Anthea Ong
Singapore
“Hence, I recommend that the Government reduce the required period for involuntary no pay leave or duration of income loss from three consecutive months to one month and allow individuals with no bank account and daily-rated or ad hoc workers to be eligible for CSG.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Low for her response. I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could answer my question. Should there be a mechanism to make companies that are unaffected by or even profiting from the crisis return their JSS payouts? That is one.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Could I then ask if MOH has the intention to increase funding for these community health organisations?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I am very happy to hear that we will be co-investing in these start-ups. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if there is a plan in this co-investing to take equity or is that in the form of grants?”
“Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,851,670,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates.(proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,710,800,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary De…”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $1,063,442,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Main Estimates. (proc text)]”
The complete record
Every one of 393 lines we hold for Anthea Ong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“The third is to all the Ministers and also, since the Prime Minister is here, is will the Government consider issuing an apology to the migrant workers, given the dismal conditions that they are currently in, because of the conditions of dormitories and all the other conditions, and especially now that they are in complete lockdown for the sake and safety of Singaporeans?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a question for the Minister for Health and then two questions for the other Ministers. To Minister Gan, I understand that there is a lot of concern regarding the mental well-being and mental health of the migrant workers. And I also understand that for all the 43 purpose-built dorms (PBDs), there is already an on-site medical team in place. So, is the Minister planning to mandate that within this medical team, that there would be at least a mental health professional in the form of a counsellor or a psychologist with the medical team? With regard to the factory-converted dormitories, which clearly are more dispersed, teleconsultation is being used to support the physical health needs of the migrant workers. Is the Minister looking to also include psychological services through these teleconsultation support? The other two questions, the first which I actually highlighted in my Parliamentary Question. I agree with Minister Lawrence Wong that this is clearly a colossal task at hand, so it is not the time to look into a review. Anyway, the crisis is still on-going. But would the Ministers assure Singapore and our migrant workers that a Commission of Inquiry would be appointed when we are out of the eye of the storm and when that would be likely, so that we can be committed to making the structural changes needed and be better prepared for the next epidemic or pandemic. We know that the experts are saying it is not a "if", it is a "when". I think this is especially so given that the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act (FEDA) provides very explicitly for quarantine preparation and testing. So, we have learned that that legislative provision may or may not be enough.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response to my question for tomorrow. Could I actually ask two supplementary questions which are really relating to the questions I had in my Parliamentary Question. Do we have any idea how many of the homeless persons have actually been booked by the Police under the Destitute Persons Act since the start of the circuit breaker? Also, how are we ensuring that the COVID-19 relief measures that we have put out actually reach these homeless persons as well? Because in the sense that they are actually on the streets, how would we actually reach out to them to make sure that they are also coming forward to obtain their relief measures?”
“I have a question and I do not know whether it should go to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Lawrence Wong or Minister Desmond Lee. I mentioned that in my speech about my concerns for the rental flat communities in terms of the overcrowding, especially given how we have been alerted to the danger of infection with overcrowding in the clusters that we found in dormitories. Can I ask one of the Ministers to share what measures are put in place to support our rental flat communities, given how cramped their quarters are as well, especially during this circuit breaker month?”
“You must not pour from an empty cup, because the work you do is important for us, for Singapore. Sir, I support the Supplementary Budgets.”
“"All of us are only as strong as our weakest link", said Prime Minister Lee at the Extraordinary Virtual G20 Leaders' Summit. Indeed, unity is strength, yet inequality is our weakest link in this fight against COVID-19 and to our future as a strong, united Singapore. The short-term measures announced in the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets are essential. Our reserves are meant exactly for times like these. But we must not let a good crisis go to waste. We must boldly address the structural inequalities in wage and housing conditions that are clear and present, made more exigent by this crisis – because Adam and Angie are part of our own – as we must, too, with supporting the mental health of our people in a strategic and comprehensive manner through and beyond this crisis. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not what happened to us but what we choose to become because of the crisis that will define us as a Government, as a people and as individuals. If we pause and think about all that is going on, it is rather humbling to know how the tiniest of a living organism that cannot even be seen by the naked eye has such power to change us for the better by making us face our fears and flaws so that we can finally see who we are and who we are to each other. It is up to us to choose how this horror suspense movie will end for us as a nation, because this, too, shall pass, and when it does, a more mentally resilient and equal Singapore must and will be what becomes of us. Before I conclude, I want to thank every healthcare worker, civil servant, social worker, community practitioner, volunteer and everyone who has worked tirelessly and selflessly to support fellow Singaporeans and residents affected by COVID-19. But please do take care of your mental well-being.”
“Risk of community spread is also high. Their home opens into an enclosed corridor, along which several other families live. Neighbours' children run all around. Infection risk is simply a logical consequence of overcrowding. There is moderate to strong evidence of association between crowded housing and the risk of acquiring respiratory infectious diseases. There are at least 1,425 households where five persons or more are crammed into a 1-room flat. Many more live in 2-room flats. Such crowded living conditions create a ripe environment for infection which in turn could spread to the wider community. The World Health Organization strongly recommends that national strategies be developed and implemented to prevent and reduce household crowding. That includes a national definition of overcrowding. Our vulnerable families should be housed in flats with features to protect public health such as ventilated corridors, rooms to enable distancing and separate elevators serving different floors. Mr Deputy Speaker, the COVID-19 dormitory clusters should alert us to the danger of overcrowding in a pandemic. I wish to record my deep concern regarding the isolation of 20,000 of our migrant workers in these cramped facilities. This must not become the "Diamond Princess" on our shores. Alternative and more favourable living arrangements in spaces freed up from the circuit breaker measures must be urgently considered to avoid a large-scale tragedy of infected cases and mortality. We must re-home our most vulnerable in conducive spaces. We may not be able to do that for all during this crisis but we can do it in time for the next, and our people will be more resilient for it.”
“Instead, MSF officers could be given the power to investigate end-users whom they suspect are abusing the system. As SSOs struggle with the crunch, families who need their ComCare assistance reviewed will be stuck in financial limbo. I propose extending the TRF and COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) to all these families to ease their cash flow at this time. More immediate relief can also come in the form of HDB rental waivers till the end of 2020 as well as further rebates to S&CC fees. Food security is another big concern, Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the best efforts from charities. For Singaporeans in the lowest income quintile, 49% of income is spent on food. At the same time, F&B businesses are suffering and the Resilience Budget may be insufficient to prevent the industry from going under. Therefore, just as the Government galvanised a multi-sectoral effort with the hotels to accommodate returning Singaporeans for their 14-day self-isolation, I urge the Government to work with the F&B sector and food delivery companies to provide food to all families like Adam's and Angie's for the period of this crisis as a national response, not a fragmented approach like it is now. This has a double advantage. It ensures absolute food security for our lower income households and frees up household liquidity whilst supporting our local F&B businesses and self-employed delivery riders. Mr Deputy Speaker, this crisis highlights the vulnerability of our rental flat communities – my final point in this speech. The very nature of frontline work like Adam's entails a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. Adam and his family share 20 square metres of living space in a 1-room rental flat. If he is infected through work or job search, his family will not be spared.”
“So, I welcome the change to a longer period of assistance of at least six months from the usual one to four months for ComCare Short to Medium Term Assistance. However, application processing times must also improve. Angie (not her real name) is a widow in her 60s who is unfit to work. For one year, she received ComCare Financial Assistance in short tranches and had to apply for renewal at the end of each tranche whilst waiting up to a month for a reply without financial support. For two whole months, she could not afford food, bus fare or essential medical treatment. If processing times are challenging in normal times, they will reach breaking point at crunch time. More than 60,000 applications have been made for the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF) since applications opened last week. I am relieved that we are exercising flexibility and finally allowing for online applications from this week onwards. In addition to getting help to those who need it fast, we must reduce the administrative load on our Social Service Agencies (SSAs) so that they can focus in supporting Singaporeans affected. Given these priorities, we may have to trade off the luxury of deep-diving every case to test its deservedness. For applicants, this also cuts out the need to apply in-person and prove their suffering over and over again. With that, I would like to make two recommendations. First, make automatic disbursement the norm. The Temporary Relief Fund and COVID-19 Support Grant could be automatically disbursed based on self-declaration or proxy indicators, such as changes in CPF contributions. Second, make help unconditional and reduce the amount of evidence required to prove to MSF that the applicant is struggling.”
“I do not underestimate the imminent cash flow struggle that many Singaporeans face – my own friends and family are treading water. But lower income families will suffer more than most. Adam (not his real name) is a hotel cleaner in his 50s. Because of the crisis, he has had no work since 25 March. Beyond Social Services has reported that their members who are disproportionately engaged in low-paid and precarious forms of work have suffered a sharp drop in household income, or lost their jobs altogether. Families like Adam’s live on the edge. Even in good times, he took home about $1,600 each month. One thousand four hundred dollars went to his wife for groceries and household expenses. That amount is not always enough for them and their four young children. Such want is normal in parts of Singapore. In 2018, about 300,000 residents earned less than $2,000 per month. Household expenses for the average Singaporean household in the lowest income quintile have consistently exceeded income for the last 10 years. Twenty-seven thousand of the poorest households in Singapore have, on average, $246 in savings per household member. Our low-wage workers have always been insecure, and this insecurity will be exacerbated in an economic crisis. Unfortunately, the measures announced are not enough to bail out a low-income household that loses its income, especially for those with several dependants. Based on my calculations quickly, Adam will receive $7,632 through the various schemes, including the $600 Solidarity Payment that was announced today. Mr Deputy Speaker, the estimated household expenditure alone for his family for the rest of 2020 is already in excess of $13,000. Sir, it is for such families that we must provide more assistance, more quickly, and for longer.”
“A Budget should also be set aside without delay to implement public health experts’ recommendations on mental health to avert a further public health crisis. I urge the Government to broadcast through all its publicity channels, practical advice on maintaining mental well-being in various COVID-related situations. The NHS Inform in Scotland dedicates an entire section of their website to this. Guidance should also be published for all employers on supporting their employees’ mental well-being. Sir, this House will recall that I asked MOH at COS to start a national mental health hotline for distress support. I am relieved that Minister Desmond Lee announced the National CARE Hotline yesterday and he mentioned today as well. I hope it will be strategically designed and implemented to continue beyond this crisis. I also repeat my call made at the COS that the Government consider allowing the first mental healthcare consultation for all Singaporeans to be free so as to incentivise help-seeking. We can pilot this during the crisis. We must enable quality mental healthcare and subsidise fees for individuals whose mental health has suffered due to COVID-19, especially for lower income households. More resources must also be funnelled to organisations, such as Samaritans of Singapore, AWARE and Silver Ribbon, whose free counselling services are likely to become strained in the days to come. Last but not least, I urge the Public Services Division to provide the necessary mental health support for all our civil servants and healthcare workers through this intense period. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now move to the impact of the crisis on lower income households and individuals.”
“I was initially alarmed that the Resilience Budget did not allocate any funding and resources to mental healthcare, support and research for this period. I am now slightly relieved that Deputy Prime Minister Heng acknowledged the need for mental health support as part of the national response in the Solidarity Budget announced today. But I do not think we are doing enough. Allow me to elaborate. Pandemics inflict psychological carnage. Pandemics can trigger new psychiatric symptoms even in the healthy. Safe distancing, constant fear and anxiety, the loss of loved ones, job losses, industrial failures will wear down our national psyche. AWARE has received 33% more calls than usual on its Women’s Hotline in the last month, as social isolation measures entrap victims with their abusers. Our senior citizens are left to battle loneliness as community activities cease. A Straits Times report yesterday confirmed that some living with mental illnesses have suffered a relapse or that their conditions have worsened. I also worry for our office-holders and civil servants who bear the weight of spearheading the fight. I read the recent news of the German State Minister’s suicide over COVID-related stress with alarm and sadness. Now, more than ever, we must prioritise mental health support. In fact, a mental health disaster is starting in Wuhan just as the Coronavirus crisis is easing. Prime Minister Lee has said that it might take several years for COVID-19 to run its course. For us, the psychological toll has barely started. Sir, I propose that relevant experts be appointed to join the Multi-Ministry COVID-19 Taskforce to advise the Government on mental health implications and commensurate policy interventions. This proposal has been raised by mental health experts themselves.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to first thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng and everyone in his team at MOF for the immense amount of work they did to make this Supplementary Budget possible within such a tight timeline. For many of us, these first three months of 2020 have felt like a "horror suspense" movie that keeps us anxious and on the edge till the end. Except, we are not watching this movie – we are living it, and we still do not know when is the end and how it would end. Many people – some I know and some I do not – have reached out for help as their lives are turned upside down. An acquaintance almost killed himself last Monday because he has lost all his gigs as an event emcee. A single mother of a young boy, who lives with an elderly mother, has had her salary cut by 50%. Many migrant workers struggle to pay for their daily essentials because there is no more overtime pay to make. Sir, it is hard to fault such a generous Budget trying to avert an economic calamity and save jobs and industry – even lives. Yet, the crisis illuminates long-term cracks that we must address decisively for a good and strong rebound as a nation. Every crisis is an opportunity to observe the cracks, rectify the causes and become more prepared for the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will first spotlight the cracks in two areas. First, mental health of our people in this crisis and, second, low-income households who will bear the brunt of the crisis. I will then raise suggestions from the communities that aim to not only cushion the immediate impact of COVID-19 but also future-proof our social and psychological resilience for a more equal and united people. Mr Deputy Speaker, this House is familiar with my call for mental health to inform our Budget and national policies.”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the assuring response. I have three supplementary questions, if you do not mind. With the new circuit breaker measures, given the closure of Family Violence Specialist Centres and Child Protection Specialist Centres, with limited provision of services, what is the Ministry's plan to ensure that individuals in need of support for such issues continue to receive adequate and timely support, especially given that these centres serve as essential safe spaces for these individuals? The second one is do the MSF services for this issue, such as Adult Protection Services and Child Protection Services, have adequate resources to deal with the potential increase in abuse, violence cases that may increase as individuals now spend a significant amount of time at home and have less access to other possible safe spaces? And will the Minister actually have these services introduce measures to allow individuals in distress to walk in to a safe space? The last supplementary question is I think this crisis, which has caught us off guard, also shown a spotlight on the frontline role of social service agencies (SSAs) and ground-ups who know the needs of the affected communities better and also get to them better. I just want to ask the Minister, I understand there is a lot of anxiety amongst these SSAs and ground-ups, especially the smaller ones, particularly in terms of donations drying up, so could the Minister share with the House what are some of the support measures that we will have for them?”
“Our economy blossomed on the backs of these foreign men and women. We cannot talk about #SGTogether or #SGUnited if we do not include and care for these 1.4 million men and women in the most tangible ways. This Bill is an opportunity for us to ask ourselves the kind of society we want to be. This COVID-19 crisis is also an opportunity for us to dip into our common humanity and ask what is Singapore in Singapore Together? Surely, before we extend financial assistance to individuals who do not need the relief, we should extend it to those who do in our midst?”
“Yet, insufficient or poor quality food remains a top complaint among cases seen at the various migrant support centres. In one case that I know of, the helper was given a pack of rice containing weevils to cook and eat from! If food provided to the workers cannot sustain the physical demands of their labour, we should not be surprised that our migrant workers have to purchase their own food. Yet, like all lower income groups, migrant workers suffer from rising food prices in Singapore. Overall, price of food has increased approximately 7% faster than inflation over the past 10 years. Certain food essentials have become at least 60% more expensive. Mr Speaker, as much as I am also deeply concerned about the low-income households in Singapore, the benefit of GST and public transport vouchers along with other social schemes, such as ComCare, are at least in place to hopefully cushion the impact of inflation and GST. Our migrant workers have no such help. Given their low wages, high debts and rising expenses, coupled with the high-risk nature of their jobs, they worry every day whether they will be able to provide for themselves and their families. Their circumstances leave them vulnerable and deeply stressed on a daily basis – even more so in a crisis like COVID-19. Financial support for migrant workers will go a long way in helping them manage their overwhelming financial and mental health challenges. Will the Minister consider distributing GST Vouchers to migrant workers as well as reviewing social support schemes for them? Mr Speaker, I do not think any of us can deny that migrant workers are Singapore's great enabler. Without migrant workers, our buildings would not be built, our estates would not be cleaned and our women would not be able to go out and work.”
“A 2014 study reported that Bangladeshi workers earn the lowest salaries – between $350 and $800 – and yet they could pay up to $15,000 in recruitment fees which are 26 to 51 times their monthly wage that leaves them in crippling debt. They take an average of 16.5 months to repay those fees. According to HOME, the entire salary of foreign domestic workers goes towards paying their recruitment fees for the first four to eight months. Aside from debt-servicing, HealthServe informed me that the non-domestic migrant workers they serve would remit at least half of their income back home, even up to 80%. HOME also shared that the average foreign domestic worker remits about 80 to 90 percent of her salary. When a migrant worker is unpaid, underpaid, or injured, one of their major worries is how to send money back to their families. Last but not least, after paying off a portion of their recruitment debt and remitting monies home, migrant workers must also pay for their own food, phone and transport bills out of whatever remains of their low wages. Employers of non-domestic migrant workers are not required to bear the cost of food for their employees. As a result, a significant amount of migrant workers’ earnings go towards a basic necessity: food. I am given to understand that many dormitory dwellers do not have a say in the type of food catered, even though they have to pay for it. Many have experienced food that they feel is of poor quality and inadequate for their nutritional needs, confirmed in a 2015 survey by NUS and HealthServe of 500 Bangladeshi workers – 80.6% indicated "the food I get from the caterer is of poor quality". Foreign domestic workers spend on food, too. Employers are required by law to ensure they have adequate food.”
“The workers are fettered to extortionate recruitment debt and most of their remaining wages go to supporting their families in their home countries. And the third is expenses arising from inadequate legal protection. Many workers spend their earnings on food because their employers are not obligated to provide them with food, or fail to meet their obligations. First, the wage factor. MOM reported that the median monthly salary from 2005 to 2019 of work permit holders, excluding foreign domestic workers, increased by 2.2% per annum, in nominal terms. A 2017 TWC2 survey of 910 work permit holders employed in non-domestic sectors showed that basic salaries for first-time workers from India and Bangladesh have flat-lined since 2006 – averaging under S$600 per month. When adjusted for inflation, average basic salaries for first-time construction workers seem to have declined by about 20% since 2006. The same survey found foreign domestic workers earned an average of $597 a month in 2016. TWC2 informs me that Bangladeshi workers were typically paid a basic rate of $18 a day in 2004, and that rate remains unchanged to this day. This was largely consistent with HealthServe’s and HOME’s casework observations of Bangladeshi migrant workers, wherein $16 to $18 daily basic remains normal. One worker was paid a daily basic rate of $13. For another, his monthly salary was $158, as declared by the employer. To understand the extent of the stress such low wages exert on our migrant workers, we must understand where their income goes. This brings me to the second factor which is that a large chunk of their salary goes towards paying their recruitment debt.”
“These industries touch the everyday lives of every Singaporean in one way or another including making sure our facilities and surroundings are properly cleaned and disinfected during this COVID-19 crisis. Our progress these last two decades would not have been possible without their labour. The Marina Bay skyline, Gardens by the Bay, the Jewel and many more would not exist without our foreign workforce. The Building and Construction Authority or BCA reported that net operating surplus for the Construction sector alone grew by a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.3% per annum, in nominal terms, between 2005 and 2017. I think it is fair to deduce that the economic contributions of our migrant workers are more than significant. The same can be said of our foreign domestic workers or FDWs. According to a 2019 regional study, FDWs contributed S$11.1 billion to the economy in 2018, or 2.4% of Singapore’s GDP. This contribution is a combination of the FDWs’ direct personal expenditure and indirectly from the real value of "paid" domestic work and value of freed-up time. For example, freeing mothers to participate in the labour force added S$3.5 billion to the Singapore economy. This includes savings of S$675 in monthly childcare costs per Singapore household. Despite these significant contributions, our migrant workers often go unrecognised when we celebrate key milestones of Singapore’s development, be it SG50 or Bicentennial bonuses that were distributed. Mr Speaker, our migrant workers need relief from the upcoming GST hike. The financial pressures on them are immense. Let me highlight three main factors. The first is low, stagnant wages. The second is debt and remittances.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which seeks to expand the Goods and Services Tax Voucher Fund’s beneficiaries as the Government plans to cushion the impact of the GST hike for nearly every household in Singapore, whether they are in need of relief or not. The Government recognises that GST is a regressive tax. It hits low earners the hardest. The GSTV Fund was established to help lower income Singaporeans cope with their GST expenses, mitigating GST’s regressive nature. It is an ingenious institution. But I have two questions. First, why is the policy limited only to Singaporeans when GST hurts all lower income residents? Second, why expand the scope of beneficiaries to those who do not need the relief when there are people in our midst who need it but do not get it? Mr Speaker, our migrant worker population is one of the most vulnerable in Singapore. They will suffer from the GST hike and are being offered no relief. It seems counter-intuitive to give money to individuals who do not need the relief while denying those who do. In fact, when we consider migrant workers' centrality to the building of our nation, it seems almost perverse. Singapore relies on an enormous foreign workforce to sustain the construction, marine, manufacturing and domestic work sectors. As of June 2019, there were 1.4 million foreign workers in Singapore. Seventy percent of them were work permit holders. That is about 17% of the population and 26% of our resident labour force. They most commonly come from India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines. Low-wage migrant workers are most commonly employed in construction, shipyards, sanitation services, manufacturing, and domestic work.”
“Indeed, it was because of decades of effort to diversify our food sources that allowed Minister Chan Chun Sing to welcome the 300,000 airflown eggs to Singapore from Thailand when the risk arose that supply of eggs from Malaysia could be affected by the overnight lockdown. In that same spirit, let us have the foresight and courage to prepare our economy for the risks and opportunities that emerge from a carbon-constrained future. Every tool in our policy toolbox needs to be on the table. I look forward to the Minister's response to my clarifications above. I support the Bill.”
“These industries include carbon capture and storage, renewable energy, circular manufacturing, bio-plastics, energy storage, electric vehicles, alternative meat, climate-resilient agriculture and green building technology. A 2018 report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimated that over 65 million new low-carbon jobs could be generated globally in 2030. Clean energy alone is expected to generate 2.2 million jobs in ASEAN. We are building one of the world's largest floating solar farms in Tengah Reservoir. The expertise we develop would position Singapore as a key exporter of this technology. An undersea cable to transmit solar power from Australia could also be in the pipeline. The alternative meat market is expected to grow to US$470 billion by 2040, equivalent to a 17 times expansion in the next 20 years. Alternative meat start-ups Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have already taken the world by storm. I am proud to see local start-up Shiok Meats entering the arena. I urge the Minister to align our tax incentives with a carbon-neutral economy, so that we can attract and grow more of such champions. Could the Minister share whether the qualifying criteria for tax relief under the EEIA can include consideration for the potential of the activity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly? Mr Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of having foresight and courage to prepare now for the possible crises of tomorrow. A recent headline in TODAY read: "Singapore has been buttressing its food security for decades. Now, people realise why".”
“Investments in fossil fuel assets which underestimate the downside risk of disruptions from low-carbon technology, energy efficiency and climate policy could lead to stranded assets. A study published in 2018 estimated that globally, US$12 trillion of fossil fuel assets might be stranded by 2035. Could the Minister clarify whether the economic benefits under the assessment criteria for EEIA tax relief includes consideration for the downside risk from future disruptions, such as decarbonisation? On the other hand, the global transition to low-carbon opens up a host of new opportunities. My second point, Mr Speaker, therefore relates to incentives for innovations and investments that are aligned with a carbon-neutral economy. Section 67 of the EEIA currently lists activities eligible for investment allowances. These include reducing consumption of water and improving energy efficiency. Unfortunately, this leaves out a wide range of capital expenditure investments that contribute to Singapore's long-term sustainability, such as renewable energy, active mobility, as well as waste reduction. While there are grants available for some of these activities, such as the 3R fund for waste recycling and reduction, this should not preclude the option to use investment allowances as an additional incentive. Could the Minister clarify whether the list of activities eligible for investment allowances can include a category for capital expenditure that reduce greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly? For pioneering economic activities, aligning our tax incentives with a carbon-neutral economy would help us get a foothold into a host of emerging industries that support a climate-friendly future.”
“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally last year announced we would probably need $100 billion to protect ourselves against rising sea levels. This year’s Budget has already allocated $5 billion to the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund. It would be unthinkable if we gave out tax relief to the same activities that will force us to spend more on coastal and flood protection. I would imagine this would give Deputy Prime Minister Heng a bit of a headache trying to balance the Budget. Could the Minister clarify whether the qualifying criteria for tax relief under the EEIA considers the long-term impacts on Singapore? In particular, is there consideration for whether the activity would lead to an increase in carbon emissions? EDB has published its assessment criteria for pioneer certificate incentives under the EEIA, which includes employment created and spin-off to the economy. For high-carbon sectors, even such economic benefits are not assured. In 2015, when oil prices fell below US$50 per barrel, the oil and gas sector cut an estimated 15,000 jobs. With oil prices bottoming out again this year, ExxonMobil has said it will make significant cuts to spending. As climate action accelerates across the world, demand for fossil fuel products may reduce sharply. For example, with countries around the world, including Singapore, moving towards full electrification of their land transport system, demand for diesel and petrol is expected to drop. Researchers from Columbia University forecasted that passenger vehicle oil demand would decline beyond 2025. For the lowest low-carbon scenario in their 2019 study, oil demand in this sector would decline from about 25 million barrels per day today to 10 million barrels per day in 2040.”
“Mr Speaker, since our Independence, the Economic Expansion Incentives Act or EEIA has helped to incentivise the investments and innovation that brought us good jobs and economic prosperity. However, we are entering a new era of increasing volatility and disruption. We are in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic as we speak but I fear the climate crisis will unleash chaos and food supply disruptions that dwarf what we have seen. Yet there exists enormous growth opportunities for technologies that the world needs to exit the climate crisis and enter a world of peace and stability. Is the EEIA able to attract the kind of investments and innovation that will allow Singapore to demonstrate climate leadership and ride on the low-carbon wave? There are two parts to this question that I hope the Minister can address. EEIA provides tax relief for pioneering economic activities as well as a wide range of capital investments. My first point, Mr Speaker, relates to whether the EEIA extends incentives to high-carbon activities so that the tax relief may end up as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean recently announced Singapore's goal of achieving net zero emissions "as soon as viable in the second half of the century". Senior Minister Teo himself admitted that this goal is "very challenging". Yet even this goal falls short of the target of net zero by 2050 that IPCC estimates would limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avert the worst impacts of climate change. To have even the slightest hope of meeting this target, we have to stop incentivising investments that will lock in decades of high carbon emissions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by imploring the Government to take action now to arrest the rising suicide numbers by initiating a National Suicide Prevention Strategy with a vision towards a Zero-Suicide Singapore, together with community partners and citizens. We must stand firm in the belief that suicides are preventable and commit to the efforts in making that possible. Why zero suicides? Because unlike any other targets – like 2020 for gender equality, 30 by 30 for food security – that we have made in this House when it comes to loss of lives; human lives, nothing short of zero has ever been good enough for us. A Zero-Suicide Singapore as a goal joins the Vision Zero aspiration of our workplace safety and health policies and the Zero Accident movement in our public transportation policies too. And we would not be alone. The United States aspires towards a nation free of the tragedy of suicide in its national prevention strategy. Japan envisions a society where no one is driven to take their own life. South Korea wants to create safe and healthy communities free from suicide. And last but not least, Sweden’s Vision Zero Policy which was ratified by its parliament in 2008 aims to build a nation where no one should be in a situation of such vulnerability that suicide is seen as the only way out. Mr Deputy Speaker, as they say, if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. And we most certainly must not fail our people like Lucy. We must work together towards a zero-suicide society that cares because every life matters. To Lucy and those of you who are struggling with suicidal thoughts out there, please know this: "You are not a burden nor are you alone. Yes, the world will be a better place in it. Please stay."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as much as the Government must take the lead in suicide prevention, the complex and multi-faceted nature of suicide means that all of us are a part of this national response towards zero suicides. Studies show that 50% to 60% of all persons who died by suicide gave some warning of their intentions to a friend or family member. One mother from the PleaseStay. Movement shared she was not aware that her 11-year-old son was suicidal until it was too late. Young people have often asked me what the warning signs are and how they can help their friends. We need more public education programmes in schools, workplaces and communities on suicide prevention 101, including learning these warning signs: from unusual and sustained changes in actions, to actions like withdrawal, loss of interest, words like verbal statements such as "Everybody will better off without me", "What is the point of living?", and feelings – guilt, hopelessness; also, biological and physical aspects like poor sleep and loss of appetite. Key gatekeepers like police, teachers, grassroots leaders and more must also be trained in suicide first-responder training so that they can intervene appropriately for suicide attempts. Community support groups like the SOS as the first community responder, or the PleaseStay. Movement and new groups like Caring for Life are key stakeholders in this whole-of-society effort to reduce and prevent suicides. However, without a national strategy for these efforts to align to, we risk having a fragmented and sub-optimal approach to supporting survivors and bereaved parents.”
“Without data surveillance of attempted suicides, our ability in developing informed strategies is limited. Through a national strategy of data surveillance coordinated across Government agencies and community partners, the transparency and awareness of the support available can be improved, allowing various stakeholders better position their role and plan their work in tackling suicides. A robust framework of monitoring and evaluation is also required, thereby instilling a sense of accountability among those in charge of interventions. We have a crisis on our hands with the spike in teenage suicides. I would like to lend a voice to the suicide-bereaved mothers of the PleaseStay. Movement. They believe there needs to be clear and strong suicide prevention and post-suicide intervention protocols in schools. Despite their inconsolable grief, they came forward to share what they believe could be done to prevent more teen suicides so that other parents do not have to go through the same pain. Families and friends, especially other students in the school, will inevitably suffer from grief and trauma to varying degrees and urgently need this post-suicide intervention support. Many education systems such as the state government of Victoria in Australia establish step-by-step guidelines on what to do in the event of a suicide attempt and/or in an occurrence of suicide, making them publicly available as part of a whole-of-society effort. Notwithstanding the peer support networks that Minister Indranee cited in response to my question in Committee of Supply (COS) on MOE's suicide prevention strategy, I am sure we all agree that laying out clearly MOE's suicide protocols to parents and students can only help confront increasing suicides amongst teens.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as recommended by the WHO, it is fundamental for the Government to lead and coordinate efforts in suicide prevention, starting from the establishment of a national strategy, to show this Government's priority in tackling suicides. This should first start from identifying currently available resources and committing further resources and funding to improve suicide prevention and efforts to support individuals struggling with suicide. One example would be to expand funding for organisations like SOS, the Samaritans of Singapore, not just to operate our de-facto national suicide helpline, but to ensure timely follow-ups with callers who need further support. We should also consider increasing resources and funding for mental healthcare services to address wait time and patient load issues. I am deeply alarmed that our public hospitals do not track whether an admission is due to attempted suicide. Yet, studies show that 83% of people who die by suicide visit some kind of doctor a year before their death. Hence, healthcare facilities, especially emergency facilities and departments, are a logical place to prevent suicides. By getting our hospitals to track suicide attempts, our national strategy is better placed to coordinate the continuity of care for these suicide attempters. In the mould of the Zero Suicide Initiative, we must ensure that on the individual level, that we acknowledge each person's pain, empower them to make safe decisions and on the systems level, build hope for recovery with a continuity of care approach across agencies. We should also note that since the decriminalisation of suicides, data of suicide attempts is no longer required by the Criminal Code.”
“In this House, a few colleagues expressed their concerns last year that decriminalisation of suicide could send the wrong signal in incentivising suicide. These views perpetuate the stigma by shrouding suicide in exclusion. Experts indicate that incentives for help-seeking are helpful in combating stigma, allowing those who are struggling to feel more comfortable in seeking support. Mr Deputy Speaker, apart from poor mental health that Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong gave concession to, we must also recognise that there are social and environmental factors embedded within our society and structures that also contribute to an individual's intention to self harm or suicide or to take their own life. Intense feelings of hopelessness can also arise from sudden and adverse life events including unemployment, trauma and the loss of loved ones. Not every suicide is a result of mental illness, nor is someone with mental illness always suicidal. Lastly, we must take the lead in recognising that suicide is far from a selfish choice and cannot be blamed on the individual. My cousin, who has attempted suicide several times, often shares that he feels that he's a burden to his family, including me, even as he acknowledged that he knows how much we love him. Studies have shown that people who attempt to take or took their own lives commonly feel that their lives hamper others, viewing their decisions as relieving their loved ones. The following excerpt of a suicide letter from an elderly victim broke my heart, I quote: "Father is reluctant to leave all of you. I have failed so badly that I have no choice." This is the reality of suicides, and those who succumb can hardly be labelled as selfish.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's assurance at Budget 2020 that a whole-of-Government review of our mental health strategy will be undertaken to identify gaps and strengthen existing inter-agency efforts brought much hope to many who are struggling. Building on this, I hope to use the rest of this speech to ask the Government to go further in developing a national response that aims for zero suicides under this review as part of a multi-ministry and multi-sectoral effort. But first, let me take this opportunity to address the discourses about suicide. It is a common fear that talking about suicide could encourage suicide behaviour, hence many friends and families who are concerned about their loved ones in distress often struggle with asking about suicide ideation or intent. Similarly, Minister Ong Ye Kung shared his concerns in this House that talking about suicide numbers in schools "may heighten suicide risk in vulnerable youths". While I appreciate the intention of these concerns, I would like to point out that youths today already consume a large volume of media online related to mental health and suicide. Youths have shared with me that schools often try to keep quiet about students who died due to suicide, but this backfires as students are often already in the know about their peers' mental health and suicidal intention. The expert consensus is that, to have a chance at preventing suicide, we must talk about suicide responsibly. Earlier this month, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong indicated that allowing for treatment for self-inflicted injuries in MediSave or MediShield Life could encourage suicidal behaviours, although exceptions could be made for those with existing mental health conditions.”
“According to the Attorney-General's Chambers, a classification of "suicide" only occurs when there is clear evidence of suicidal intent and self-harm. From my interactions with suicide-bereaved parents, the cause of death is sometimes categorised as "fall from a high place" or "unnatural death" and also labelled as such on the requests of family. In addition, we must also not forget that for every suicide and attempted suicide we know, there are many more people struggling with self harm and suicide ideation that we have little data on. In fact, estimates from WHO show that for every suicide, there may have been more than 20 suicide attempts that go undetected. So, whilst some may argue that our numbers are not high by international standards, we are still not doing enough because the number of deaths by suicides in Singapore has remained relatively unchanged from 9.5 suicides per 100,000 residents in the 1980s to 8.3 suicides per 100,000 residents today. How have we managed to develop from a third-world to first-world country and yet not be able to successfully tackle this issue of suicide? How is it that we still have the current number of suicide deaths we have today? One large reason might be the disappointing fact that Singapore was not listed as one of the few "high income" countries with a national suicide prevention strategy even though we are a member state of WHO – because we do not have one! National suicide prevention strategies are essential for working towards the ultimate goal of suicide reduction. According to WHO, such a strategy is important as it indicates a government's clear commitment to prioritising and tackling suicide, while making resources available for necessary interventions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to read the struggles of Lucy, not her real name, and her suicidal thoughts to this House. I quote verbatim: "I have been a witness to a suicide, I have lost a friend to suicide and I struggle with suicidal ideation on a near daily basis. It cost me my university education, landed me in tens of thousands of dollars in debt, and left me with little means to earn enough to pay back my study loan and survive on my own. I will likely never be able to earn more than $1,000 per month and will likely take my life than die of other causes in the near future." Other than Lucy, there were 46 more people who came forward to share with me about their experiences with suicide, among the 400 respondents to the public consultation on mental health conducted by my team and I. Like Lucy's and the many near and far ones who have reached out to me, each and every one of their stories was heartbreaking to know and read, as they agonised over their struggles to live. Suicide is a global public health concern. Close to 800,000 people lose their life to suicide every year, nearly one-third of which occur among young people. Here in Singapore, teenage suicides peaked in 2018 – the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991. Sadly, so did the number of elderly aged 60 and above who took their own lives. From 2017 to 2019, there were 1,204 attempted suicides yearly. Last year, the Immigration and Customs Authority reported that there were 8.36 suicides per 100,000 Singapore residents in 2018, up from 7.74 in 2017. Suicide has entrenched itself as the leading cause of death for those aged 10 to 29. Sir, these worrying numbers could be higher, given issues of under-reporting.”
“Given that the building of the Cross Island Line runs 70 m deep under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR), would section 10(1) be able to safeguard the CCNR and other nature reserves should the interpretation of the Parks and Trees Act come into contention? Mr Speaker, I think there has never been a better opportunity than with this Bill to remind this House of the alarming report released by the UN just last year of the rapidly declining wildlife and plant populations around the world. The report said, I quote, "Humans are transforming Earth's natural landscapes so dramatically that as many as one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction." This Bill is a great green leap forward in the right direction for wildlife protection and legislation in Singapore. Wildlife belongs to no one; any exploitation and abuse by anyone should not be tolerated. For the last few weeks, a mummy yellow vented bulbul built her nest on my tall cordy plant in the little garden outside my HDB flat and laid two eggs which I hope have birthed into two healthy little hatchlings. I have left them alone and have, in fact, tiptoed around them so they feel safe! This might be a glimpse of living in our City in Nature that Minister Desmond Lee envisioned. Mr Speaker, we have a diverse trove of wildlife species that are so precious to our biodiversity, one that we must safeguard with as much zeal and commitment as our human diversity. Because the wildlife and its habitat cannot speak, so we must. I look forward to the clarifications from the Member and the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, my second point relates to greater clarity on the extent of citizen empowerment which I believe is also the intent of the Bill and is captured in the re-enacted section 10 which empowers the Director-General to direct a person known as "the authorised officer" to implement wildlife-related measures to manage or mitigate the impact of the person's developments or works in relation to wildlife. For avoidance of doubt, can the Member confirm that the "authorised officer" referred to in section 10A could also include any ordinary citizen so authorised and given power to remove and dismantle traps that they find in keeping with the spirit of citizen empowerment? In addition, it is not clear if offenders will be subsequently prosecuted if they are confronted at the scene by the authorised officer. Can the Member and Minister please clarify? Last but not least, Mr Speaker, my third point relates to the alignment of this Bill with the Parks and Trees Act. Section 10(1) of the Bill states that the Director-General may direct a person to take wildlife-related measures to safeguard the health and safety of any wildlife, public health or safety in relation to wildlife or the health of the eco-system. Given the proposed provisions, in the event that a nature reserve is de-gazetted in order for the land to be used for development, can the Minister clarify if section 10(1) will come into effect to halt the development? In a 2019 study on the protection of nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act, the question on the depth to which nature reserves are protected was raised.”
“Can the Minister clarify if sections 8 and 9 will be imposed on the trading of wild marine animals by commercial aquariums when enacted? Under what circumstances will the Director-General give the approval for importation and trade, and will this approval come only after a board is consulted or will it come about through absolute veto power? Whilst we are on the prohibition on trading of marine wildlife, dead or alive, Mr Speaker, I would like to also take this opportunity to raise the issue of importation of shark species. Our existing Harmonised System (HS) classification of goods does not include enough differentiation on shark species being imported. A 2017 report on sharks and ray trade in Singapore by Traffic, a leading NGO working globally on trade in wild animals and plants in the context of both biodiversity conservation and sustainable development, found that the shark commodity categories that are reported to the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) do not completely match with the Singapore Trade Classification, Customs and Excise Duties (STCCED) codes for shark products. In the spirit of our progressive stance on wildlife protection, will the Ministry align with relevant Ministries to ensure collection and reporting of accurate sharks and ray trade information by Singapore as a key importer/exporter be made transparent and traceable, and will the Ministry recommend a review of the existing HS codes to MEWR?”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act have been a long time coming for more stringent measures needed to give more protection to wildlife beyond nature parks and reserves, and for more severe enforcement to deter offenders of abuse, exploitation and killing of wildlife. Urban wildlife continues to face challenges with unabated development in Singapore. But I am heartened that we have become more considered in promoting nature-based solutions and increasing ecological connectivity within urban spaces in recent years. The recent Budget announcement by Minister Desmond Lee that Singapore will evolve from a City in a Garden to a City in Nature with another 200 hectares of nature parks added to act as complementary habitats and to buffer nature reserves from urbanisation is to be rejoiced. This Bill is, therefore, timely and welcomed in back-boning this City in Nature vision with appropriate legislative interventions. I would like to seek clarifications in three areas. The first relates to the definition of "wildlife" in relation to marine species. I note clause 4 of the Bill amends the definition of "wildlife" in section 2 of the principal Act which also "includes any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish or invertebrate, whether of wild nature or otherwise". Can the Member confirm that the definition of "wildlife" does, indeed, extend to all wild marine animals? I understand that wild marine animals are traded and exchanged freely by SEA Aquarium Singapore. The re-enacted sections 8 and 9 of the Bill prohibits the sale, including offer for sale, or export of any living or dead wildlife or import of any living wildlife respectively without the Director-General's written approval.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank both Ministers for the Ministerial Statements. I especially appreciate Minister Wong's sharing. I have got three clarifications. The first one is: what are we doing with the safe distancing measures in public transport? I am a public commuter so I have not seen any changes in that regard. The second is: if Minister Gan can also share what is the number of infected cases or, in terms of its tipping point where our healthcare capacity will start to be under burdened, what is the number of infected cases that would actually get us to that tipping point? The third point is relating to the communications on the advisories that are going out. It is very rapid, it is also changing as what Minister Wong says, every other day. Some of the elderly folks have shared with me they are not able to keep up with what is going on. I am just wondering if there could be — well, first, I would like to understand how we are actually getting the information out to the different segments of the society; and secondly, if there is a central agency that is managing this in the form of FAQs or handling queries from citizens when they are not sure about is nine persons in terms of gatherings okay; and if a gathering is for community work instead of social gathering, is that okay? There are a lot of questions that are coming out and I wonder if there is a need for a central agency to handle that.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Could I ask the Minister to elaborate her response to my cut on OSF. On behalf of the many ground-ups, the many community builders, they would like to know if the Ministry would be keen to review OSF in the three areas that I mentioned earlier.”
“The Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles or IRCCs have served an important role in strengthening social cohesion through dialogues, workshops and other programmes, amongst various religious and racial groups. In light of the friction concerning LGBTQ+ issues, one way to foster social harmony would be to include vulnerable and marginalised groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, people with disabilities and migrant workers and other groups, to be a mainstay in initiatives similar to IRCCs. The purpose of such initiatives is not to convert anyone to any particular viewpoint on these issues, but to mitigate polarisation by strengthening social cohesion and fostering understanding and respect across differences. Given the contributions of IRCCs in promoting social harmony, could the Ministry convene similar community engagement initiatives that aim to bridge gaps between religious groups, the LGBTQ+ community and other stakeholders, with the aim of fostering mutual understanding?”
“Sir, I declare my interest as founder of A Good Space, a community of citizen change makers and Hush, a social enterprise. In light of the $250 million top-up and the spirit of Singapore Together, would the Ministry consider the following. One, increasing the maximum funding in Our Singapore Fund and other funds to minimise the need to apply for multiple grants by ground-ups who are made up of citizen volunteers. Two, revising the framework in disbursing grants such that projects which are longer-term in nature or design, for example research, or projects which are seeking to be more sustainable, can receive longer term funding required in line with the time required for community development. And three, removing the cap on the amount or percentage of budget that can be spent on paying project owners, since they are often the ones putting in the most time and effort into the project, and for manpower needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis? Community Engagement on LGBTQ+Issues Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, since 2009, the annual Pink Dot SG has attracted tens of thousands of Singaporeans to attend in support of the LGBTQ+ community. However, many Singaporeans have also expressed concerns about Pink Dot SG and some have organised counter-events such as Wear White. A 2019 IPS study found that there have been "steep drops" in opposition towards LGBTQ+ issues. Unfortunately, divisions along this fault line may nonetheless deepen, given the role other social divides, such as religion and age, play in shaping attitudes towards LGBTQ+ issues. If these divisions were left unchecked, it increases the potential for acts of violence and discrimination to be committed against vulnerable groups, including hate speech and online harassment.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. In a Parliamentary Question (PQ) that I had filed last month, it was shared that from 2016 to 2018, we had about 300 claims in this category that were excluded every year. Would the Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong please share if there will be a review at least to see if we can include such injuries?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State. On this topic of blood donation, I mentioned it yesterday in my cut, too, that there are persons with mental health conditions who declared and were also turned away at the blood banks here in Singapore. It just concerns me that between ex-offenders and persons with mental health conditions, our blood donation policy seems to be entrenched deeply in stigma that we are trying so hard to get rid of. Could the Senior Minister of State explain why persons with mental conditions are turned away at blood donation drives?”
“Sure. Thank you. So, a lot more nuanced and protracted, so there is a cost implication. The Senior Minister of State also confirmed that Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is now included in Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), but I just checked the MOH website and it is still not there. Earlier, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also only listed four mental health conditions that are covered but not OCD. So, can Senior Minister of State Khor please confirm that. I asked the Ministry about the plans to improve the waiting times, which is right now 27 to 28 days to see psychiatrists and psychologists. Can I please ask Ms Amy Khor to respond to this ask? The next ask that I also filed in my cut, which has not been responded to, is – I asked the Ministry to consider MediSave to be used for community organisations that are providing mental healthcare services. Can I please have a response to that? Last but not least, Senior Minister of State Khor assured that the Ministry will look at specific needs of the differently-abled in public mental healthcare. Can the Senior Minister of State also assure that the LGBTQ+ community, that their specific needs will also be looked at, as I had outlined in the dedicated cut on this.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I first want to thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for announcing to the House that there will be a whole-of-Government and multi-Ministry effort to address mental health as a national priority. It is very sweet, D grade-worthy news, I think. But I hope that it is not just the elderly and the youths that we are looking at, because the sandwiched ones are the very ones who are playing a big role in the mental well-being of our youths, and they are also the care-givers of our elderly. So, if the Senior Minister of State will indulge me, I have four clarifications and one comment, from the four cuts. I understand the Ministry is not intending to bring to parity the limits for MediSave and MediShield in terms of physical and mental health conditions, which, to me, would be the loudest anti-stigma signal, with that parity. Can I urge MOH to conduct its own public consultation or studies to examine the many affordability issues that were raised in our own rudimentary public study that I shared both in the Budget debate speech and earlier. I know because I think we all understand that the treatment process for mental health conditions is a lot —”
“A respondent from the consultation shared that within the Public Service, a colleague's mental health condition was accessed through the public healthcare system and was shared as office gossip by supervisors. Additionally, respondents have shared with me their worries on the sharing of their personal information by mental healthcare professionals, including one who was threatened by her school counsellor that her parents will be informed of her same-sex relationship. There are also instances of unnecessary declarations of mental health information, with a respondent indicating that she was unable to donate blood due to her mental health history. In light of these issues, would the Ministry consider establishing a framework on rightful instances requiring mental health information declaration, accessibility of patient's mental health information within the public healthcare system and better processes for breaking of confidentiality, for example, professionals to discuss with individuals on which information continues to be kept confidential? Mental Health Rehabilitation for Persons with Disabilities”
“Would the Ministry consider setting up a centralised helpline – maybe 991 or something – to make it easier for a person in distress to call for help? These helplines could even be manned by peer supporters, given the many community efforts to promote peer support training. Would the Ministry also consider a centralised platform for mental health services to include information about service providers and treatment options available, estimated costs of treatment and available subsidies for treatment? Building on the Ministry's community outreach efforts, would the Ministry consider expanding the modes of referral for community mental healthcare, including text or web-chats, phone calls, walk-ins, referral by friends and family, and also self-referral? As subsidised referrals for public healthcare can only be made through public healthcare institutions, would the Ministry consider allowing professionals in community mental healthcare to make these subsidised referrals? PDPA and Mental Health Information Last cut. This was initially directed to MCI. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices' (TAFEP) recent declaration that stating one's mental health history on job application forms is discriminatory is very welcomed, especially as 48 respondents or 12%, from this public consultation cited confidentiality issues as a prohibitive factor against seeking help. Although we have robust laws governing confidentiality in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), there continues to be worries about access to one's mental health history within the public healthcare system, especially by employers.”
“Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and substance abuse are currently excluded from the list of mental health conditions covered under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) for MediSave withdrawals despite the increasing and high prevalence of these two conditions according to the Singapore Mental Health Study 2016. Will the Ministry consider including these conditions? Given the high co-morbidity between those suffering from chronic physical health conditions and those with mental health conditions, how does the Ministry ensure this group of patients benefit from sufficient Medisave withdrawal limits for outpatient treatments? In line with the spirit of the Community Mental Health Masterplan to shift mental healthcare from medical institutions into the community, would the Ministry consider allowing patients to tap on their MediSave for mental healthcare provided by community mental health services such Shan You Counselling Centre, Clarity, and Counselling and Care Centre? Lastly, to remove the first cost hurdle and encourage help-seeking behaviour, would the Ministry consider piloting programmes that provide free initial mental health consultations with a psychiatrist or psychologist? Second, accessibility. We have 4.4 psychiatrists and 8.3 psychologists per 100,000 population. Overall, the median waiting time for new subsidised appointments is 27 and 28 days to see a psychiatrist or a psychologist respectively. Can the Ministry clarify on what plans are in store to improve these numbers so as to increase accessibility? Seventy-one respondents shared that lack of clear, trusted and consolidated information on how to seek help limited their help-seeking behaviour. There are more than 10 helplines available under NCSS' Mental Health Resource Directory.”
“Would the Ministry consider appointing diversity officers, sited within respective agencies, across the healthcare and social services sectors? They can serve as a resource for professionals to tap on to better understand LGBTQ-related issues, help to develop competencies in serving LGBTQ individuals and ensure dissemination of LGBTQ-specific resources. Mental Healthcare Access for All We have come a long way in recognising mental health as an integral part of our total health, but still a long way to go in giving this priority and parity to physical health in our policies. Barriers to mental healthcare are significant issues facing many Singaporeans. First, affordability. Through the public consultation, more than 65% of the respondents felt that costs for mental healthcare was high, prompting some to stop treatment. One shared, "I stopped my therapy at the hospital because I just couldn't afford it even at $17 twice a month. It caused me to be more depressed instead." There exists a significant disparity between claim and withdrawal limits under MediShield and Medisave for physical and mental health conditions, which is incongruent with the increasing prevalence of mental illness. I am sure the Ministry wants to assure Singaporeans that there is no discrimination against those with mental health conditions. Could the Ministry please clarify when this overdue parity in MediShield and MediSave limits for physical and mental health treatments will be rectified?”
“In expanding mental healthcare into community settings, personnel including social workers and community counsellors now interact with issues of mental health, and steps should be taken to ensure they are appropriately qualified and competent. In continuity with a whole-of-Government approach, would the Ministry consider instituting a code of practice for non-medical personnel involved in mental healthcare, including psychologists, therapists and those within community settings such as social workers and community counsellors? Double Stigma of Mental Health and LGBTQ+ Next cut, which was initially directed to MSF. WHO suggests that the LGBTQ+ community should be considered as a vulnerable group in mental healthcare, with the double stigma of homophobia and seeking help for mental health issues. In a recent public consultation on mental health that we conducted, 13 responses referenced such a double stigma. One lamented that "it doesn't help too with social stigma against mental health and LGBTQ+ that push more away from the care they need, like me." For the LGBTQ+ community, specific issues include discrimination by mental healthcare professionals as well as disclosing one's sexual and gender identities to family without consent. Given the Government's commitment to mental healthcare in community settings, we now have social workers and counsellors who support mental health, in addition to mental healthcare professionals such as psychiatrists and psychologists. Would the Ministry consider adopting a whole-of-Government approach in ensuring that personnel working in mental healthcare, including those within community settings, are trained and competent in LGBTQ-related issues? Diversity officers supporting minorities is a common practice in the business sector.”