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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 5 of 8.
“I urge the Government to consider such legislative innovations to incentivise market-driven investments into local social enterprises. We must do more to create the right environment for more of these impact businesses to grow from micro-businesses to small and medium enterprises and eventually bringing our Singapore brand of social innovations overseas as part of our global citizenry. To conclude, I would like to quote Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat at the Building our Future Singapore Together Dialogue in June 2019. I quote, "beyond partnering you in specific areas, we will work with you to create a shared future, one where every Singaporean will have a part to play." Mr Speaker, this commitment must surely include every differently-abled and vulnerable Singaporean by recognising them in a respectful, dignified and consistent manner across our laws and policies, as well as creating enabling environments to invite and support every business and every social enterprise to contribute to a nation that cares. Because the Singaporean society that we want to be is not about bringing people into what already exists but about making a new and better space for everyone to thrive.”
“At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as the founder of Hush TeaBar, a social enterprise that employs Deaf persons and persons who live with mental health conditions to provide a curated silent tea experience to promote mental wellness and social inclusion at workplaces. I am also a small-time impact investor. The growth of social enterprises in Singapore has generally been organic because we do not yet have a clear national strategy on this, including recognition of these enterprises as separate legal entities in their own right. As such, we do not know the total number of social enterprises in Singapore, but we do know from a response to my Parliamentary Question in February that 336 of them chose to be members of the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprises (raiSE) as at March 2018. Out of these, 92 or 27% had an annual revenue of at least or more than $200,000, including Hush. I remember having a conversation with an impact investor a few years back who shared that she would not think of investing in Singapore social enterprises since there are already grants given by the Singapore Government through the Tote Board and administered by raiSE. As much as grants are welcome, they encourage innovations differently from investments. Investments into social enterprises could be encouraged with tax rebates for impact investors. This may also help to shift the mindset from conventional donations to investing in social enterprises and eventually building a larger ecosystem. The United Kingdom government introduced the Social Investment Tax Relief in 2014 to help social enterprises attract capital in order to drive and grow their business.”
“I understand from the reply to my Parliamentary Question in August that the Government is currently considering using fixed manhour rates for BIPS to increase the administrative ease of claiming tax deduction under the scheme. This is very much a step in the right direction. But I would further suggest that the value of the voluntary method be tied to the actual value of the voluntary service rendered, independent of the corporate volunteer’s salary. This value could be preset by the Government in the form. Lastly, BIPS should also consider including food donations, particularly nutritional food donations, which I shared in my speech for the Resource Sustainability Bill last month as part of our climate change strategy. Countries like the United States (US) and France have already legislated tax deductions for food donations. In the US, companies can claim 15% tax deduction of their taxable income based on the value of the donated food. In France, if a company makes a food donation to a registered charity, they can claim up to 60% of the value of the food as a tax rebate, depending on how near it is to the food’s expiry date. Mr Speaker, between private businesses and social service agencies are social enterprises. Social enterprises are businesses that have a social and/or environmental agenda woven into their primary business. They help to reduce inequality and create livelihood opportunities for vulnerable communities by generating income through innovative products and services in the marketplace.”
“Yet, both businesses and IPCs face an administratively onerous process in applying for BIPs, thereby resulting in low usage of the scheme. In response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2018, we know then that between July 2016 and December 2017, or 1.5 years, only 48 businesses contributed about 17,000 volunteering hours through BIPS projects. To put this number in context, there are more than 500,000 business entities in Singapore. I urge the Government to consider the three suggestions below gathered from conversations with community-based organisations and companies that are keen to realise the policy and impact intent of BIPS. First, this scheme is only available for the 610 approved IPCs which are held to a higher governance standard out of 2,277 registered charities in 2018. Given that, the scheme could be made fully flexible through disbursing the $50,000 tax deduction limit to each IPC and allowing them to use the funds as they deem fit. A random audit could be conducted to deter abuses. This will also allow charities to distribute this $50,000 deduction tax limit across corporate partners in more meaningful ways that would better meet their beneficiary needs. With the current application process, there is a tendency to rush into partnerships on a first-come-first-serve basis. Second, the current BIPS offers tax deductions based on the actual salary rates of the employees of the businesses which could be problematic given (a) the need to disclose such sensitive information and (b) BIPS do not have the industry knowledge and/or bandwidth to audit salary figures given by corporate partners to determine if they are true and fairly reported.”
“I am thankful for the numerous tax relief schemes that we have to support our disability and vulnerable communities, but I urge the Ministry to update the awful definition of "incapacitated" from 1947 and all references to "handicap" to reflect the current social norms. We should take the lead from the Singapore’s Enabling Masterplan which also implements CRPD. The Masterplan’s definition and terminology of "disability" reflects the current and aspirational needs of the community. "Disability" is defined as "those whose prospects of securing, retaining places and advancing in education and training institutions, employment and recreation as equal members of the community are substantially reduced as a result of physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental impairments." I also urge all other Ministries to review and update all current provisions for our disability community, and in making new laws, to take the lead from the Ministry of Social and Family Development which leads and updates the Enabling Masterplan with the community. Mr Speaker, I would now like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss how we can better engage our private sector towards achieving greater social impact with the Business and Institutions of a Public Character (IPC) Scheme (BIPS) and supporting the growth of social enterprises. BIPS was approved during Budget 2016 for two and a half years from July 2016 to December 2018, and then extended for three more years till December 2021. The intent of the scheme is to encourage businesses to send their employees to volunteer and provide services in various areas, such as legal, human resources and accounting, or even general voluntary services for IPCs.”
“As the Executive Director of the Disabled Persons Association (DPA) shared with me when I checked with her on this particular definition, "for any law to define disability by incapacitation or to locate the inability to interact in the world within the disabled person goes against the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) which locates the barriers in the environment and not the person". Singapore became a signatory of CPRD in August 2013. Specifically, the term "incapacitated by reason of mental infirmity" goes against the spirit of the Mental Capacity Act introduced in 2008. In section 4(3), the Act says that a lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to (a) a person’s age or appearance; or (b) condition of theirs which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about their capability. Second, this discovery I made also unveiled the inconsistency and misalignment of the definition of "disability" across the legislature. As an example, the Women’s Charter defines an "incapacitated person" as a person who is wholly or partially incapacitated or infirm, by reason of physical or mental disability or ill-health or old age. In general, the English-speaking disability rights movement has moved away from the term "handicapped" and reclaiming and attributing positive associations with the term "disabled" or "disabilities". It is seen as "outdated" by the community in Singapore. "Handicap" is still used across a multitude of legislation, including the Health Sciences Authority Act, Health Products Act, the Copyright Act and so on.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill as it is generally procedural in nature. In particular, I welcome the amendment in clause 29 that amends section 39 of the current Act to broaden the Grandparent Care Relief to working mothers with "handicapped" and unmarried children. However, I would like to outline some significant and urgent housekeeping changes that we must make in definitional interpretations with the current Income Tax Act and the amendments of this Bill. The Explanatory Note of the Bill used the term "handicapped" and the amendment in clause 29(b) subparagraph used "incapacitated by reason of physical or mental infirmity". Sir, I was shocked to find that under section 2(1) of the Act, an "incapacitated" person means infant, lunatic, idiot or insane person – a definition that, in my research through the legislative history, has not been changed for 72 years since the Income Tax Ordinance 1947 when income tax was first imposed. The reference is derogatory and as Members would know well, is not reflective of the current narrative and ground realities of the disability community and our social policies. In case the House thinks that I am just concerned with semantics, let me share why this is more than just a euphemistic concern. First, definitions and terminologies we use in our legislature reflect how far we have come as a society and have an impact on how the rest of the society carve out their responses and examine their attitudes. So, we must not leave definitional updates as an afterthought as we update our laws.”
“Mr Speaker, can I check also with the Senior Minister of State, in terms of the contribution that we have shared that we contribute 0.11% of carbon emissions globally, does that number include the emissions from the oil refinery facilities, please?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Can I just find out if part (d) on how much percentage increase in carbon emissions is expected following an expansion of refinery facilities has been answered, please?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for that response. Can I just check if the Ministry would be considering working with Singapore Exchange to integrate the reporting obligations that the Senior Minister of State has outlined in the Bill, with their sustainability reporting requirements?”
“As urgent as addressing the looming threats of climate change by reducing significant food loss is the need to solve the food insecurity problem of so many fellow Singaporeans by redistributing this food loss. If a small group of citizen volunteers like SG Food Rescue can move hundreds of tonnes of food loss every year to where they are needed most, imagine what we can do if we – the Government, business and community – truly commit our will and resources to a national vision of getting all 400,000 people fed, and make climate change everyone's concern. I believe we can do this.”
“Based on the Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2017/2018, comparing the expenditures on food and income, excluding Central Provident Fund, of our lowest quintile Singaporeans, 49% of their income is spent on food. Mdm Gopal, in her 70s, who lives in Toa Payoh, is one of them. She has zero income and survives on $500 per month from her Social Service Office. As a beneficiary of Free Food For All, a charity that receives and redistributes donated food, she saves a minimum of $100 per month. Larger families are able to save much more. We would also be freeing up scarce resources dedicated to our social safety net for other essential needs, such as healthcare. Based on our estimates on how much it costs for programmes like Meals-on-Wheels and Willing Hearts that provide more than 10,000 daily meals in total, close to $15 million could be redirected to other aspects of social support, especially as higher standards of living with higher temperatures mean that the basic needs of even our most vulnerable must also be constantly reviewed. Mr Deputy Speaker, engaging the business community must be a top priority because sustainability is a future investment for economic growth, new market opportunities and job creation. Companies must be nudged out of their comfort zones into a greener and more innovative direction as we work towards building a circular economy. This Bill, and the Zero Waste Masterplan, is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough, not with the fierce urgency of the climate crisis, and rightful ambition that we must have to be a leader in climate change mitigation. And more than that, sustainability is also a social parameter to secure a more inclusive society.”
“In many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, "use by", "best before" and "sell by" mean that after the food reaches its "use by" date, the quality and flavour of the food is lowered, but it could still be edible. Studies found that when a link between date labels, food waste and its environmental impacts is made, the willingness-to-pay for expired food increases, particularly for expired frozen or recently expired semi-perishable products. Food that has gone past its "best before" date can be donated to charities so long as its within six months of the "best before" date. I am pleased to note that Singapore Food Agency is exploring Good Samaritan laws to ease business concerns over the donation of excess food. I strongly advocate for the implementation of such laws which have been implemented in countries, such as Italy and the United States, and have encouraged food donations and reduced food waste. As I mentioned before, incentives to help drive corporate behaviours cannot be overlooked. We could consider extending the underused Business-IPC Partnership Scheme (BIPs) to include donation of edible food that would otherwise go to waste to charities. When supported by the Good Samaritan laws, this is especially compelling for many businesses I know, like Samsui Supplies and Services, through the Company of Good, a corporate giving initiative by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre. Mr Deputy Speaker, not only will such measures truly drive food resource sustainability. We could be relieving our financially strapped households of a huge burden.”
“As temperature rises change agricultural productivity and sea level rises, food availability will inevitably be affected. For the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, any price increase is detrimental. SG Food Rescue is a small group of individuals, and they have demonstrated that there is much in our food value chain that can be saved and redistributed. Its volunteers collect a staggering 1,500 kg of unsold fresh produce once a week from Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. Sometimes, they collect twice a week for a total of 2,500 kg of unsold fresh produce. Five hundred to 700 kg of that goes to charities, namely, Free Food For All, Beyond Social Services and St Theresa's Home that feed the needy, while the rest is sent to a soup kitchen in Little India, Krishna's Kitchen. The soup kitchen processes the vegetables and turns them into meals to feed the hungry, especially migrant workers in the Little India area. About 200 kg ends up with a community initiative in Marine Terrace – just down the road from where I live – and one of the six public community fridges, benefiting low-income residents. And we can do even more, and we need to do so urgently and systemically. We can shape food-loss-reducing behaviours by changing our food labelling policies and also enacting the Good Samaritan laws. In Singapore, "use by", "sell by", "expiry date" and "best before" all mean expiry date, according to the Singapore Food Agency. Products are not allowed to be sold or distributed in Singapore past that date. This is, therefore, a huge source of food waste.”
“This is an area where legislation is fast moving in the EU. For example, in France, planned obsolescence of an electronic product is a criminal offence. There are also ongoing discussions in the EU that expected product lifetime be labelled. Mr Deputy Speaker, as we discuss these measures to address the climate crisis, we must not miss the tremendous opportunity to reduce and redistribute the phenomenal 763,100 tonnes of food waste generated every year that can provide for a more climate-just outcome for the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore. Let me caveat this number as an estimate deliberation from the 2017/2018 household expenditure survey. Let me illustrate why I think this is a tremendous opportunity and that the Zero Waster Masterplan must not be looked at in solo from the social challenges we have. Of the 763,000 tonnes of food loss a year, let us assume conservatively that half of them, or 382,000 tonnes, can be salvaged and redistributed. One meal, conservatively, uses one kg and, therefore, we will get about 382 million meals from the redistributable food loss. Each person eats 1,095 daily meals a year, which is to say, we can safely feed about 390,000 people a year. That means, Mr Deputy Speaker, this food loss every year could provide food security for all our vulnerable groups! I shared this in my speech during the debate on the Singapore Food Agency Bill as well. I know this is a simple calculation, but I think we get the point. Prime Minister Lee sounded a clarion call for Singapore to recognise the threat that climate change poses to us. We must never forget that, for most of the world, Singapore included, the most vulnerable amongst us will be hit hardest. Climate change is already affecting rice production in the Mekong Delta.”
“Currently, the Singapore Exchange listing rules already have sustainability reporting guidelines but with no specific metrics prescribed. If we would like to see resource sustainability as a core part of doing business, it would seem sensible to stipulate the targets above as a standard reporting requirement for all listed companies. I understand that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had a recent consultation on ESG reporting to (a) "require disclosure of significant climate-related issues" and (b) amend the "Environmental" key performance indicators to require disclosure of relevant targets. Third, to escalate the adoption of a sustainability mindset and ensure affordability, we could incentivise producers and retailers with tax rebates, so that these obligations do not merely end in increased costs for reporting and collection, and the possibility of penalty, all of which will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. In China and Thailand, the EPR schemes introduced subjected companies producing non-biodegradable goods to taxes and offered tax credits as incentives for companies that used waste as raw materials. Finally, if we want to reduce our resource footprint, we need to broaden the notion of sustainability. Singapore's Earth Overshoot Day for 2019 was 12 April 2019. This means that if the world consumed like us, we would be consuming three times as much resources as the earth can regenerate in a given year. If we were to drive true resource sustainability, we not only have to compel producers to reduce packaging and have mandatory take-back programmes, but we also need electronics producers and retailers to be truly incentivised to extend product lifetimes, ensure maintenance and repair services availability.”
“At this rate, our landfill will run out of space in 2035. Time is not on our side. Please allow me to propose further measures that must be implemented to signal the urgency. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, smart targets and goals. Having companies simply report on their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle products in the Bill is insufficient. Reporting obligations have no bite if it is not accompanied by waste production limits and recycling targets for producers. We must set SMART goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound so the producers can plan and prepare accordingly. For example, the EU Packaging Directive 2018 sets out that by 2025, 65% by weight of all packaging must be recycled, with specific recycling targets for each material, such as 50% for plastic and 75% for paper and cardboard. By 2030, the target for recycled packaging is increased to 70%, including 55% for plastic and 85% of paper and cardboard. Such reduction targets can be achieved with ingenuity. In 2018, Unilever launched a 3-litre bottle for their Omo laundry detergent brand in Brazil, with a formula at six times the concentration of the original, so it can be diluted in people’s homes. This has reduced the volume of plastic used by 75%. Companies must also inform customers about maintenance and repair services, environmental impacts and materials. Retailers should also actively inform customers of sustainable products. We can emulate the ambitious target setting and look to have companies report their progress on waste minimisation year-on-year via a measure of waste per unit of product output. Second, we must encourage public accountability and corporate stewardship by mandating these reports to be made public.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill for this is critically necessary for the Zero Waste Masterplan to have any bite. This Masterplan has been eagerly anticipated by the community and was ceremoniously launched last Friday. In fact, I think even the Ministry was eager to get this going that the Bill was referred to as the Act in the Masterplan on the website when I checked in after the launch. I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for taking my feedback on that misunderstanding which has now been updated on the website and the Masterplan. The Bill’s intent is to fortify the regulatory teeth needed to ensure sustainability in the consumption of resources, which our planet has a finite amount of. However, the Bill can and must do much more to reflect the urgency of the climate crisis which I would like to discuss. I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to urge the Government to take a bold and different perspective in solving the food security challenge for our vulnerable groups as a critical climate change action. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not short of daily reminders that "yesterday would have been better" for taking actions against human-caused climate change. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had warned in October 2018 that we only have 12 years, or 11 years now, for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees celsius in order to limit climate change catastrophe per the Paris Agreement which we are a party of. Closer to home, our waste generation has not reduced substantially at all. We generated 7.7 million tonnes of solid waste in 2018, only a 9,000 tonne or a dismal 0.1% decrease from the previous year. In 2018, we generated 763,100 tonnes of food waste, accounting for 10% of our total waste.”
“So, the concern is whether we are actually monitoring the situation. I understand that it is not hard and fast in terms of the segregation between the children who are there for care and protection and for offending behaviours. Are we looking to make sure that there are no adverse effects, especially of children with offending behaviours, on children who need care and protection?”
“Can I just check with the Minister: he mentioned earlier that the older children and the younger children are actually separated, from the point of safety. Just wondering also, do we separate children that are in the homes because they have been abused and neglected from the children who are in the homes because of offending behaviours? Or are they actually right now mixed in the homes together?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Minister was sharing about how we are developing the e-sports market, it is very exciting. But I cannot help but also worry about the announcement that the World Health Organization made last year that has classified gaming disorder as a disease. I am just wondering, just like the way we were developing the casinos, what are we doing here in terms of combating gaming disorders and addiction, as we alongside develop this e-sports area?”
“Before I completely end, I would like to also take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to thank the everyday and invisible heroes in child protection work from the Ministry and the community for their dedication and compassion. I support the Bill.”
“Currently, community-based conversations are being held with grassroots support to visualise what different segments of the community would envision for their neighbourhood. Another example of repurposing the immediate environment is Project Hearts in Nee Soon East which also highlights active citizenry among its residents. The group saw a need to kick off with academic and play support programmes for the children in Yishun Blocks 269A and 269B. Bernard, born with a congenital development condition that affects the spine, leads the academic outreach of Project Hearts in collaboration with the Singapore Red Cross. During the sessions, the void deck is converted into a study area with portable chairs and tables, and the session caters to the needs of children in the area. The children feel they are part of a community whilst their academic and play needs are being met in a holistic way. It takes a community to raise a child, indeed. How can we enable more of such efforts that empower the community and, therefore, our children and youths? Children and youths are key drivers for inclusive growth and sustainable development of a society. Mr Speaker, I would like to end by sharing these powerful words from Nelson Mandela who said, "history will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of our children.'' And also how we protect them, I believe. Because it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men and women. We – the Government, the community and the family – must share this paramount responsibility of protecting each and every one of our children and young persons and do everything possible to create enabling and nurturing environments for them to learn, live, love and be loved so that they can thrive and contribute meaningfully to society.”
“A record number of teenage boys committed suicide in 2018 according to the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS), and calls to SOS by children between five and nine have jumped by an alarming 500% within three years. A global study showed that young persons diagnosed with major depressive disorder were found to be more vulnerable to involvement in violence. It also found that depression in children and young persons may be harder to recognise and could manifest itself as irritability and aggressiveness. There is accumulating evidence that depression can be predictors of youth delinquency. Currently, the programmes and interactions for children and young persons by Social Service Agencies, schools and grassroots are designed based on offending behaviours and not on the risk factors, such as mental health conditions. Can we create an inclusive environment by training community workers to identify and respond to these mental health risk factors as well? Mr Speaker, another risk factor is the community that a child grows up in. How can we do more to provide our children and the young persons with a nurturing and stimulating environment, especially so in at-risk neighbourhoods? Community workers at Beyond Social Services facilitate competent communities in rental housing neighbourhoods across Singapore. They believe in engaging children and young persons in the longer term, and nurture family and community support around them. An example of a participatory design project is at the Kebun Baru neighbourhood where community needs assessment conducted earlier in the year highlighted the needs of the children and young persons, such as the lack of playground, halal food facilities and the feeling of a safe, inclusive environment.”
“Mr Speaker, we should reframe foster care to also include kinship care. Hong Kong had piloted a two-year project on Child Care Training for Grandparents with the aim to strengthen inter-generational family ties as well as scaling up childcaring skills. Perhaps we can learn from such initiatives as we align family policies with Active Ageing in strengthening family bonds. Second, I urge the Ministry to consider a tiered foster care system with tiered allowances based on the complexities. The amount a foster carer would receive then takes into account both the "placement type", for example, care for children with special needs and disabilities alongside their "competence" to provide care for the children. This has been implemented in many independent, for-profit agencies, charities and area councils in the UK. Next, I would like to propose tax relief for foster carers as a means of recognition and retention as well as an incentive for more potential families to apply to the fostering scheme, as how the Australian government has incorporated tax exemptions into their fostering provisions. And, finally, Mr Speaker, let us go upstream to look at preventive measures. Preventing delinquency and ongoing offending behaviours is as important as downstream interventions, if not more so, so that our children and youths can avoid the harmful effects of detention and incarceration, and the potential involvement with the adult criminal justice system. One of the risk factors for delinquency is mental health disorders, which is increasing amongst children and young persons in Singapore.”
“In addition, we should extend family work intervention to the other sibling who is in the household to prevent further family separation and risk being referred to the care system in the future, too. Mr Speaker, I commend the extension of childcare and infant leave to foster parents with section 27 of the Bill to make fostering more accessible and recognised. The demand for foster parents is more pressing now, as more children have entered the foster care system in recent years. A children's home, no matter how well-run, cannot replicate the "therapeutic elements" found in a family, said Dr Yong Ming Lee of the National Institute of Education. How can we encourage more fostering? First, we could reframe foster care to also include kinship care and incentivise keeping children within their families by extending the amendments to section 27C to enable grandparents and next-of-kin, such as uncles and aunts, to childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave.”
“I would like to urge the Ministry to strongly consider providing pre-emptive support programmes for at-risk families before we get to the vicious trap that Farhana faced. Family Service Centres, when working with families, could suggest counselling or parenting courses if the staff are also trained to assess parenting capacity. In addition to parents, when a child or young person is in a care placement outside the family, whether short or long term, retention of relationships with the extended family or significant people, like grandparents and siblings, is critical for their sense of identity to be preserved, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the child. Research on family reunification shows maintaining parent/family-child contact in the first six months of alternative care placement improves the chances of family reunification. The UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children states that it is important to keep siblings together in any alternative care placements. When siblings are separated, it causes anxiety among them, with separated siblings often having to manage lifelong issues of attachment, identity and loss in their lives. I know that Darul Ihsan Orphanages is one of the residential home facilities that provide care for both girls and boys with deliberate joint activities to facilitate sibling interaction. There are nearly 10 sibling group placements within the home of 50 children. I would like to propose that concerted efforts be made to ensure contact time between siblings placed in different care placements, such as if one is in foster care and the other in residential care.”
“Also, I understand that one out of three care staff has also been sent for the Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA®) training programme to ensure that personnel involved in handling crisis situations can maintain the care, welfare, safety and security of all involved. So, I am not sure if I understand the intent and need for section 68A. Can the Minister please clarify? Mr Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss what more we can do to invest in families so as to support and protect our children, given that "family" is one of the three principles of our social safety net. Parents and guardians are expected to exercise responsibility for their children, but I would argue if families are adequately enabled and empowered. Because we all know that there are many ways in which a family situation may manifest itself, depending on the parenting attitudes as well as who are the present and absent family members, their dynamics, needs and aspirations. Take Farhana, 47, and a single mother living in Yio Chu Kang who used to struggle with raising her five children. She barely had time for herself with taking care of the children and trying to earn some money from home, so she often felt exhausted trying to hold it all together. At times, she also resorted to physical methods with her children. When her eldest child was not attending school regularly, the state intervened and later found out about the abuse. She was then required to attend counselling and therapy sessions. Ironically, the well-meaning sessions which were meant to help her and her children saw her in even more emotional distress, which clearly also affected the psychological well-being of her children. Perhaps, the support for Farhana should have come earlier?”
“Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill for increasing support for children and young persons, including those up to 18 years, which brings us in ratification with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I am especially heartened that the Bill now includes emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, thereby allowing affected children and young persons to be protected by the Bill and allows older youth offenders to have more rehabilitative options. And yet, in the very same Bill that recognises emotional harm as a form of ill-treatment, a new section 68A proposes the use of mechanical restraints on children and young persons. "Mechanical restraints" in this case refer to handcuffs, leg braces, flexicuffs or any similar means of restraint. This is disturbing, especially given the psychological risks and effects of the use of physical restraints. A 2008 research by Cornell University found restraints to be "a considerable risk to vulnerable youths, are intrusive, have a negative effect on the treatment environment, and have a profound effect on those youths who have experienced trauma in their lives." It is also not clear to me if there are any guidelines on its use, or if restraints should only be used after less intrusive methods have been applied and deemed ineffective, especially when there are already therapeutic and trauma-informed alternatives as well as environmental interventions available, such as a padded room to prevent self-harm or a Calming Room to manage aggressive/violent behaviour. In fact, I believe this is already an MSF requirement for all children's homes, in keeping with the Standards of Care for Children and Young Persons Homes.”
“But is it explicitly stated or is it implied?”
“Mr Speaker, just to clarify. So, the Minister of State is saying that mental illness resulting from a work injury is covered. Is that explicitly stated so that employees are aware and also the NGOs and the medical institutions?”
“Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications for the Minister of State. The first is on the Code of Practice or Code of Conduct for the insurance companies that I mentioned in the speech. The Minister of State had assured us that he will make sure that the insurers would treat each claim fairly and in a timely manner. Can the Minister of State share with us how he would do that because these are private companies? The second clarification – I am absolutely delighted that the Minister of State is confirming that workers are entitled to claims for mental illness resulting from work injury or at work. He cited that there were three claims on psychological illness in the period cited. I shared that there were 60% of migrant workers that are predicted to have serious mental illness. So, that disconnect with the number of claims that had been made – the three cases versus the 60% – I wonder if that is a case of both the employers and the employees, especially the employees, are not aware that they can actually make the claim. This comes from my own personal interaction with two Bangladeshi workers whom I supported because they were under such extreme distress and not knowing that they can actually claim for this.”
“I am very happy to hear that HealthServe has plans to start a mental health programme but the needs are way more than what one NGO can handle. Lastly, we could implement a structured intervention programme, such as a case management rehabilitation programme, which can improve several aspects of the workers’ psychological well-being and quality of life. This will provide the motivation to not only prepare injured workers to return to work but, more importantly, to help them adjust better and ensure sustainability in their post-rehabilitation work life. There is already successful implementation of such programmes in Malaysia and Germany. Last but not least, I urge the Minister to consider allowing workers who have had their permits cancelled prematurely by employers after they have suffered an injury, but are free from medical leave or light duties, to look for new jobs instead of being sent back home unfairly when they have already recuperated. Mr Speaker, in that same report I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Tripartite Strategies Committee also recommended that Singapore must aim to be amongst the best in the world in our WSH performance. This is a worthy goal indeed. Yet, as I recall how heartening it was to see the different migrant communities coming together to support one another at the Migrant Cultural Show I was at last Sunday, I cannot help but think that we must surely include in that goal above, one that obliges us as a Government and society to enable and support our one million migrant brothers and sisters to be the best that they can be in total health and safety. For if they help us build our homes and take care of much of our needs for us to thrive, how can we send them back to theirs, broken and less?”
“Lastly, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight the urgent need to safeguard the mental health of our migrant workers. A 2015 survey of 605 Bangladeshi and Indian workers conducted by the Singapore Management University found that more than 60% of respondents who had outstanding injury or salary claims were predicted to have serious mental illness. A Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Jamal, suffered work injuries in his hip and spine. His employer refused to pay for the total hip replacement he needed. He sought help with HealthServe, another NGO for migrant workers, which provided him shelter and supported him with his case to get the surgery he needed. In those six months with HealthServe, Jamal suffered great pain which caused insomnia and depressive moods that later escalated when he also met with a slew of major stressors, including his father having a stroke, his wife having left him and the loss of his home in Bangladesh due to flooding, and his escalating debts, and he thought of killing himself. HealthServe provided counselling to Jamal who reportedly cried several times during these sessions. He was repatriated in May 2019, broken in flesh and spirit. Again, Jamal is not alone, Mr Speaker. I urge the Ministry to consider the following suggestions from the community. First, we must educate our migrant workers on mental health and provide peer support and/or mental health first aid training. We must provide easy access to counselling services for migrant workers in distress. To my knowledge, there is only FASTCare by the Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Association for Social Support and Training by MOM for FDWs, but none yet for non-domestic and male migrant workers.”
“Yet, due to the lackadaisical approach to settling an outstanding bill of $200 by the employer, the Singapore National Eye Centre almost stopped Liu from seeing the specialist for follow-up which may have caused further damage. Thankfully, HOME was able to support him through a kind donation. Mr Speaker, in case we think that these are just a couple of odd cases recently, it is far more common than we think because more than a considerable number of migrant workers are affected. I do urge the Ministry to study the prevalence of this problem. In the meantime, to circumvent the challenge of employers promptly providing the Letter of Guarantee, I propose that workers be issued with insurance cards by the insurer that acts as a Letter of Guarantee, to facilitate easier and faster processing of medical appointments, medical procedures and scans. In the proposed Code of Practice I mentioned earlier, insurers must also fulfil target timelines and settle the claims expeditiously, so that the medical treatment of workers are not delayed. A 30-day timeline as a target is recommended to determine whether the injury is work-related and, hence, treatment should be covered under insurance. The Bill also provides that, upon the employer's insolvency, the insurer assumes "the same liabilities in relation to the employee as if the insurer were the employer." This suggests the insurer should pay for the medical treatment directly and not merely reimburse the worker. However, clause 18 of the Bill provides that all compensation payable should be paid by the insurer to the injured worker or their representative if they are under incapacity. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the insurers will pay for the medical treatment directly, or reimburse the worker.”
“In addition, the Ministry sends letters addressed to workers to the office address of the employer, but there have been cases where the employer has failed to pass these letters on to the workers. I urge the Ministry to consider informing the workers immediately by short message service (SMS) and letting workers opt to obtain a free copy of the accident report and letters from a counter from the Ministry instead. My second concern, Mr Speaker, is the delay in medical treatment or services received by migrant workers because of their employer’s refusal to pay, that essentially defeats the purpose of WICA, which is to ensure that workers are able to receive proper and, certainly, timely medical treatment. As we speak, a Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Ahmad, is at risk of more damage from delayed treatment. Ahmad sustained a severe back injury at work when he fell while carrying heavy construction material five months ago. He required magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for ongoing treatment but had to miss two scan appointments because his employer did not pay outstanding bills nor issue undertakings to pay for ongoing treatment. Without the scans, the specialists are reluctant to determine further course of treatment. Other health professionals like physiotherapists also cannot help in the absence of diagnostic imaging. Ahmad is currently supported by another NGO called HOME to get his employer to provide the undertaking and we are hoping he will be third time lucky to make the MRI appointment. A Chinese worker, whom I will call Liu, had an accident when he was hit in the eye by a large metal hook which caused a cornea rupture in his eye two months ago. The doctor had indicated that he is mostly likely permanently blind in that eye.”
“It is, therefore, imperative that the Ministry implement safeguards to ensure that the insurers will process each claim in accordance with the worker's full rights and entitlements, including conducting spot checks on claims processed by insurers and monitoring the processing by insurers. This is crucial since the insurer is paid for by the employers. Therefore, stringent external regulation is needed to ensure that the insurer acts impartially. The changes in these procedures must be coupled with efforts to inform low-wage local and migrant workers of their insurance coverage and claims processes. Migrant workers, who rely on WICA for compensation, may be unable to push for their own interests if they lack a detailed understanding of the law. According to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Global Health Journal, a 2016 survey conducted by medical practitioners with 433 migrant workers in Singapore found that only 61.4% of these workers were certain that they had medical insurance coverage. Some workers mistakenly believe they have to bear their full medical expenses and avoid treatment, as they are not aware that it is mandated by law for employers to purchase WICA insurance. Moreover, it is unclear how workers will receive information that a claim has been initiated by the employer. Workers do not automatically receive accident reports from the Ministry when their accidents have been filed by their employer and, hence, may not see the details filed that may be prejudicial to the worker. While NGOs can email the Ministry on behalf of workers to request for a copy, the Ministry charges a fee for this.”
“Arbiters must allow parties adequate opportunity to contest statements made by another party. This is especially important for workers, as employers may possess more documents and be able to withhold certain evidence more easily. Migrant worker NGO, TWC2, has seen cases where the employer may under-declare overtime hours and, hence, salaries of migrant workers. Take Bangladeshi worker Naseer. He had filed WICA and salary claims at the same time. While the WICA case was ongoing, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) had found that he was incorrectly paid before the injury and computed the total underpaid amount as $13,000 over 12 months. However, he was told to wait for his WICA claim to be completed before proceeding with his salary claim. When the WICA compensation amount was offered nine months after the accident, it was based on the employer’s version of the AME. However, he accepted the compensation because he did not want to wait much longer and still had an outstanding salary claim. Hence, arbiters must be trained to scrutinise the evidence presented. Under the Employment Act, employers are legally obliged to document working time records and pay slips and furnish these documents to the workers. Adverse inference should be drawn against the employer who fails to keep or furnish proper records. Recent amendments to the Employment Claims Act already mandate such inferences in salary claims. It would also be useful to have the WICA and salary disputes to be conducted in parallel where there is a salary dispute, so that the AME can reflect the result of the salary claim process accurately. Mr Speaker, as illustrated before, the processing of claims is seldom a straightforward application of formulae or medical reports.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and commend the Ministry for giving broader coverage and higher compensation with the amendments, amongst other improvements to the work injury compensation process, especially given that workplace injuries increased to 12,810 cases in 2018, a jump of 312 cases from the year before, with construction remaining the industry with the highest number of fatalities. If we truly wish to provide workers with one of the safest and healthiest workplaces in the world, as recommended by the WSH2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee in April 2019, we must take into account their working realities, especially our 970,000 migrant workers who form the bulk of our manual labour force and, therefore, most at-risk from work injuries. I would like to raise three key concerns that I feel are not adequately addressed by the Bill and to propose additional measures accordingly. My first concern, Mr Speaker, is that the Bill proposes to let insurance companies handle the processing of claims rather than it being under the purview of the Ministry for reasons of efficiency, as the Minister of State has alluded to. I appreciate the intent but we will also agree that private insurers have no incentive to ensure workers are fully apprised of their rights and it is unclear which party is responsible for ascertaining validity and how a party can appeal the decision. If it is to be private insurers making the decision, then there should be a rigorous Code of Practice or Conduct for them to follow to ensure integrity and reasonable speed in the process. Such a Code should include procedures and principles that align with the fundamental rules of natural justice, which include the principles of impartiality and fair hearing.”
“I am not going to make a long speech; do not worry. Thank you for the reminder. I thank the Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong for his response. I appreciate that that was very comprehensive. Could I just ask a very simple question regarding the gender-differentiated premiums? The Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier that the concern is that if we do it as gender-neutral premiums, then we are going to be worried about men not wanting to come on the scheme. I am finding it a bit of a struggle to understand how do we know that that would be the case? Maybe we should do a dip test here, but I just find that hard to understand. Could you please clarify that?”
“Yes, I know. Thank you for that. I feel strongly that this Bill tells of the social compact we aspire towards, beyond the technical policy details. "Cheaper to be dead than to be sick in Singapore" still hangs off the lips of so many ordinary Singaporeans, especially the elderly and those who struggle to make ends meet. While actuarial fairness and sustainability of the schemes are important considerations, we must not forget that public long-term care insurance is often designed on the bedrock of social solidarity. I believe that solidarity of all Singaporeans, regardless of age, gender or extent of disability, should be important guiding principles for a care system in a country which now ranks among the wealthiest in the world. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence.”
“Yes, I am just finishing up. It is clear that we need to urgently do more in providing care planning, navigation and coordination services. I also urge for more centralisation and consolidation of existing schemes to provide support in a more streamlined manner. Mr Speaker, I used my full 20 minutes because I feel strongly —”
“The volunteers had to help facilitate or lodge applications related to ElderShield, ComCare financial assistance, renewal of rental flat tenancy, medical escort and transport services, application to withdraw CPF savings, and extension of the wife’s social visit pass for her to continue as the full-time caregiver. The entire process was made even more difficult because many of the applications required the doctors to provide their professional input on issues related to mental capacity, functional status and details on the medical condition. Michael passed on earlier this year. Without citizenship, his wife and his three children moved back to her home country.”
“Even with the support of these touchpoints, applications often take up significant portions of time for either care-recipients and/or their caregivers, as well as the social service or healthcare professional assigned to support them. The sheer number of schemes, accompanied by the number and variance in eligibility criteria and the amount of supporting documents required for the application, makes it overwhelming and exhausting for all involved. Even with the Silver Generation Office Ambassadors' work, limitations remain, especially in ensuring timely access to these schemes for those who desperately need support. One of the cases that was shared with me is an elderly Singaporean male, let us call him Michael, who is married to a foreign spouse and resides in a 1-room rental flat. Michael suffered from global aphasia and a stroke, and he was also diagnosed to suffer a permanent loss of mental capacity, ability to communicate and needed help in all ADLs. When the volunteers met the family after Michael was discharged, they found that the family had insufficient money to put food on the table, and was also struggling to find money for transport to the hospital for the required medical care and proposed rehabilitation services. The subsequent days were a chaotic navigation of our systems for both the family and the volunteers attempting to support them. They alerted, made referrals and continued to work closely with around 10 stakeholders, including the Family Service Centre, Residents' Committee, AIC, Social Service Office, HDB, Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, CPF, the regional hospital and other service providers.”
“Given the lower prevalence of terminal illness and disability amongst our children and youths, we can afford to provide the same support we do for our seniors but at far less significant budget expansion and I hope that we will do the right thing and stand in solidarity with all Singaporeans regardless of age. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of accessibility to an expanding and extensive web of policies and schemes, especially for the very people we designed them for. The community practitioners who work with vulnerable seniors, differently-abled and low-income communities on the ground have spent countless hours trying to grasp the increasing complexity and fragmentation of our health, social and care systems and policies. In a recent mapping exercise conducted by the Cassia Resettlement Team, they found there are at least a total of 22 schemes, including the new schemes and excluding those which will be phased out, relevant to Singaporeans with long-term care needs. Most of these schemes have an average of three eligibility criteria and these criteria differ across schemes in terms of age, extent of disability, household monthly income and more. Many of these schemes require application through a social worker or directly to the relevant Government agency or alternatively require a disability assessment to be conducted. On the ground, awareness of these schemes is understandably an issue, and the concern will surely be for people who are severely disabled but may not have accessed touchpoints like hospitals or social service offices such that they could be directed to access this web of schemes.”
“For children and youths who may not have CPF savings to tap on, we should also extend flexibility in allowing parents to tap on their MediSave accounts to support the long-term care needs for their children. While I understand that we may want to ensure that parents themselves retain adequate CPF savings for their own retirement and healthcare needs, at the end of the day, the money must come from somewhere. If it is not from their CPF MediSave account, it is likely that it has to be out of their own pockets. While we have good social safety nets, we must also consider that many of these schemes take into account the savings and assets possessed by the household. As such, retirement adequacy and savings for healthcare costs in future will remain affected. Moreover, allowing parents to tap on their CPF MediSave savings for their children is in line with our policy of family as the first line of support. This would also ensure consistency in policy, as current rules allow for parents to pay for the hospital bills of their children using their MediSave savings. In this vein, I am glad to see that the Home Caregiving Grant would not be age-restricted. However, it only provides $200 and, given the care needs and costs of our younger ones who may be equally ill or disabled, we ought to ensure that our other schemes support them adequately rather than discriminate against them. It would be sad for us to take good care of our seniors and forget about our younger generation.”
“While I understand and appreciate the need for these schemes to support our ageing population, I must ask why do we discriminate against those who are aged below 30 because illnesses and disabilities can hit at any age. CareShield Life covers pre-existing disabilities for all future cohorts, which is laudable. But it leaves a huge gap for those who are severely disabled and require long-term care support before 30. This is even more so for children who are diagnosed with life-limiting diseases. Studies have estimated that we have around 2,000 children with life-limiting conditions in Singapore, who would potentially be in need of long-term care should they continue to stave off the threats on their lives brought by their conditions. My understanding from the ground is that these children and their families face immense long-term care costs, which include but are not limited to, hospitalisation, surgery, rehabilitation, special school, special transport, specific aids and machines, specialised milk powder and other consumables. For example, the Enhanced Seniors’ Mobility and Enabling Fund allows for seniors to apply for up to 90% subsidies for consumables like milk and diapers, but no such policy is in place for our young ones who may be similarly disabled, where their families face similar financial pressures for long-term care costs. Mr Speaker, we should consider allowing children and youths to be enrolled into this national long-term care insurance, with premiums paid by their parents either through their MediSave accounts, or through Government handouts like the Baby Bonus. Other than CareShield Life, amendments to the CPF Act to allow MediSave withdrawals for long-term care should allow all to do so regardless of age.”
“An EU Court of Justice Grand Chamber case ruled that multiple EU legal instruments which mandate equal treatment between men and women do not allow for the use of sex as an actuarial factor in differentiating individuals’ premiums and benefits. Article 12 of our Constitution provides that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". The Government has acknowledged in its latest Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) state report that the principle of equality for women is entrenched under this Article. Surely then, women deserve equal protection and their premiums not be differentiated through actuarial factors. I believe that designing a mandatory and national long-term care insurance scheme with a framework that discriminates based on gender will set us back a long way in pursuing gender equality. According to the "Care Where We Are" report by Lien Foundation, Singapore spends only 0.19% of GDP on long-term care, compared to the OECD average of 1.7% of GDP. I would like to suggest, therefore, that we are certainly in a position where we can afford to spend slightly more to pave the way for a more equal society. We must not forget the unaccounted value of how much women have contributed since the Independence of Singapore. Instead of recognising and compensating the vastly unequal amount of unpaid work they do, it may appear that we are now proposing to further penalise them. I believe this is not the kind of social compact we aspire to build. In a national scheme that aims to meet the needs of all in Singapore, Mr Speaker, I urge that premium pricing be made gender-neutral. Let me move from gender to age. Our policies apply to those who are aged 30 and above.”
“I understand that CareShield Life premiums are gender-differentiated due to actuarial assessments, but our society surely should not be defined by these numbers solely, just like how our other social and health policies are not defined along these lines. Both men and women receive fair and equal treatment regardless of statistical differences. They receive the same amount of healthcare subsidies and benefits despite the greater susceptibility of women to chronic illness and disabilities. This similar treatment for all, regardless of gender, should be continued in the payment of CareShield Life premiums, especially since the point of insurance, as we know, is to risk-pool. Women may live longer than men, but they also live with less financial resources. In 2017, the average net CPF balance for females aged 60 years and above was $69,732, which was about 24% lower than that of males. In the same year, about four in 10 active CPF members who turned 55 in 2017 did not hit the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) of $83,000 in their Retirement Accounts. Among women, only 53% were able to reach the BRS, compared to 66% of men. Every year, many more women than men drop out of the labour force to care for their loved ones. In the 2018 Labour Force Survey, 75,000 women are outside the labour force to provide caregiving to relatives and families. This does not include children. In other words, 80% of family caregivers who are outside the labour force are women. They suffer from loss in income, affecting their ability to save for their own retirement and healthcare needs. Moreover, when comparing with international practices, it is helpful to consider how the European Union's (EU's) highest court banned the practice by insurance companies of gender-differentiated premiums.”
“To prevent the cliff effect created when many schemes concentrate on severe disability as the eligibility, I urge the Government to consider pursuing two areas of improvement. First, we can organise existing schemes such that those with less severe forms of disability would still retain eligibility to some of the support schemes so that their needs can be better met. For example, the criteria for MediSave withdrawal for long-term care needs could be relaxed to allow those with mild disabilities to start withdrawing, while the other schemes continue to have a higher bar. Second, we can learn from existing schemes like MediFund and ComCare such that the level of financial support provided is tiered against the extent of care need, which, in this case, could be approximated by the extent of disability. For instance, CareShield Life payouts can start progressively when one is unable to complete one ADL independently, albeit with a smaller payout. Failing to do so means that CareShield Life, in essence, acts as a severe disability insurance, rather than the intended long-term care insurance. In addition to relieving some financial burden, receiving financial resources earlier in a graduated approach may also allow more Singaporeans to better access rehabilitation services that could reduce the worsening of their condition, or even prevent further conditions or disabilities from developing. Furthermore, supporting these families at an earlier stage relieves caregiver stress and anxiety and allows them to focus on other aspects of life like work, parenting and more. All of these are likely to create downstream cost-savings and, more importantly, enhance the well-being of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, inclusivity needs to and must extend along the lines of gender.”