the conditions set out in the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2016.
The one event in 2017 at Speakers' Corner where a Police permit was granted was a public assembly to promote awareness on breastfeeding. The event involved the participation of foreigners, which is against one of the exemption conditions. The Police granted a permit after assessing the event in totality, including that it did not promote a cause that was political, controversial or divisive in nature.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inmates Who Go through Divorce Proceedings during Incarceration or after Release","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the past three years (a) how many inmates go through divorce proceedings while in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, or while undergoing incarceration under the Long-Term Imprisonment 1 and Long-Term Imprisonment 2 regimes respectively; (b) how many go through divorce proceedings within two years of release respectively; and (c) what is the recidivism rate of inmates who have undergone divorce during incarceration and following release respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) does not maintain records of inmates undergoing divorce proceedings, nor after they are released.
Regardless of marital status, inmates undergo programmes based on their risk of re-offending and their needs. These include family programmes to address transitional issues for inmates and their families, and to equip them with knowledge and skills that will help strengthen their relationships with each other. More than 4,000 inmates benefited from family programmes in 2017. SPS aims to work with community partners to extend family programmes to more inmates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects below 16 Years of Age","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether he can provide an update on the Appropriate Adult Scheme for young suspects below 16 years of age; (b) what is the current number of volunteers under the scheme; (c) whether the scheme is implemented at all Police divisions; and (d) what is the number of times a volunteer has been called upon under this scheme since April 2017.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects was launched in phases from April 2017. During the pilot phase, from April 2017 to April 2018, Appropriate Adults were activated to provide emotional support to young suspects investigated by the Police and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) at Bedok Division, by the Police's Criminal Investigation Department, and by CNB's Investigation Division.
Feedback from investigation officers and Appropriate Adults has been positive. Since April 2018, the scheme has been expanded to cover Police and CNB cases investigated at Clementi, Central and Tanglin Divisions, as well as cases investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and Singapore Customs. With this expansion, the scheme is expected to support about half of all young suspects investigated by the Police and CNB. The full rollout is expected to be completed in mid-2019.
The Singapore Children's Society (SCS) manages the scheme and is responsible for recruiting, training and deploying Appropriate Adults. There are currently 408 Appropriate Adults, and they have been activated about 690 times since April 2017.
Volunteers have to undergo a day-long training session by SCS. The training is supported by the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, the Law Society of Singapore, Attorney-General's Chambers, Singapore Police Force, CNB, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Council of Social Service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Effects from Exposure to Phthalates and Plasticizers Linked to Hormone Disruption and Reproductive Harm","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry monitors health effects from exposure to phthalates and plasticizers that are linked to hormone disruption and reproductive harm, particularly in male infants; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider putting in place regulations for consumer goods that contain harmful plasticizers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Phthalates are common substances added to plastics to improve their flexibility and durability. The Ministry of Health does not routinely monitor the health effects from exposure to phthalates among male infants, but we monitor global data and studies on the impact of exposure to phthalates on an ongoing basis. The findings of some studies have suggested that there is some potential for harm in humans, particularly when ingested, although the evidence is not conclusive. Nevertheless, Singapore has established regulations, based on international standards, to reduce exposure to phthalates as a precautionary measure.
Enterprise Singapore regulates the use of phthalates in general consumer goods under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Goods Safety Requirements) Regulations (CGSR). The Regulations are aligned with applicable international, regional or national safety standards, and Enterprise Singapore monitors compliance through post-market surveillance. Additional regulatory requirements are imposed for toys and childcare articles in particular, including that on allowable concentrations of specified phthalates.
The Health Sciences Authority administers the Health Products (Cosmetic Products – ASEAN Cosmetic Directive) Regulations and bans the use of plasticizers that are harmful to consumers in cosmetic products.
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore administers the Food Regulations to ensure the safety of plastic food packaging, including plastic milk bottles. Through routine surveillance, any food with phthalate amounts above allowable limits would not be allowed for sale.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Entities Knowingly Investing in Corporations in Businesses Harmful to Health or Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government has set any restrictions on Government entities knowingly investing in corporations whose main business activity is harmful to health or the environment, such as those in the tobacco products industry.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Government entities, that is, Ministries and Statutory Boards, set up or own companies to achieve specific public policy purposes. Examples include Public Hospitals which provide healthcare services and the Employment and Employability Institute which supports the training and placement of workers and jobseekers. Such corporate entities will not engage in activities that are harmful to health or the environment.
The Government's investments are done mainly through the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek. As has been explained previously, GIC and Temasek operate on a commercial basis in order to maximise long-term risk-adjusted returns. Their individual investment decisions are independent of the Government. While the Government does not prescribe how GIC and Temasek invest, both emphasise sustainability in their investment activities. Both recognise that good sustainability practices are good for business and can have a positive impact on long-term returns. Conversely, companies with poor sustainability practices carry business and reputational risks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Economic Restructuring Strategies to Deal with Rapid Change in Technology, Deglobalisation and Protectionism","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is a need to review our economic restructuring strategies in view of the rapid change in technology, increased risk of deglobalisation and protectionism so as to continue strengthening our competitiveness.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) had identified the key global and structural shifts, as well as rapid technological changes and growing sentiments against globalisation that would impact us, in developing a comprehensive set of recommendations to guide our economic strategy for the next five to 10 years. Given this, our key economic restructuring efforts will be centred on strengthening enterprise capabilities, building strong digital capabilities, deepening the skills of Singaporeans, and continuing to work together with other economies to stay open and connected, build stronger links, and collaborate closely to boost growth and competitiveness.
One of the recommendations of the CFE was the development of Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), which are industry-specific roadmaps that organise our economic restructuring efforts. The ITMs were developed through an integrated and coordinated tripartite approach that brought together key stakeholders. We have since launched ITMs for each of the 23 ITM sectors, which together cover 80% of the Singapore economy. Each ITM is tailored to the opportunities, needs and challenges of specific sectors. Some sectors, such as those in the Manufacturing and Modern Services clusters will focus on growth and strengthening their competitive edge, while other sectors, such as those in the Lifestyle and Built Environment clusters, will be transforming for higher productivity and better jobs. There will be bright spots within every sector.
The ITMs are dynamic plans that will be updated to respond to changes in the economic environment. We will continue to monitor the progress of our ITMs, refining strategies where necessary to ensure they stay relevant as new trends emerge.
Ultimately, the success of our economic restructuring efforts depends on the collective efforts of all stakeholders. Besides the Government, which will serve as an enabler to support this transformation, our trade association and chambers and unions also have a key role to galvanise firms of every size, and mobilise workers in every sector, to be part of this transformation journey. Our companies need to reconsider the way they operate and compete, and how they partner one another to sustain competitiveness and create good jobs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US Tariffs on Singapore Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the tariffs imposed by the US on solar panels, washing machines, steel and aluminium have any impact on the Singapore economy; (b) what is the estimated impact on businesses; and (c) how will it affect our economic strategy.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The United States (US) announced a series of safeguard measures in the form of tariffs on solar panels and washing machines under section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act in January 2018, as well as steel and aluminium under section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act in March 2018.
In 2017, Singapore's domestic exports to the US were S$228.9 million for solar cells and modules, and S$36,000 for washing machines. Domestic exports to the US totalled S$4.6 million for steel, and S$7.1 million for aluminium. In aggregate, these exports made up 1.4% of Singapore’s total domestic exports to the US, and a smaller 0.09% of Singapore’s total domestic exports to the world.
The US tariffs have the effect of making the prices of these products more expensive to US importers, which may reduce their demand for overseas products. Given the modest share that the products affected by the US tariffs have as a percentage of Singapore's total domestic exports, the direct negative impact of the US tariffs on the Singapore economy is limited.
Nonetheless, we are closely monitoring developments on these safeguard measures, which do impact some companies in Singapore. Singapore has registered our concerns with the relevant US departments and consulted with the US on possible exemption from the safeguard measures.
As a small and open economy, having free and connected markets is critical for Singapore. It is important that Singapore and like-minded partners uphold the rules-based multilateral trading system and ensure that such safeguard measures do not become entrenched and turn into barriers to trade.
Even as Singapore continues to build stronger links and collaborate closely with our trading partners to boost growth and create jobs, we will continue to safeguard our trade interests and resist protectionist practices which could disrupt the flow of global commerce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Subsidised and Non-subsidised Rental Flats in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of subsidised and non-subsidised rental flats in Singapore; (b) what is the distribution in terms of 1-room, 2-room, 3-room and 4-room and above flats; (c) how many Singaporeans are currently living in subsidised rental flats; and (d) what is the gender/race/age profile of those living in subsidised rental flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) currently manages about 60,600 subsidised rental flats under three schemes:
(a) The Public Rental Scheme, for Singapore Citizen (SC) households which have no other housing options or family support;
(b) Interim Rental Housing, for SC families which are in financial hardship and require urgent temporary accommodation; and
(c) The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS), mainly for first-timer families which are awaiting the completion of their new flats.
HDB does not rent out non-subsidised flats.
The distribution of subsidised rental flats by flat type is in Table 1, and the details requested about the households living in these flats are in Tables 2 to 4.
11 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the current sex education curriculum adequately equips students with the knowledge to protect themselves against predatory sexual behaviours; (b) whether there are plans to engage and involve parents to introduce appropriate sex education content at home; (c) what is the number of cases involving statutory rape and predatory sexual behaviours that have been reported through schools over the last five years; (d) whether teachers are adequately trained to identify students who are victims of such sexual misconduct; and (e) how are such reported cases being dealt with.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have a carefully planned curriculum, starting from lower primary and to upper secondary, to impart to our students the awareness and skills to protect themselves against sexual exploitation and abuse.
For example, in lower primary, students are taught how to differentiate between a good and bad touch; in upper primary, they learn things like how to protect themselves from sexual advances, setting clear physical boundaries in a relationship, and the double-edged nature of the Internet. In secondary school, they learn more about the usefulness and dangers of cyberspace, dealing with relationships, and differentiating between healthy relationship and sexual grooming and so on.
All these aim towards inculcating in our students a strong sense of the right to be treated with respect, to protect themselves, to not feel guilty or shame if they are victims, and seek help and counsel.
Parents, too, play a key role in their children's sexuality education. The schools support parents with information on what their children are learning about sexuality and also offer parenting advice on how to initiate discussions on sexuality issues at home. We encourage parents to be open in discussing their beliefs and values, and being available to guide their children on sexuality matters.
We understand the Member is concerned about this issue and wishes to know the number of cases of sexual offences every year. Our numbers are low by international standards. We monitor the numbers but have not been releasing them. Instead, we are raising awareness through education, counsel and advice in schools and within families.
Our teachers are trained to look out for signs of distress in students and refer them to the school counsellors or other professional support when necessary. Suspected cases of statutory rape and predatory sexual behaviours involving a parent, carer or other household member are reported to the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Child Protection Service. When cases involve non-household members, parents will be advised to report to the Police. If parents refuse to do so, the schools will make the report. However, it is sometimes difficult for schools to track such cases as parents may not keep the schools informed, and the outcomes of the Police investigation may not be made known to schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Companies Applying for WorkPro Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies have applied for WorkPro since its introduction in 2013; (b) whether there has been an increase in the number of applications after the introduction of the enhanced scheme in 2016; and (c) whether there are any reviews of the age management practices, redesigned work places and processes and/or flexible work arrangements implemented by the companies after the disbursement of the grant.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under WorkPro, companies can receive funding support to (a) implement age management practices through the Age Management Grant (AMG); (b) redesign workplaces and processes to create easier, safer and smarter jobs for older workers through the Job Redesign Grant (JRG); and (c) introduce and sustain use of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) through the Work-Life Grant (WLG).
From 2013 to 2017, over 3,400 companies employing about 368,000 workers have benefited from WorkPro grants.
We have continuously enhanced the WorkPro scheme. In 2016, we raised the maximum grant for the JRG from $150,000 to $300,000 per company to further facilitate job redesign efforts. To encourage more capability development projects to incorporate the requirements of older workers, JRG can be applied as a rider on top of other Government grants. Since the enhancement, and with additional efforts to promote the scheme, the number of companies that benefited from the JRG has increased from about 30 a year to about 440 a year.
WorkPro funding is only disbursed when we are satisfied that the company has achieved the corresponding grant deliverables and is able to demonstrate the impact to their employees. Companies claiming for the AMG and JRG are required to submit evaluations of how projects undertaken have created a positive impact on their older employees. Similarly, under the WLG, companies claiming the Developmental Grant are required to submit evaluation reports on their FWA pilot projects, in addition to formalising these FWAs in the companies' human resource policy to be offered to all other employees. The FWA Incentive is disbursed to companies after their employees have regularly used FWAs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Persons Employed in Accounts and Bookkeeping","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower for each year from 2012 to 2017, how many persons have been employed in the respective occupations of (i) accounting associate professional, (ii) bookkeeper, (iii) ledger and accounts clerk, (iv) audit clerk, (v) payroll/wages clerk, (vi) billing clerk, (vii) procurement/purchasing clerk and (viii) other accounting clerks.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The table below shows the number of residents who have been employed as (i) Accounting Associate Professionals and (ii) Accounting and Bookkeeping Clerks, which comprise the following occupations:
(a) Bookkeeper;
(b) Ledger and accounts clerk;
(c) Audit clerk;
(d) Payroll/wages clerk;
(e) Billing clerk;
(f) Procurement/purchasing clerk; and
(g) Other accounting clerks
A further breakdown by these occupations is not available, as we have not captured a sufficient number of observations in our sample to enable us to provide a meaningful estimate of their employment size.
14 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the current number of children and youths under 21 who are currently residing within various children's homes, shelters and other welfare homes, and whether this number has increased or decreased over the years.
Mr Desmond Lee: As of 31 December 2017, there were about 700 children and youths residing in Homes licensed under the Children and Young Persons Act (CYP Homes). This number has decreased over the years, because we are transforming the out-of-home care sector so that more children are placed in foster care rather than homes and institutions.
In contrast to the licensed CYP Homes, shelters and welfare homes serve different target groups. Shelters are intended for adults who have exhausted all other means of accommodation or those who face family violence, while welfare homes are intended for destitute persons who are unable to work, have no financial means and do not have accommodation and family support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":22,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular for Mr Desmond Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180518/vernacular-Desmond Lee VA Bill 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Desmond Lee VA Bill 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":23,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular for Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180518/vernacular-Sun Xueling Motion Pre 18 May 2018 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Motion Pre 18 May 2018 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":24,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular for Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180518/vernacular-Joan Pereira Motion Pre 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Motion Pre 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":25,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular for Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180518/vernacular-18 May 2018 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Motion of Thanks to President.pdf","fileName":"18 May 2018 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - Motion of Thanks to President.pdf"},{"vernacularID":26,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular for Mr Heng Swee Keat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20180518/vernacular-Heng Swee Keat Motion Pre 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Heng Swee Keat Motion Pre 18 May 2018-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}