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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 3 of 8.
“Chairman, how do we ensure that the quality of mental healthcare is on par with what Singapore is known for in healthcare? Implementing a measurement feedback system (MFS), adopted in countries such as England, could is one way. In the public consultation on mental health that my team and I conducted, 26 responses indicated feedback on treatment could improve their health outcomes. Could the Ministry clarify what measures are in place to ensure that there is regular feedback given by clients to their mental healthcare professionals? [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] It is recommended by WHO and National Health Service (NHS) England that treatment for mental health conditions should be supported by talking therapies including counselling. From the consultation, 29 respondents described the importance of psychological support alongside medication in treating mental health conditions. One elaborated that her husband did not fare well on medication alone, as "no trust was established (and) he did not open up". Would the Ministry consider measures to ensure that individuals requiring mental healthcare be supported not only by psychiatrists and medications, but paired with psychotherapy and counselling? WHO encourages engaging stakeholders in the evaluation of mental health initiatives. In a similar vein, could the Ministry share what measures have been undertaken to involve stakeholders, including people with lived experiences of mental health conditions, in evaluating initiatives launched under the Community Mental Health Masterplan?”
“Independent Living for Persons with Disabilities”
“Sir, HDB has an occupancy cap for renting out flats and commercial property: a maximum of six occupants in 4- and 3-bedroom HDB flats and four occupants in any smaller flats. These standards do not apply to the Public Rental Scheme. Under this scheme, only 1- or 2-bedroom flats are available. 2-bedroom flats are available only to families of three or more, with some income. If a family is not earning any income, they are only eligible for a 1-bedroom flat, regardless of the number of family members in that family. This results in families of five or six squeezing into a 1-bedroom flat, or even families of more than 10 in 2-bedroom flats. Research demonstrates that overcrowding has a deep and adverse impact on both adults and children. There are significant associations between the number of persons per room and an index of psychological health. Family ties erode: the parent's authority over the child diminishes as they are unable to accommodate the child's needs; adult family members prefer to stay outside their home till late; conflict occurs more frequently in the home; children do not have enough space to play, rest and study, which directly impacts their academic performance and overall development. In light of the above, I have three questions specifically for the Ministry. What is the reason for there not being an occupancy cap for homes under the Public Rental Scheme? How is the act of placing children in 1- or 2-room HDB flats with three to 10 other people in line with Singapore's obligation to primarily consider the best interests of the child under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Will the Ministry consider allocating 3-room flats and above to families of five and over under the Public Rental Scheme?”
“Mr Chairman, I am very heartened and I also thank both Ministers for their resounding assurances that we are finally introducing mental health education in schools, and also that MOE will be providing more and better trained counsellors to schools. I cannot agree more with Minister Indranee that we need a whole child and whole school and an ecosystem to address students' mental well-being. So, I have two clarifications. The first one is that a clear big piece within this eco-system in addressing students' well-being, mental well-being, particularly, would be the parents. I am wondering how and when are parents engaged by the schools for a student in distress, and also if we are including parents in the mental health education that we are introducing in some way. I also wonder if one way could be reaching these parents through their employers and that there might be an inter-Ministry initiative with MOM, given the announcement in terms of the Workplace Mental Health Advisory. The second clarification is, does the Ministry have, or if not, does it intend to have a clear and robust Suicide Prevention strategy in schools, especially given the record number of teenage suicides that we had in 2018 that was announced last year?”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the response. Could I just ask, especially given that we are celebrating women this month, is there a reason why we only specify and link this eligibility criterion to the mother's employment, and not the father's?”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I should also declare that I was formerly a board member of UN Women when it was known as UNIFEM. May I know from the Minister if she thinks we should also look into supporting some of the local charities and non-profits that could be ready to go overseas so that we can develop deeper skills and also expand SG Cares' vision beyond our shores?”
“Sir, Singaporean Primary school students from lower income families have their tuition fees heavily subsidised. In addition, they also receive free textbooks and uniforms as well as some pocket money. However, these benefits do not apply to students with foreign passports, even if one of their parents or legal guardians is a Singaporean Citizen or PR. Will the Ministry consider extending the same subsidies and benefits to such students under our UN Convention for the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) obligations? 7.30 pm Financial Assistance for Students in IHLs”
“Could the Ministry also share how it assesses the competency of school counsellors and how this is aligned with national competency assessment frameworks for counselling professionals? Despite a general consensus that early detection leads to better health outcomes, and the need for regular assessment of students' needs and health called by the Health Promoting Schools Framework, free health screenings for students currently focus exclusively on physical health. Yet, according to WHO, half of mental health illnesses start by 14 years of age. MOH reported that studies in Singapore suggest depression alone affects up 18% of youths. Moreover, WHO has found that late detection of mental health conditions is known to result in "increased morbidity, mortality and the adoption of life-threatening and life-adopting self-treatments". As currently practised in schools like Yale-NUS College on admission, will the Ministry consider putting in place mental health screenings every year? In a whole-child approach, there is no health without mental health. The screenings are not meant to be diagnostic in purpose, but to increase the channels where teachers, counsellors and parents can identify students who need more help to adopt upstream preventive measures. I believe this mental health check will better support the engagement and feedback process between teachers, counsellors and parents. Enhancing Financial Support for Students”
“Sir, first, I want to thank our school counsellors for their role in supporting our students despite their small numbers. Based on the data provided to a Parliamentary Question on counsellors, I estimate the counsellor-student ratio to be approximately 1:800, which seems to pale in comparison to some Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) education systems. Is the Ministry planning to improve this ratio to better provide first-line mental health support to students? MOE currently deploys part-time MOE-trained school counsellors, para-counsellors, Flexi-Adjunct School Counsellors and Teacher Counsellors to augment school counsellors. Could the Ministry clarify on the choice behind deploying these staff instead of directly increasing the number of school counsellors? Thirty-five percent of respondents from the public consultation on mental health that my team and I did mentioned quality in school counselling as a key concern. One respondent shared that her experience with school counsellors has not been helpful. I quote, "One completely dismissed me when I told her about my symptoms, and another one recommended exercise as a form of weight loss for someone with an eating disorder." Teachers must have relevant subject matter expertise before attending teacher training at NIE. However, I understand that applicants for school counsellors on the "Applicants Without Counselling Training" track need only hold a university degree. Would the Ministry consider giving the same value and rigour to the role of counsellors by ensuring that all candidates have appropriate competencies, experience and/or professional qualifications before attending the necessary school-specific training?”
“Chairman, I thank Minister of State Mr Zaqy for sharing the good news on workplace mental health today. I think my mental health definitely got better after his speech. Given that there is still stigma that exists in the workplace on mental health, I think it is really quite difficult for persons with mental health conditions to ask for FWAs. I appreciate Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Low Yen Ling saying that it is not going to be working in our favour to legislate the right to FWAs but can I ask if the Citizens' Panel who recommended that had any persons with mental health conditions in the Panel? And, if not, would the Ministry and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ms Low Yen Ling consider the specific needs of persons with mental health conditions as we embark on all the wonderful efforts on FWAs, going forward?”
“In the public consultation that my team and I conducted on mental health, there were 76 responses referencing issues within workplaces. The focus of the Ministry on mental wellness within workplaces as part of the WSH 2028 vision is prudent and necessary, as supported also by WHO. Will the Ministry consider issuing an advisory to employers to adopt progressive practices that support their employees’ mental health? Countries, including UK and Canada, have legislated the right to Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA). Twenty-one responses asked for FWAs. One indicated that most treatment options for mental health conditions are only available on weekdays, with their employers unwilling to provide FWAs. Given the Ministry’s strong endorsement for FWAs in care-giver support and Work-Life Grant, would the Ministry consider legislating the right of employees to pursue FWAs and also make explicit publicly that sick leave entitlement can be used for both physical and mental health conditions? Six responses raised lack of mental health insurance as affecting treatment affordability. One respondent shared the inability to claim insurance for treatment at IMH as the company insurer does not allow this. The recent WICA amendment saw the Ministry working with a group of insurance companies to risk-pool and ensure affordable premiums for employers. In a similar vein, will the Ministry consider working with insurance companies on providing mental health coverage for employees? Workplace Safety and Best Practices”
“The risk – when were the risks to our economy from this high carbon sector become pertinent?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Koh for addressing my cut, particularly in terms of the economic transition to decarbonisation. I have three clarifications. Do we know when the risk to economy from high carbon sectors will become pertinent? That is number one. What are our plans to invest in deep industrial efficiency, CCUS, which is carbon capture storage and utilisation, or low carbon hydrogen to not only just mitigate the risk to our economy, but also to create new jobs? That is number two. 11.30 am I think Senior Minister of State Koh mentioned that there are 26,000 workers currently employed in the petrochemical industry. I assume a large number of them are actually locals. I am wondering how are we re-skilling this high carbon industry jobs to prepare for the kind of jobs that we can expect which we do not know now, in the next decade, as Minister Chan mentioned.”
“Chairman, climate challenge is an economic structural challenge for Singapore, noted Minister Chan Chun Sing, who further added that, I quote, "If we cannot manage that, we cannot even attract the industries to create the jobs for the next generation." IMF recently opined that price on carbon should rise to US$75 per tonne by 2030 in large emitting countries, placing constraints and pressures on fossil fuel-based industries, Yet, new energy technologies are currently available. Would the Ministry consider (a) conducting and publishing stress test exercises specific to the petrochemical industry to understand growth risk under different scenarios of global carbon policy; (b) evaluating the potential for job creation, cost of living and environmental impact around carbon capture and storage, solar PV, nuclear, importing renewable energy, increasing industrial energy efficiency; and (c) developing a clear plan of economic transition to reduce our reliance on high carbon risk sectors, including actively involving our oil and gas industry before 2030. Sustainability of Industries”
“So, if you are struggling right now, I hope you know it is not a personal failing. We are all responsible for one another's mental well-being, including the Government and institutions. You have, in fact, shown us what true resilience is by fiercely living each day with less-than-adequate state support in mental healthcare whilst constantly dealing with structural stigma and discriminative behaviours. Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the Deputy Prime Minister's response to the hopes of the 400 Singaporeans and many hundreds more who have reached out to me over the years, including my tireless team of volunteers. They have bravely come forward to share their struggles. Their generosity and courage keep me going on this crusade for change. I share the same hope as this respondent who said, “I hope that the day comes soon where no one has to feel alone in their mental health journey.” [Applause.]”
“Already, a late 2019 study found that stress-related illnesses cost Singapore's economy $3.2 billion annually. So, I would like to earnestly ask the Deputy Prime Minister what needs to happen for mental health to be a national and budget priority? Do we have to wait for one in four Singaporeans with mental health conditions, like the current global average, for us to take urgent action? Do we need to see more parents lose their children to suicide or more young people in distress for mental health to be a public health priority? Can we afford negative growth in productivity and innovation before realising how mental well-being is intricately tied to human performance? Mr Deputy Speaker, this is likely my last Budget speech. So, I wish to conclude by imploring the Government to take action now to make quality mental healthcare accessible and affordable for all Singaporeans, to bring this on par to the world-class public healthcare system for all that we are proud of. This is surely the loudest anti-stigma signal to send! In addition, I challenge the Government to boldly take a strategic and preventive approach to deliver mental well-being and total health to our people as it has done spectacularly with economic well-being, so that we can bring and build the social resilience and psychological capital to thrive as a nation and flourish as human beings. I also urge all Members of Parliament in this House to support the mental health needs of their constituents so as to create resilient communities as part of this SG Together effort. To Singaporeans, I invite you to remember that wherever you are on the mental health continuum is not solely a matter of personal agency but also largely determined by your social support structures, or lack of.”
“Changing this paradigm of thought will help us think about how we can strengthen the support available within our communities. When asked what helped them most in their mental health journey, many respondents shared the importance of community support. When we translate these paradigm shifts into strategies across the system, we may then see why it makes sense to expand physical health education to total health education in schools to include mental health; why workplace health and safety must be beyond physical health and safety, which I am very happy to note that the Tripartite Oversight Committee on Workplace Health and Safety – of which I declare I am a member of – has started doing good work in this area with employers and employees; why there is merit in making it explicitly clear to employers that the Sick Leave entitlement for each worker can also be used for mental health treatment and recovery and that mental health insurance is not a luxury but a necessity for employers to support their employees' total health. Strong mental health support at schools and workplaces directly impacts how we show up for our roles in our family and community – which contributes to how we support our children as parents, our elderly parents as caregivers and how we build strong ties and connections with our friends, colleagues and neighbours. This returns us to the importance of resilience as individuals and communities, Mr Deputy Speaker. The mental well-being of our people – man or woman, young or old, rich or poor, working or jobless, straight or gay – forms the bedrock of our psychological resilience and social cohesion, which may be the only sure way to secure our future in Advancing as One Singapore against the headwinds ahead.”
“Would we then start to ask what are the causes of rising levels of mental distress in childhood that saw calls made by five- to nine-year-olds to the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) jumped by 500% over a three-year period? And the spike in the number of teenage suicides in 2018? Might we not insist on conducting mental health screening for our students every year, like physical health and dental checks? Will we begin to study the role of social justice, family and schools in mental health so that we can address the underlying social determinants? Will we also start to understand the impact of public policies on the psychological capital of our people and endeavour to create a psychological safety climate for innovation and well-being to flourish that truly binds Singapore Together? Another paradigm shift we urgently need to make, Sir, is the long overdue recognition that mental health is a critical part of total well-being. Mental health is a continuum. It is not "I'm mentally sick, or I'm not". It’s not "I'm over it, or I'm still in it". It's not "I got it, I will never get it". We may think that mental health challenges only affect certain people, or some segments of our society. But if we just pause and have an honest conversation with ourselves, we will realise that we are navigating along this continuum at any point in time through our life. Because who has not suffered a loss? Who has not had a major life transition? Who has not felt overwhelmed with responsibility for another? Who has not been marginalised in some way? Who has not been made to feel like a failure? None of us in this House can pretend that we have not struggled with a dearth of mental health at some point in our lives.”
“Yet, to truly facilitate an SG Together response, we need such conversations to move beyond only the youths, especially since the average age of subsidised patients for the different mental health conditions was between 40 to 50 years old in the last three years. Incidentally, in the spirit of SG Together, my team of volunteers created a simple website called SGMentalHealth.com, so that we can also share what we found from the public consultation. We also received responses on other policies, ranging from confidentiality, support in schools and workplaces to issues surrounding mental healthcare for marginalised or vulnerable communities like the differently-abled, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and migrant workers. I will highlight these issues separately with the relevant Ministries during the COS debates. These fundamental issues in affordability, accessibility and quality of our mental healthcare must be addressed by the Government with a fierce urgency or we risk another decade of increasing prevalence in mental illness, despite the well-meaning awareness and anti-stigma efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, this brings me to my last point on the paradigm shifts we need to make to move beyond mental healthcare to total well-being for every Singaporean. The structural and policy issues discussed earlier aim to close the treatment gap. But what if we could reduce the number of people getting ill in the first place? What if we paradigm-shift mental health as a public health issue? What would our policies for mental health promotion and illness prevention look like?”
“More than 50 respondents, however, indicated grave dissatisfaction with the quality of public mental healthcare. Thirty-six percent explicitly mentioned lack of empathy in the professionals they interacted with and the dismal environment of psychiatric wards in our public hospitals. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not saying all mental healthcare professionals are incompetent or without heart. In fact, many respondents indicated that the poor quality could be attributed to the excessive workload which strains both professionals and the system. As one respondent puts it, "While the Government is ostensibly pushing campaigns that aim to reduce the stigma of seeking help for mental health issues, there is a lack of parallel funding for actual mental health services, such as the hiring of more counsellors and mental health professionals". Twenty-six respondents cited the importance of feedback on treatment to improve their health outcomes. One respondent lamented, I quote, "They never asked me for feedback. I would like them to ask for feedback." Continuous improvements happen when we empower clients and patients by recognising that they are part of their care process, too. In the same vein, strategic plans, such as the Community Mental Health Masterplan, must involve extensive public consultation, especially those with lived experiences and their caregivers, while ensuring that aggregated public health data continues to be shared transparently. This helps to improve local research on mental health issues and better coordinate efforts in supporting mental well-being of our communities. The recent launch of a multi-agency consultation effort on youth mental well-being is a wonderful start.”
“A respondent shared, I quote, "I paid over $10,000 total [purely] for inpatient care after deduction of MediSave and MediShield Life for the past two years", even after "opt[ing] for class B2 and C wards to save costs". It is time to remove this entrenched stigma by bringing these limits to parity for both mental and physical health conditions. MediSave should also be allowed for services at Government or quasi-Government-funded community organisations, because how can we have a community health approach if it is not? Next, on accessibility. There are around 248 psychiatrists and 473 psychologists practising in Singapore, or 4.4 psychiatrists and 8.3 psychologists per 100,000 population which may explain why the overall median waiting time for new subsidised appointments across the public hospitals is 27 days to see a psychiatrist and 28 days to see a psychologist . Seventy-one respondents also shared that lack of relevant and trusted information was a prohibitive factor against seeking help. I was, however, encouraged by the 23 respondents who commended the Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT), a public healthcare initiative by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) located within the community. CHAT provides a unique combination of: one, free and confidential mental health check service that guarantees data will not be entered into the public health system; and two, care navigation that includes subsidised referral for public mental healthcare services if required. Unfortunately, CHAT currently only serves the youth segment but I hope this model could be adapted and expanded to support all ages. Now, quality. First, let me commend our mental healthcare professionals for their hard work, many of whom I know personally.”
“Last year, I shared the mental health struggles of those near and dear to me, including my own close shave with depression more than a decade ago. Perhaps, these sharings did not seem substantive or representative enough to persuade our policymakers. So, earlier this year, my amazing team of volunteers and I decided to launch the first-ever public consultation on mental health in Singapore. Rudimentary it may be, given less-than-limited resources, we were surprised and heartened by the more than 400 responses received from Singaporeans, 70% with lived experiences whilst the rest from caregivers and mental healthcare professionals! Many of these personal stories are heart wrenching. We even ended up doing "case work" with some! But since personal stories did not seem to move policymakers last year, I decided I will focus this year’s speech on where we are falling short in the specific areas of affordability, accessibility and quality in mental healthcare and concrete urgent actions that I hope the Deputy Prime Minister and relevant Ministers will take. First, on affordability. It broke my heart when I read one respondent "having to starve to afford therapy". At least 10 respondents shared they stopped seeking help because of financial struggles. Sixty-six percent of the respondents shared that mental healthcare costs were high, with more than half of them being users of public healthcare services. How is it that our world-class healthcare system has denied so many people the mental healthcare that they need? Sir, you may not know that as much as a seven-time difference still exists between MediSave and MediShield Life limits imposed on treatment for physical health versus mental health conditions.”
“There has been a steady increase in the lifetime prevalence of mental illness in Singapore over two decades – 10% or more when it was first tracked in 1998 and 2007, to 12% in 2010 and now 13.9%. To put into perspective, which I also did last year to limited success apparently, the prevalence for diabetes in Singapore was 8.6% in 1992, peaked at 11.3% in 2010 and has seen remarkable improvements since the "war on diabetes", decreasing to 8.8% today. As one doctor shared with me, "Until the Government starts taking the stand that mental health is as important as diabetes, there is a limit to what individual organisations can accomplish". Mr Deputy Speaker, despite two decades of increasing prevalence of mental illness in our society, the Government still seems to be struggling to do more for the mental well-being of our people. In fact, the Health Minister has previously shared in this House that we only spent 3% of our healthcare operating expenditure in FY2017 on mental health, compared to 11% for diabetes. Under our FY2020 expenditure estimates for healthcare, there are only three expenditure items targeted to support mental health. In comparison, many other developed countries, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Iceland, Finland, Canada, Norway and Australia, have identified mental health as a budget priority with significant resources dedicated to support mental well-being in their societies. Sir, at this juncture, Members may think that I am recycling my speech from last year. But let me assure Members that I am not, although that would be clearly so much easier for this part-time Nominated Member of Parliament with no institutional support!”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to first thank Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and his MOF team for the hard work they had put in with a generous Budget that aims to address the storms in sight, whilst at the same time prepare us for the tectonic shifts ahead. Last year, I asked for mental health to be a whole-of-Government priority. It was unintentionally prescient then to see this in action now with the multi-Ministry task force set up to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak. The psychology of our people became more than a priority for the Government to understand so as to manage the panic buying, hoarding and shunning of healthcare workers, all coping mechanisms to deal with underlying fear and anxiety. Research studies have found that these deficiencies of community resilience can be caused by poor mental health, leading affected communities to be less cohesive, adaptive and more vulnerable to shocks and disruption. The near-term uncertainties and long-term structural shifts that the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted should, therefore, alarm us to the need to prioritise mental health. I was very encouraged in the recent month by Prime Minister Lee, the Deputy Prime Minister and several Ministers rallying Singaporeans around the need to strengthen social and psychological resilience, both critical pillars of our Total Defence strategy. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will understand why I was disappointed that mental health was not mentioned at all by the Deputy Prime Minister during his speech, despite mentioning "resilience" four times. The ability to adapt to significant and adverse changes we call resilience is not happenstance; it is enabled by good mental health. As a nation, we clearly struggle with mental health.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the response. It was mentioned in The Straits Times on 13 February that three workers were issued warning letters when their employers had asked them to go to work. Will their subsequent employment after their current employment ends, be affected? Workers who are issued warning letters are usually unable to find subsequent employment when current employment ends. The second supplementary question, in a recent Straits Times report – I think it was two days ago – we are also concerned about an additional three workers whose Work Permits were revoked because they did not answer their calls by the Ministry, as the Minister of State alluded to earlier. This seems rather harsh and we are wondering if investigations are being conducted to find out why they did not answer their calls.”
“Mr Speaker, could I ask the Minister on my last question? What are the policies or guidelines that are already in place to ensure that all elected Members, including Opposition Members, can tap on these funds to serve their residents?”
“My question is: are we looking at this fund being disbursed and managed by civil servants instead of GRAs, or the same way as how MSF manages ComCare and so forth?”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. Could I ask if the Ministry or PA would consider having this fund, the CDWF, to be managed by relevant Ministries like MCCY and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), so that these Government funds are neutral in nature? Also, this adds to the advantage of having these funds be better managed and coordinated in terms of support and assistance rendered to the citizens, especially the low-income ones.”
“Can I then ask what are we planning to do in terms of getting these new laws and regulations to our vulnerable communities and all the children to make sure that they understand this is going to be in place?”
“No, I am not disputing there should be a minimum age. I am saying that it is still very aggressive. Because 16 is seen, in CYPA, as still a child.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I check with the Senior Minister of State on what he shared? I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's clarification that the Courts would obviously make the decision and make reference to CYPA. But it still does not discount the fact that the children will, first, be charged. And I just want to bring to attention that many of the children in low-income families, including in rental flat communities, they use PMDs as a primary form of their transport. Should we actually put them through that without considering at least some form of warning? I am not saying they should not be penalised if they are actually errant. I am saying that getting them charged and then getting them directly to the Courts really seem aggressive, particularly for underage riders. So, will the Senior Minister of State share if he will consider at least some warning or some reformative training before we get to exercise charging them in the Courts?”
“Instead of slapping more regulations each time we wish to change behaviours, how can we invest the same, if not, more effort, to build an informed, gracious and adaptive citizenry in an increasingly disruptive environment which must include the most vulnerable amongst us?”
“Last but not least, sections 47 and 50 of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill will give Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) the power to order the rider to produce his competency test certificate for examination and then seize the certificate and deliver the vehicle for an inspection. We know that as many as 6,000 warnings were issued in December 2019 and, in the same month, an Auxiliary Police Officer (APO) sent an e-scooter rider flying at Bedok Reservoir Road. With these amendments, what measures will the Ministry put in place to better train our enforcement officers in approaching the situation on the ground to avoid tension and skirmishes? Mr Deputy Speaker, the primary aim of active and shared mobility is a better living and safer environment for all citizens that supports a larger vision of pedestrianisation and a car-lite Singapore. We have a worthy and yet ambitious goal of having 90% of our peak hour trips completed by walking, biking, public transit and shared mobility by 2040. However, these bumps on the road towards active mobility have unfortunately served to narrow our perspectives, putting much of our attention on multiple users with conflicting needs – pedestrians, cyclists and mobility riders – sharing our narrow footpaths, which is, if I may remind everyone, all of 1.5-metre wide. It really should not come as a surprise at all that tensions and accidents would result. Albert Einstein said, "We cannot solve the problem with the same way of thinking that created it in the first place". So, instead of going at it as a battle against inconsiderate use of a limited space, how can we expand that physical space beyond the current 1.5 metres so that there is more room for more equitable and safer use by all users, including our car drivers?”
“While the Bill does not explicitly define what constitutes as "prescribed minimum riding age" as that will be subject to prescribed regulations where there may be different minimum riding ages for different classes or descriptions of PMDs, I would like to ask the Minister if he still intends to prescribe the minimum riding age as 16. This was announced by the Ministry on 4 December 2019 in the press release accepting all recommendations from AMAP. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by this and I hope Minister Desmond Lee, if he were here, is, too. It was only in October last year that the amended CYPA defines a "young person" as below 18, to better protect our children and to be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under section 37 of CYPA, there are clear restrictions on punishment of children and young persons and it clearly states that they should not be ordered to be imprisoned for any offence. Could the Minister please explain why we are passing new laws that go against existing laws, possibly constituting legislative conflict? Mr Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of CYPA, the welfare and best interests of the child or young person involved is of paramount consideration to me. I strongly believe in protecting our children and young persons, including their legal rights. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister to consider commensurate measures, other than imprisonment, for a child or young person found guilty of underage riding of PMD on shared paths. Should there not be warnings issued and reformative training actions considered before we impose such inappropriate punitive measures on children?”
“This may be the level of details we have to pay more attention to and get better at as we strive to keep up our regulation with innovation and inclusion. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to caution that we must not narrow our active mobility conversation to just that of riders against the rest of the society. Unfortunately, riders seem to be vilified with these two Bills, including underage riders. Let me elaborate. In the Shared Mobility Enterprises Bill, clause 23 allows for licensees to share information to refuse hire to particular individuals if they park improperly after three times. Clause 25 empowers LTA to refuse further to hire vehicles to particular individuals. Clause 26 further empowers the Minister to issue safety directives without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard. While the Trusted Data Sharing Framework was introduced in June 2019 to enable the digital economy, I question the usage of data sharing between licensees to create a list of banned individuals. Such systematic targeting could lead to unconscious discrimination of certain groups within our society and will degrade our social compact. Such a policy could leave these individuals unprotected also by rogue licensees. Can the Senior Minister of State please clarify the rationale for such a provision in clause 23 and what protection is given to the individuals? Then, there is section 23A of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill that makes it punishable for an underage rider with fine and/or imprisonment riding a motorised PMD on shared paths.”
“While the ban may have proceeded regardless, the consultation would at least afford these PMD riders a platform to be heard and to offer alternative policy recommendations for the Government's consideration. Moreover, such consultation would also be a good opportunity for the Government to understand and listen to suggestions of different measures which can be put in place to mitigate the negative impact suffered by these PMD riders, so that such measures can be announced alongside the ban. As we aspire towards "Singapore Together", the Government must consistently allow stakeholders to participate and be empowered. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the justification for introducing a ban with no consultation with the PMD riders and without advance notice or grace period to allow affected citizens to adjust and adapt. However, I do acknowledge that the intent with the public consultation exercise and AMAP was well-meaning and certainly a step in the right direction in participatory policymaking. But the devil is in the details. I note that there was only a representative from the PMD user community on AMAP but it is not immediately clear to me if he or others represent the interests of riders who use PMDs for livelihoods. It is also not clear to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we had considered the behavioural impact on safety relating as a result of the reward algorithms of delivery companies. If I am rewarded to make as many delivery trips as I can within the shortest possible time, then I would naturally be in a rush and possibly also tired all the time. Safety – mine and others – is almost certainly going to be compromised. So, we cannot exclude these companies' responsibility in our policy formulation and implementation.”
“It appeared that this segment of our citizens may have been blatantly marginalised during policy formulation and implementation. Previous policy shifts were progressively implemented but this overnight ban was seen by many as "blunt and rigid" and not well supported with an inter-Ministry response. A corrective action was finally taken on 8 November through the S$7 million e-scooter Trade-in Grant scheme only after delivery riders gathered across Singapore to speak to their Members of Parliament. Immediately following the ban on 4 November, Seline, a resident in a rental flat, often skipped her meals with only water so that her four children can go to bed with their stomachs full, because her husband, Sengchiy, who was with three different food delivery companies went from working every day to three days' worth of work after being told off by enforcement officers to get off footpaths. Efforts were made by ground-up groups to link them up to ComCare but there was a week's wait to process the application. Sengchiy finally switched to an e-bike towards end-November but is having trouble adjusting to riding on the road as he is afraid for his own safety. So, he switched to only late night hours. Seline's family is not the only one affected that I know of. Mr Deputy Speaker, what happened to Seline and her family could and should have been prevented. Given that they are the stakeholder most negatively impacted, the grievances of many riders who depend on the PMDs for their work and subsistence could have been mitigated if they were directly consulted before the ban and not just through the delivery companies.”
“The faith on the readiness of importers, delivery companies, riders and pedestrians to be gracious and responsible participants may now seem misplaced. The gaps and patch fixes in reaction to challenges over such a short space of time have made both these policy endeavours seem clumsy at best in design and execution. So, first, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what have we learned from the many potholes and patch fixes along this journey? What about our current models of policy formulation and implementation? Do we need to update and adapt because bike-sharing and PMDs will not be the only disruptions coming our way? Asking these questions is not questioning the intention and dedication of our Public Service at all. It is bridging an open dialogue between those who serve and the ones who are served. Former Head of Civil Service, Peter Ong, once said that the best policy is only as good as its execution. He also said that there should be no artificial divide between policy formulation and policy implementation, that there should be ownership of policy design to accountability of "how the policy is translated into outcomes that eventually reach our citizens". He emphasised paying attention to details as a key element to improve ability to convert policy formulation into successful execution, even calling the "culture of mastery over details" as one that the Singapore Civil Service is well-known for. The announcement of the overnight ban of PMDs on footpaths in response to a Parliamentary Question sent shockwaves through the PMD rider community, especially thousands of Singaporeans who are not merely recreational riders but subsist with PMDs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on both the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill and the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill. It is safe to say that our journey with "active mobility" has not been a smooth one for our policymakers nor our people since it was first mooted in the Land Transport Master Plan 2013. It was merely three years ago when bike-sharing was all the rage. In September 2018, a total of 100,000 bicycles were in circulation across the island from different bike-sharing schemes that also saw a public outcry of irresponsible rider behaviours. This House had to pass the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill in March 2018 to legislate licensing, restrict fleet size and mandate geofencing. Now, we rarely see these shared bikes around even though we still have three operators remaining. Then, came the next micro mobility revolution with e-scooters. Even more accessible than bicycles given that no special skills are required, their popularity grew due to low barrier to entry, but so did the public scrutiny and outrage with accidents and fire incidents ravaging homes from charging. Registration of e-scooters was the first patch fix in February 2018. Then, came another in August 2019 to limit speed and mandate helmets, and another in September to mandate theory tests, disallow handphones and third-party liability insurance before culminating in the overnight ban of PMDs from footpaths on 4 November 2019. Regulations continue to mount to respond to policy gaps that were uncovered with time. Sir, my humble observation is that the policy intent to let market forces dictate adoption was well meaning in both cases, yet, safety first must not be left to chance.”
“I am actually asking, and I do stand corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that one of the pieces of information that was publicly disclosed by the Government was that Ms Sua is suicidal or was suicidal.”
“I understand that one of the disclosures made about Ms Sua was that she was suicidal. I am wondering why is that a piece of information that was necessary to be disclosed in this case.”
“Because the press release stated that the law —”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. The Government's press release states that the law permits such disclosure, including the identity of the individual and the public interest. Can the Senior Minister of State also just share how is the public interest defined in this case? Also, could the Senior Minister of State share which law this disclosure is permissible under? And would the Senior Minister of State consider making the Government's Instruction Manuals publicly accessible, as practised in other countries and recommended also by the Public Sector Data Review Committee?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I appreciate the Minister's assurance because, as the largest employer and given that one in seven Singaporeans has a mental health condition in their lifetime, we would not want to turn Singaporeans away who want to serve in the Public Service. I just want to read this from someone who wrote to me: "I tried to register as a relief teacher with the Ministry of Education (MOE) but was rejected just because I have a history of depression." Now, I understand, obviously, it is very textured. But I just want to ask the Minister how are we ensuring that all Ministries and agencies will adhere to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines. In addition, can the Minister also share if the Government allows for medical claims for psychiatric treatment and if mental health leave is given for Government employees. If not, are there plans to do so?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask the Minister if MAS is considering consulting with experts in civil society in the development of these stress test scenarios?”
“A study published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, in May 2019, has estimated that by just converting all plastic manufacturing to fully recycled plastic, we can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 1.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent by 2050. That would be the equivalent of Japan’s estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions today. We should not miss the opportunity to propose this at the next UN Environment Assembly in 2021. 5.43 pm”
“I ask this noting that the Zero Waste Master Plan issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) last year stated that the Ministry "hope[s] to promote innovative circular business models and position our companies to seize opportunities in the region for specialised waste treatment, recycling or re-manufacturing." As I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to quote former US Secretary of State John Kerry, at Our Ocean Conference in Bali on 29 October 2018. "In the 1950s and 1960s, what brought me into public life was the nuclear freeze and arms control, the issues of peace… But now, folks, we need to face up to the fact that we've got to treat the issue of the oceans, protection of the oceans, protection of the planet, with the same urgency that we treated arms control and nuclear weapons… we need a non-proliferation treaty for pollution in the oceans." As a state party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we should take note of Article 207(4) of the Convention, which specifically requires states to “endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources”. I would like to boldly suggest that just as we had the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone Treaty of 1995, we should take the lead in proposing a non-proliferation treaty for plastic pollution which originates on land and ends up in the sea. This would require manufacturers to transition from manufacturing virgin plastics to harvesting and reusing recycled plastics.”
“The Ban Amendment prohibits the world's wealthiest countries – the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), European Union (EU) member states, Liechtenstein – from exporting hazardous waste to non-OECD countries and forces them to internalise the costs of their own pollution. The ban addresses the challenges faced by developing countries in controlling the flood of hazardous waste imports, which strain their infrastructure and harm the environment and local communities. The countries that have ratified include our three closest neighbours Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. China has also adopted the Basel Ban. Can the Minister please clarify on the following: (a) Are there reasons why Singapore has not ratified the Basel Ban Amendment? (b) Are there any entities in Singapore which import hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, for treatment here? Last but not least, is there a regional role that Singapore can play in waste recycling, given that our neighbours, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, are sending back plastic waste to their places of origin? Just last week, NEA clarified that three containers of plastic waste were sent back to Singapore as the Malaysian importer failed to get permits. Could implementing a circular economy mitigate our and the region’s needs with the benefits of economies of scale? This could be both a regional responsibility and opportunity for Singapore, given the need for innovative waste management solutions.”
“These two cases have placed a black mark on Singapore's reputation as a responsible global citizen. The Government has been regarding adherence to international environmental standards as a focus of Singapore's much-lauded environmental governance, and rightly so. We must ensure that Singaporean directors and Singapore-registered companies are not infringing waste regulations in the region and globally. Increasing profit margins or reducing costs cannot be at the expense of our shared environment. Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as ambassadors for Singapore, should uphold the same standards wherever they go. This is the same reason why Singapore prosecutes cases of corruption involving Singapore-registered companies under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of where they happen. As such, I would like to ask the Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that hazardous wastes are not exported under the guise of "second-hand" goods? What are the enforcement measures that can be used against Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities who facilitate the contravention of the Basel Convention overseas? Are there any plans to create extraterritorial offences, such as those found in the Prevention of Corruption Act, to allow the prosecution of Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities? If not, I would strongly urge the Minister to consider doing so. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention. On 5 December 2019, the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, a global prohibition on dumping hazardous waste, enters into force almost 25 years after its adoption and officially becomes international law.”
“" Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Minister please enlighten the House on the measures that Singapore implements to ensure that hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, which leaves Singapore are treated to internationally-recognised standards at their destination? Second, I urge the Minister to consider implementing more stringent measures to stop the illegal traffic of waste from Singapore to other countries in the region. Treating other countries as a dumping ground without consideration for the necessary health and safety measures would be doing a great disservice to our neighbours. There have been reported cases of illegal traffic of waste linked to Singapore. Virogreen, a Singapore-registered company, was reported by Eco-Business in March 2019 as being implicated in an "e-waste smuggling ring" in Thailand. It reportedly exported goods labelled as "second-hand electronic appliances" from Singapore to Thailand. In Thailand, however, it was disposed of as waste. The waste management plants which received the e-waste salvaged the precious metals and disposed of the rest. It is not known how they salvaged the metal, or how the rest of the e-waste was disposed. However, the fact that Virogreen was able to get away with declaring e-waste as functional second-hand goods is deeply concerning. This is not the only case. In October 2019, Reuters reported that two Singaporeans imported 87 containers of plastic scrap without the correct permits. They are said to be a director and a commissioner of an Indonesian company respectively. To make matters worse, the plastic scrap was reportedly contaminated with "hazardous items, such as printed circuit boards, used remote controls and used batteries", all of which could pose health hazards.”