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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 8 of 8.
“Yet, like climate change, it is our future, our young ones, that we are jeopardising most if we continue with a transactional approach in addressing this challenge. The clarion call made by Budget 2019 to build a Strong, United Singapore is, as I read it, to bring our attention back to our biggest asset – our people. Because "strong" and "united" are finite in concept if we merely rely on our financial resources, economic growth and pre-existing institutions. Poor mental health will cost Singapore our future if our children cannot reach their full potential, especially when their lives end prematurely. The impact of poor mental health on our productivity and innovation is indisputable. Our social cohesion cannot be taken for granted; resilient communities follow from resilient citizens. The Government must ensure its policies are underpinned by a drive to help our people thrive mentally and confidently as empowered citizens. I strongly doubt one-off and indiscriminate bonus payouts will yield this outcome. Neither do they engender a caring and inclusive societal attitude. Could we not instead put the whole-of-society rhetoric for increased citizen well-being into action by establishing a national coordinating body for this purpose to work with all stakeholders, Government, employers, communities, schools and so on, including mental health literacy training for every citizen? This can also be the inter-ministerial agency to integrate citizens' subjective well-being in policymaking. Its mandate of improving and sustaining our quality of life must be as important as the other agencies’ on improving our quality of living.”
“Yet, we can and must do more in partnering these communities to design solutions that take into account their mental well-being and dignity, beyond merely fixing problems or providing services for them. The community must come in, too. There are many ground efforts in mental health and support services, including VWOs, informal groups and social enterprises. A group of 25 C-suite leaders and I came together to form the WorkWell Leaders Workgroup last year as a national ground-up leaders' initiative to share, discuss and co-create inclusive practices for workplace well-being. The first-ever mental health insurance product was also launched early this year by one commercial insurer which augurs well for the surging destigmatisation efforts and also providing much needed support for those with mental health conditions. Mr Deputy Speaker, mental health disorders are on the rise in every country in the world and could cost the global economy up to US$16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, according to the Lancet Commission Report in 2018. How much Singapore shares in this, we are not sure because no study has been done by the Government to date. We could, however, surmise, with the wide-ranging impact mental health disorders have on innovation, productivity, economy and social cohesion as well as rising medical services and infrastructure needs, it might not be too far from the $2.5 billion that we expect diabetes to cost Singapore by 2050. "No other health condition in humankind has been neglected as much as mental health has", said the same Lancet Commission Report. The way we look at mental health reminds me of climate change, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is invisible and so it gets parked mindlessly and incorrectly in the "important but not urgent" quadrant of our awareness.”
“Cross-Ministerial policymaking will be required to address the burden of mental health in our society, from interventions in education, reforms in employment practices and community initiatives. Despite the escalating prevalence among our children and youths, mental health condition programmes, such as the Holistic Health Framework by HPB, are still optional, placing the onus on schools to adopt and implement these programmes. Peer support programmes in schools and IHLs are also optional. Mandating mental health education in our schools and IHLs is the surest signal to normalise mental health, together with providing support structures for parents and families to be equipped with emotional management skills, coping mechanisms and problem-solving skills to help our children and youths better navigate stress. IMH studies have clearly demonstrated that mental disorders have significant consequences on the workforce in terms of lost work productivity in Singapore. Seventy-two percent of employers in Singapore say that work has been affected by mental health issues, yet only half have psychosocial support programmes in place. We must update our employment policies to recognise and promote employee well-being by enacting clear and deliberate provisions that are upstream and preventive in nature. Our employment laws, including the Workplace Health and Safety Act, must also explicitly include and provide for psychosocial health and safety, beyond physical health and safety. Our social policies must place mental health as a priority for the underserved and vulnerable communities alongside basic needs. The Quality of Life Standards by NCSS is a great start.”
“Yet, the IMH study showed one in seven adults experience a mental health condition. While a direct causative link cannot be drawn so simplistically, the question nonetheless stands: how does 10 out of 1,000 or one in 100 students receiving counselling become one in seven adults experiencing a mental health condition in their lifetime? What have we missed in our policies? What more must we do? Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no health without mental health. We must normalise mental health and bring it out to the open. The Government and community have to learn to value mental health as a basic need, and to then reduce stigma and improve help-seeking and recovery. We have made much progress moving from a predominantly medical approach of the past on mental health to one that is aspiring to involve every member of society. The Community Health Action Masterplan was launched in 2017. Primary care providers like polyclinics and GPs are being trained to support mental health services in non-stigmatising environments. A national campaign “Beyond the Label” was launched in 2018 to break the stigma surrounding mental health by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). This year, the President’s Challenge is focusing on mental health. I am greatly inspired by these efforts. Yet, mental health is not and must not be the responsibility of MOH and the social sector alone. All Ministries should recognise their role in protecting Singapore’s mental health. The impact on the mental health of any group of stakeholders, whether it be citizens, service users, staff or other, should be considered consistently and robustly in all key Government decisions.”
“Single-person-headed households struggle to seek state support, and it is generally accepted that individuals with physical and learning disabilities are at higher risk of suffering from mental health conditions although no study has been made. Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenge of mental health is clearly wide-ranging and reach across the lifespan of Singaporeans. The latest IMH study, also released in 2018, showed that one in seven persons in Singapore experience a mental health condition in their lifetime, an increase from one in eight just eight years ago. Globally, this number is one in four persons. By way of comparison, the US is one in five and the UK is one in four. Will we head there? Two-thirds of those with mental health conditions in Singapore do not seek help because of stigma, discrimination and neglect. At this juncture, I would like to remind the House that the prevalence of diabetes, which we have waged a war against, is one in nine people in 2017, versus one in seven for people with mental health conditions. Ageing has been rightly prominent in our national policymaking narrative and was cited as the first longer-term domestic challenge in the Budget Statement because by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. Yet, there is clear and present danger that the invisible yet mounting challenge of mental health could be headed that way with the escalating prevalence. We must, therefore, make mental health a deafening priority now rather than languishing it in the shadows because mental health affects the lives of Singaporeans across all ages and all segments. MOE informed me in their reply to my recent Parliamentary Question that they recorded 10 in 1,000 students receiving counselling for stress and anxiety.”
“A more troubling reality is that children aged five to nine calling the SOS hotline increased by more than 500% in less than three years. Suicide is the leading cause of death for those aged 10 to 29. As our young progress to adulthood, they continue to be most at risk of suffering from mental disorders, according to the latest Singapore Mental Health Study just published in December 2018. My cousin is not an odd statistic either with his experience at the workplace that resulted in the deterioration of his mental health. The mental well-being of working adults in Singapore is 13% lower than the general population according to HPB. Further, 90% of psychological conditions with adults in Singapore have their root cause in workplace stress. Yet, studies have shown that an overwhelming 86.5% of those employed do not seek help for their mental health difficulties. My elderly neighbour and the taxi driver's grandfather are also sadly not alone in their plight. One in five elderly persons in Singapore aged 75 and above show signs of depression. The number of elderly aged 60 and above who took their own lives peaked in 2017, the highest since suicide tracking started in 1991. An estimated one in 10 people aged 60 and above has dementia, whilst half of those aged 85 and older have it. Mr Deputy Speaker, let us not forget the vulnerable and underserved communities in our midst who are exposed to a host of adverse conditions which determine health and mental health, including poverty and access to support infrastructure. One in five elderly caregivers in Singapore suffer from depression. Six in 10 migrant workers with an injury or salary claim are likely to suffer from a serious mental illness.”
“Please allow me to share my personal experience and ground observations with the different communities I am involved with to substantiate my claim. My incredibly bright nephew was first diagnosed with anxiety disorder in 2017 at just 15, and later with depression last year. He is currently out of the school system at the promising age of 17. In fact, today is his birthday. Happy Birthday, John. The young man who works with me at one of my community projects called "A Good Space" also almost jumped off from the 15th floor of an HDB block a few years ago when he was just 19, even whilst he was on treatment for depression. There is also the old uncle living in my block at Marine Crescent who was depressed from the death of his wife and started sleeping on the bench in the void deck at night. Just the other day, a young taxi driver shared with me about his 87-year-old grandfather jumping to his death by climbing up the flowerpot racks along his HDB corridor after his breakfast. His whole family was still having their breakfast inside the flat when they heard the loud thud. Then, there is my own close shave with depression over 12 years ago when my world collapsed at the height of professional and economic success. Mr Deputy Speaker, in case Members of this House think that I am the epicentre of mental health issues, let me absolve myself – not with any delight at all – by sharing some sobering numbers. My nephew, unfortunately, is not alone in his struggle. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) recently reported that the number of young Singaporeans between the ages of 16 and 30 who sought help from its Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT) over 2015 to 2018 has jumped by an alarming 190%.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to first thank the Finance Minister and his team for their hard work with Budget 2019, especially with the additional consideration of the Bicentennial commemoration. Minister Heng Swee Keat had me at, quote, "Building a Strong, United Singapore" because it is a confident narrative that acknowledges our resources and strengths, alongside our challenges, as a nation. He also had me at, quote, "We are using our financial resources to help realise our strategies for a strong, united Singapore. But financial resources alone do not get us there." And if I may state the obvious, neither should financial well-being alone be our aim. Indeed, "Building a Strong, United Singapore" can only be possible with a people that is mentally resilient across all ages and segments of our society. Minister Heng Swee Keat mentioned "resilience" and "confidence" repeatedly throughout his Budget Statement. Resilience and confidence are a result of a mentally healthy society. Therefore, mental well-being must be an ongoing national and whole-of-Government priority with the recognition that our quality of life is defined not only by markers of economic growth and our material well-being but also our subjective well-being. We must constantly question if our national policies and spending empower, beyond just enabling, our people to be ready for challenges ahead and confident of our future. Given that, should mental health be one of the longer-term domestic challenges alongside those highlighted in the Budget speech, namely, ageing, social mobility, inequality, economic transformation and climate change? Mr Deputy Speaker, I would argue that it should.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. As to what concerns me, and I think I have got to share with Members of the House that last week, it was reported that in terms of the number of people with disabilities who are in employment which was given by MSF as 8,600 to a Parliamentary Question I filed; against the total number of people of disabilities, we are looking at a percentage of about 4.88%. So, in itself, without even comparing to what or how the other countries are doing, I would like to ask the Ministry and maybe even MSF, is there something of a national target that we are internally working towards? At 5%, given the resources we have and how fast the nature of work is changing, I do fear that this group of people with disabilities would be further marginalised. It will not bring them into the workforce and, on top of that, also continue to upgrade and prepare them for the future of work. Could I please ask the Minister of State what sort of plans do we have in that regard?”
“Respite care should be enhanced to an integrated approach to include counselling and selfcare training services as well while keeping their aromatherapy and massage services. Another way forward is to accord the long overdue recognition and appreciation to family caregivers with an allowance or payment, in both cash and CPF credits. This also ensures some level of financial security for them. The payment should vary by the number of ADLs the care recipient requires assistance with. To enable caregivers to continue working while providing care, the Government should consider converting paid childcare leave into a longer quantum of family care leave of at least 10 days. And allow it to be used for the care of any family members, including older relatives. In addition, employers should be made a partner in this effort to provide FWAs on request by employees as well as consistently value the caregivers within their organisations through awareness and appreciation efforts. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we should collectively embrace caregiving not as the burden of a few, like Wendy, June, Ivan or Siti, but a responsibility of all. There is an urgent need for more informed collective conversations among Singaporeans about what kind of care system we want for our grandparents, our parents – and eventually ourselves – and how much we are willing to pay for it, whether through premiums and/or taxes, for those who can afford it and to support those who cannot. Because, Mr Speaker, to care for those who once cared for us is one of life’s highest honours.”
“In recent years, many sophisticated new care models, such as the Integrated Home and Daycare Programme, have sprung up. Anecdotal evidence shows that these schemes are good at enabling seniors to be cared for well in the community. Yet, in order to convince sceptical caregivers of the effectiveness of these programmes, outcomes should be tracked and made public. Mr Speaker, before suggesting some ways forward made in consultation with caregivers and the community, I would like to highlight that Singapore is ageing from a position of relative strength. We have a largely healthy population and there has been considerable focus in recent years on harnessing the blessings of longevity. Yet, we can, and we should do more. While the importance of enabling seniors to age at home is widely acknowledged, the Lien report also noted that Government spending on home-based and centre-based care, at $240 million in 2016, accounted for only 2.5% of the overall $9.8 billion healthcare budget for the year. The spend in the last two years is not yet available. The Government should consider recalibrating the healthcare budget to enable seniors to age and be cared for at home. More subsidies can be targeted at seniors who are not severely disabled and, therefore, do not qualify for ElderShield or CareShield Life, but likely to benefit from professional rehabilitative care. To better support caregivers' psychosocial well-being needs, the Government can consider giving seniors flexible care packages for families to use as they wish, whether for daycare, homecare, respite care services, transport fees and consumables or to pay a family member or friend for elder-sitting.”
“The ElderShield Review Committee report estimated that, including transport, consumables and formal homecare services, it could cost caregivers as much as $3,100 per month to look after a severely disabled senior at home, well above the $2,400 median monthly fee for looking after severely-disabled residents in VWO-run nursing homes. The "Care Where You Are" report by the Lien Foundation notes that co-payment of care fees remains a key concern for families, although means-tested Government subsidies for long-term care have been increased to cover up to two-thirds of Singaporean households since 2012. Even for those who are not severely disabled, daycare and homecare services can cost $900-$2,200 per month before subsidies, excluding transportation costs. Families eligible for subsidies must co-pay between 20% and 70%. Those with a per capita monthly household income of more than $2,600 do not qualify for subsidies at all. Costs may, therefore, deter even middle-income families from using formal long-term care services, especially since many find it cheaper to hire an FDW instead. However, FDWs, and even family caregivers themselves, may not be trained enough to handle complex care needs and, sometimes, could end up compromising the well-being and health of vulnerable seniors, leading to unnecessary hospital stays. Homecare is expensive, too, and appears underfunded with charity dollars, even after accounting for Government subsidies. While the CareShield Life insurance scheme will undoubtedly be useful, given the strict eligibility criteria and that the scheme is optional for older cohorts, how many will join remains to be seen. Even as we work out ways to improve affordability, emphasis must be made on quality and outcomes.”
“Wendy, whom I mentioned earlier, scaled down on her working hours and now earns less than $2,000 a month, about one-fifth of what she used to earn. Ivan quit his job to look after his mother, after she repeatedly forgot to turn off the gas at home. Another caregiver, June, stopped working completely when her husband was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She is 60 years old and the sole caregiver to her husband as they have no children. Their only monthly household income of $1,000 comes from renting out a room in their HDB flat. Did these caregivers lessen their caregiving burden with formal care services? Wendy tried daycare but her mother reacted violently against it. She is now considering the nursing home option, but the guilt is immense and she has been putting it off despite her own deteriorating emotional and physical health. Then there is the cost of nursing home fee that she will struggle with to afford because of her drastically reduced income. June's husband goes to daycare, but she holds much guilt because he does not like it there. Yet, she needs that time to go to the hospital gymnasium to exercise her knee. June spends around $300-$400 on daycare, after Government subsidies, plus $100 on transport to her husband's daycare a month against her $1,000 rental income. Mr Speaker, suffice to say, most of us would like to be cared for in the comfort of our own homes. However, in consideration of caregiver health, the increasingly complex care needs of our seniors and shrinking families, formal home-based and community care services are a critical and practical necessity. While the Government has been busy increasing capacity in recent years, more needs to be done to improve affordability and quality of these services.”
“She is 51 years old, single, and caregiver to her mother who has dementia. She hired an FDW to help with caregiving, yet is the "emotional anchor" for her mother. Caregiving has taken a toll on Wendy emotionally, physically and financially. She has had panic attacks and experiences high levels of anxiety. Then, there is Ivan, in his 50s, who is struggling to cope with the severe care needs of his 85-year-old mother, also suffering from dementia. Unable to deal with his mother's mounting behaviour issues last year, he had a series of anxiety attacks and ended up in hospital himself. We all know that with smaller families, there are fewer family caregivers. Over the past few decades, however, Singaporeans have been fortunate to have an army of efficient, dedicated and relatively affordable FDWs. They form an important part of our informal care workforce. Yet, the same Duke-NUS study found that, I quote, "families who hire domestic helpers are also not necessarily able to relieve this mental stress. In fact, some feel that having domestic help increases this stress. About half of the respondents polled hire domestic helpers and, of these, about 55% of the domestic helpers do not have experience caring for the elderly or have received training in doing so." Mr Speaker, the economic impact of caregiving on the caregiver and Singapore is obvious. The Labour Force Survey 2018 shows that 75,800 women and 13,000 men, or a total of 88,800, cite caregiving to families/relatives as the main reason for being out of the labour force. This number does not include caregivers who have had to scale back on work commitments in other ways, for example, by moving to part-time or other work.”
“Mr Speaker, I stand in support of both Motions but will focus on caregiving, in particular. I would also like to declare my interest as the Immediate Past President and current member of the Society for WINGS, an Institution of Public Character (IPC) and registered charity that empowers women to age well. It has been said that there are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers, and those who will need a caregiver. Indeed, I was recently at a corporate event and met a most unlikely caregiver, Siti, a young professional in her 20s who became emotional when sharing her caregiving challenges with her three unmarried aunts in their 60s – one suffering from diabetes and depression, another from ovarian cancer and the third from kidney failure. Caregiving affects all of us. Yet, this role is, ironically, one of the most undervalued in our society. The psychosocial well-being of caregiving must be top of mind for our caregiving policies, Mr Speaker. We have not done a comprehensive national study on caregiver health, which I highly recommend we do. But segmented studies revealed that our caregiver population is certainly facing increasing risk with their mental health. One in five elderly caregivers suffer from depression, according to a study by Duke-NUS. A study by IMH in 2017 noted a pooled prevalence rate of 40.2% for depressive symptoms among caregivers of stroke survivors. Yet another study found that caregivers of cancer patients are at greater risk of developing depression than the general population. Wendy is one such caregiver who was a respondent to a study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) on the financial cost of caregiving.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification. I was also there in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, in my personal capacity with one of my community projects, Playground of Joy, last December. And I totally agree with the Minister that the two main concerns that he brought up – security for their family and livelihood – did come up as well. But I would also like to add that a third concern was education that was mentioned to me. And so, I have two questions for the Minister. One would be, has ASEAN, and Singapore as well, come to any sort of contingency plan should the funding by United Nations (UN) and the different donors for Cox's Bazar and also the different refugee camps around Asia and ASEAN run out, what would we do? I understand that we cannot impose a hard date on when the repatriation could happen. But I would love to know what we have in mind in terms of contingency plans for that. Also, at the same time, can we do anything in the meantime, if not for the livelihood, for the education of the children in Bangladesh, the ones who are settling in Bangladesh at the moment?”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, against the backdrop of our Bicentennial commemoration, as well as overfishing and climate change triggering global food shortages and volatile geopolitics limiting food trade, the SFA Bill with the vision of a Zero-Waste Nation is not only timely but also timeless, as Singapore embarks on this journey of becoming a thriving circular economy and nation within the next 200 years, and beyond.”
“It would be counterproductive to stifle production systems and models that are striving to achieve wholesome nutritious food that is also fair to producers; (c) developing deeper analytics as part of data collection in clause 5(1)(n) around our food sources and nutritional content over a period of time to ensure wholesomeness of our food supply is not compromised due to changing geographical and climate realities affecting our food sources; and (d) exploring ways within or related to our carbon pricing framework to reward actors that are helping to reduce the carbon burden of our food system. Mr Speaker, please allow me to end with some food for thought, pun intended. We can learn much from our own history. When we gained Independence, we harnessed our limited resources to save every single drop across our national water taps because every drop counts. Whatever actions we take with food, it shall be with the same indomitable spirit that we save every single grain across our national food baskets: no food goes to waste. Every morsel counts. We can learn much from the rainforest that wastes none. One's trash becomes another's treasure. It shall be with this same wisdom, creativity and kampung spirit involving all sectors of society – from the Public Service to businesses to civil societies, and every single consumer, that we collectively ensure Ah Hua's and our next generation's food security is assured. Every act counts. Everyone counts.”
“At the same time, research is also showing that with changing air quality, concentration of carbon dioxide as well as soil quality, the levels of nutrition in our staple foods could change drastically. This dual challenge requires radical re-imagination of the world's food production systems. New farming techniques, plant-based meats, alternative protein, all these developments require adaptable food regulations that allow for rapid adoption without compromising on food safety considerations. With this in mind, I would like to make further suggestions specific to the Bill including: (a) a more robust and accessible food issues reporting and whistleblowing system in performing its functions of regulating businesses, as per clause 5(1)(e). Such a system is already present in the UK; (b) being flexible to react quickly to changing technology and norms when it comes to food labelling and food risks assessments. Transparency around supply chains and, therefore, confidence in terms of food safety, can be achieved through increasingly low-cost technology. While championing the development of information labelling systems, as per clause 5(1)(h), there is also a need to strike a balance to ensure it does not become a barrier, for example, to the use of non-commercial composting as fertiliser within our food systems.”
“Donating food which remains edible but is no longer retailable costs time and manpower. Businesses, therefore, prefer to discard food because it is cheaper and more convenient to do so. Policies which disincentivise edible food wastage will push businesses to seek alternatives. In France, a law was enacted in 2016 exactly for this. The enactment of such regulations certainly requires much preparatory legwork, such as better measurement and reporting of how much food is discarded, so commissioning a continuous collection and study of data concerning food waste would be most important and relevant to clause 5(1)(n) of the Bill. After all, if we cannot measure something, we cannot improve it. Another step could be to legislate that all food imported or grown in Singapore has to be sold or donated, with a similar concept to the Extended Producer Responsibility that is coming into effect for e-waste. Given that such a policy would be controversial, it should be accompanied by a third complementary measure: a law which incentivises businesses to donate food to charity. This could come in the form of tax rebates from food donations. Ideally, the charities which receive food donations should be the ones to weigh the donations received and provide receipts to the businesses for their food donations. The tax rebate should also be based on weight of food donated, not price. Mr Speaker, I am heartened that the Bill explicitly recognises climate change's impact on food resiliency as distinct and separate from the impact of natural or man-made disasters. We know that we will not be able to feed future population growth if the world continues to produce and consume food the way we currently do.”
“In food resource management, the order of priority should be, first, to feed humans, then animals, then to "feed" the soil via composting or as we call it, recycling, before finally generating energy from food waste. Currently, we seem to manage food waste by doubling down on recycling food waste and recovering energy from food waste, and not enough is done to reduce food waste from upstream sources. All edible food waste can and should be redistributed to people like Ah Hua instead of investing millions of dollars to build digesters to turn food waste into energy. The benefit here is not merely reduced waste, but a long-term reduction of the inflated cost of food resource which worsens food insecurity for the poorest amongst us. Sir, I would like to share some concrete proposals that are made in consultation with several seasoned members of the green community, including Climate Conversations, SG Food Rescue and Lepak in SG. First, regulations should clearly define terms used in the sale of food, such as "best before", "consume by", "sell by", "use by" and "expiry" dates. Presently, these terms denoting dates all have the same meaning, which is, that businesses are not legally allowed to sell an item past the indicated date. However, if some of these terms, in fact, only denote the food manufacturer's recommended period of consumption for the food items sold, then regulations can be enacted to extend the shelf life of, for instance, processed foods on the condition that the food is donated to charities. This allows for food to be redistributed instead of being discarded. Second, and I acknowledge that this might be controversial, the law should make it costly for businesses to throw away edible food.”
“While no official numbers have been released, an informal group, like SG Food Rescue, can give us some indication. SG Food Rescue rescued over 100 tonnes of food in the past year through volunteer efforts alone. Less than $5,000 was spent to collect and redistribute the food by 250 individuals to feed 550 people, three meals a day for a whole year. That is 200,000 meals. Remember that this is just one group's effort. Let us now examine the amount of "avoidable" food waste generated by each household, Mr Speaker. This amounts to 2.5 kilogrammes (kg) each week, according to a 2017 study by the NEA. With 1.28 million households in Singapore, 168,000 tonnes of food waste are generated by households, which is about 21% of total food waste of the 800,000 tonnes I mentioned earlier. Mr Speaker, these are big numbers and hard to fathom for laypersons like myself. An easier way to understand what 800,000 tonnes of total avoidable food waste a year means is to look at someone like Ah Hua whom I happened to meet at Kreta Ayer a few weeks ago. In his 50s, partially blind and likely intellectually-challenged, he was not asking for money but for food. Ah Hua is one of the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, according to Singapore Against Poverty, who need 438 million meals a year. Eight hundred thousand tonnes of edible food waste translates to 486 million meals a year which would, therefore, allow us to more than provide for everyone who struggles with food security. Too simplistic a calculation I admit, but I hope we get the point here. NEA's current food waste management strategies expressly state that the most preferred methods for food waste management are: one, prevent and reduce food wastage at its source, and two, redistribute unsold and excess food.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the SFA Bill and wish to highlight the opportunities that this Bill presents in support of our zero-waste aspirations, especially with 2019 being designated as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste. I shall focus, in particular, on food waste today. Mr Speaker, if we are truly serious about becoming a zero-waste nation, then the first step must surely be to seriously examine the current state and the root causes of food waste. Food waste comprises avoidable food waste and unavoidable food waste. In the following sections, I am referring to avoidable food waste. Singapore's current food supply chain is a linear economy which is the cause of much food waste every day because it is simpler and cheaper for businesses and individuals to throw away food than channel the same to better use. I was heartened by Minister Masagos' acknowledgement of this fact at the launch of Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste, where he noted the need for Singapore to adopt a circular economy approach to achieve zero waste. A circular economy is one where the "waste" of one part of the food cycle becomes resources for another. Sir, let us start upstream with food imports. Based on 2016 figures provided by AVA, there were almost 1.4 million tonnes of food, plus 1.9 million eggs, available for consumption versus almost 800,000 tonnes of food wasted in the same period, according to NEA. This shows that more than half of all food available in Singapore was wasted in 2016. While it is important to ensure enough food for Singapore, how can we make sure that we do not over-import food that leads to much waste? Next on the food chain is avoidable waste generated by businesses, including food manufacturers, food wholesalers and F&B businesses.”
“I have two questions for the Minister for Health. The first is, we are all aware of the painstaking efforts we have taken over the decades to allow people who have or suspect that they may have HIV to come forward for testing. So, given this latest incident, what specific measures is the Ministry taking to make sure that these decades of efforts have not been negated? The second question is that given the requirement for long-term residency and HIV being an issue, which obviously created that whole fraud on the part of Brochez and Ler, how many cases have we encountered so far where fake blood has been used in order to get access to our long-term residence pass, or in the past, even short-term pass?”
“I have two questions. The first one is when can we expect the findings of the COI on CFC (NS) Pang's case, if there is an indication as to when the findings will be released? The second is, we all know, there cannot be total safety without psychosocial safety. Could the Minister share a little bit of the elements within this safety culture we are building that relates to the psychosocial safety climate, please?”
“Yet, beyond taking the legal, medical and institutionalised approach, we must have a concerted community response to this adaptive challenge of drug misuse and addiction. Social integration without destigmatisation is a job half done! We must remain open to evolving strategies as well as new social and scientific research that continue to put the human in the centre of our laws and their implementation on drug misuse and rehabilitation efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Third, with regard to clause 18(a), I wish to ask the Minister how the number of seven years was arrived at for determining the period not exceeding which any person reasonably suspected to be a drug addict may be committed for the purposes of medical examination or observation. Further, I would like to ask the Minister if it would be more appropriate and prudent for the broad phrasing of the proposed section 34(1) which states "to any place specified by the Director for the purpose of any medical examination or observation" to be amended to (a) reflect a scheduled or predetermined list of places, and (b) reflect that the medical examination or observation be for the purposes of determining whether traces of drug remain in a person’s body. Lastly, clause 19 requires a parent/guardian to attend any counselling session with a supervisee who is below 21 years of age. I wish to ask the Minister what type of counselling this section envisions. Further, in what ways does this provision ensure that the psychosocial support programmes, if any, put in place with a view to include parents and guardians are able to serve their intended purpose? Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenge of drug use is a complex one because it is a human one. Studies have found that illicit drug users and persons with drug addiction are unable, due to social stigma, shame and guilt, to connect in healthy ways with fellow human beings thereby impeding their recovery and social integration. Perhaps this is why it has been said that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, it is human connection. I commend the Ministry for taking the first steps in the right direction with a more human-centred approach with these new amendments.”
“Two, commission research, based in Singapore, which can be used to guide, strengthen and reinforce our national policies on drug misuse, ensuring they are aligned and remain up to date with neurobiological advancements and upstream prevention through public health education on substance abuse and mental health conditions. This would also support our public education programmes as shared earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move on to more technical queries and proposals addressing specific clauses in the Bill. First, the offences set out in section 11B apply to persons of or above 21 years of age in relation to exposing or permitting a child to drug use. The section also defines "child" to mean any person below 16 years of age. I would like to ask the Minister if this provision was intentionally drafted in such a way as to omit any legal effect on persons between the ages 16 and 20. If this was the case, why? If this omission was unintentional, may I then ask the Minister what effects this drafting might nonetheless give rise to? Second, clause 16 both (a) introduces minimum sentences for some offences where there was previously none, and (b) enhances punishment of an offender convicted of certain offences. Further, clause 17 introduces enhanced penalties for a person who is convicted of certain offences under the Act and has certain antecedents. Aside from a clear and continued emphasis on the severity of drug-related offences, I wish to ask the Minister what specific goals these amendments are intended to achieve and how they do so. Further, I wish to ask the Minister if and how these amendments strike an appropriate balance between criminal penalty and rehabilitation.”
“Additionally, according to a study published by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, stigma towards addiction also externalises in practical ways, for example, lower priority in healthcare policies, such as insurance. Conversely, I believe that if we are able to align (a) the public’s understanding of drug use, (b) our public health policies on drug misuse, as well as (c) our institutionalised drug rehabilitation programmes with the brain disease model of addiction, we could start creating the right conditions for decreasing or, who knows, even preventing, drug misuse and addiction. Similar recommendations have been made in studies published by researchers on drug abuse. For clarity, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not saying that Singapore must soften its stance on the statutory prohibition of drugs. Rather, I am very encouraged by the widespread success of our whole-of-Government effort on War on Diabetes. That effort addresses the misconceptions and stigma, and has also begun to make headway in structural changes within business and community to influence social behaviours and habits. Learning from this, I urge the Government to consider commissioning an inter-Ministerial task force for our "War on Drugs" to undertake the following. One, conduct a large-scale public education campaign to (a) educate the general public on the newly-introduced provisions, their underlying rationales and the increased severity of drug offences to ensure the deterrent intent of the amendments is well understood, and at the same time, (b) encourage destigmatisation of drug addiction to complement our calibrated rehabilitative approach.”
“At the moment, it would not be a misstatement to say that illicit drug use and addiction are met with great social disapproval. Commonly held perceptions of persons with drug addictions are that they are weak in resolve, irresponsible and out to have a good time at society's expense. In short, addiction is viewed as a moral failing, and the associated harms of addiction considered wholly self-inflicted. I believe that it is time we challenge the common wisdom that shame, a fundamental element of stigmatisation, is the best way to respond to undesired social behaviours and habits, especially in light of advances in neurobiology research which validate the characterisation of addiction as a brain disease tied to changes in brain structure and function. Advances in the field of neurobiology show that addiction causes deficits to the functioning of the prefrontal cortex. While I have been informed that these studies have not been researched in our local context, some have been co-published by researchers hailing from, amongst others, our very own Department of Pharmacology at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Yale University, Imperial College London and the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the US. In lay terms, addiction impairs the brain in ways which weaken the brain regions involved in executive functions, such as decision-making, inhibitory control and self-regulation. It is easy to surmise, given this impairment, that stigma or externally-imposed shame would only provide very minimal, if at all, effective support or incentive for individuals who are seeking to quit their drug addictions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that this Bill, among other things, seeks to introduce new offences to deter the promotion of certain drug-related activities. This is evident through the introduction of the new sections 11B, 11C and 11D. I am in general support of these amendments to the MDA. They are in line with the current framework of statutory prohibition against drug misuse. I would like to take this opportunity to express my support, in particular, for the new section 11B which, to my mind, tackles the undesirable but unfortunately rampant phenomenon of intergenerational drug use. We are beginning to see a more nuanced and calibrated approach to drug rehabilitation by MHA. MHA's intention is clear. There is a continued focus in helping drug abusers break the cycle of addiction more effectively and reintegrate into society sooner. I commend this intent, especially given that we all agree neither criminalisation nor imprisonment is viewed as the miracle solution. However, our drug rehabilitation regime still tacitly acknowledges the stigma associated with drug use and addiction. Even without the World Health Organization declaring that addiction to illicit drugs is the most stigmatised, it is not hard to surmise that social isolation and marginalisation hamper the effectiveness of even the most effective rehabilitative efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, with the current amendments, I believe we now have an excellent opportunity to reinforce the statutory framework on the prohibition of drug misuse with concerted, Government-led efforts to destigmatise drug addiction. Public education and policy realignment in the direction of destigmatising drug addiction can and should complement institutionalised drug rehabilitation. Allow me to elaborate.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. What prompted me to ask the question was that one in three marriages in Singapore involves a Singaporean and a foreigner. We understand that a quarter of our babies born are born to a Singaporean and foreigner parent. In light of what the Minister of State has shared, does the Ministry have plans, be it in the long or short term, to introduce new policies or strengthen existing policies?”
“6 billion is a significant opportunity for the fintech sector to tap into for innovative products in e-payments. The Smart Nation question to ask is: how can we harness this Payment Services Bill to make this opportunity available to the thriving fintech sector if the majority of these funds – the US$5.6 billion – are unbanked or existing outside of the e-payment system? Traditional financial institutions and newer players are collaborating to bring exciting new fintech products and services to the market, and US$5.6 billion in remittances by migrant workers is definitely one. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] We all know the fabled success of Grameen from Bangladesh in financial and social innovation for the unbanked and underbanked. Perhaps, if we include our migrant workers fully in our financial system, a fintech equivalent of Grameen from Singapore might just be birthed. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is easy to think of payment services as being merely transactional. Yet, for the many thousands of migrant workers like Iris and Nayan, sending money home – efficiently, reliably and affordably – is a very human activity for them. It connects migrant workers to their families, gives them a sense of purpose for their struggles and, in some ways, empowers them to have dreams and aspirations for a better life. It is, therefore, a responsibility and opportunity for us to include them in the implementation of this Bill with legislation and education. After all, we know that the way forward for us as a Smart Nation goes beyond just the best laws and the latest payment technologies; it is how we stay human and inclusive. Sir, I hope to hear from the Minister on our financial inclusion strategies and implementation, including but not limited to our migrant workers.”
“It is the elephant in the room in our quest towards building a Smart Nation, a cashless economy, and an inclusive society. Mr Speaker, heeding the call made earlier by Minister Ong Ye Kung to encourage greater adoption of e-payments, there is an urgent need for financial inclusion and greater adoption of e-payments for our migrant workers. Employers of S Pass holders – those earning $2,200 and above per month – are required to pay their salaries through electronic means, but this requirement is not extended to the one million employees who are Work Permit holders, a lower wage category. Work Permit holders can request for electronic payments from employers by law, but many refrain from doing so for fear of job loss and repatriation. Yes, some may, indeed, prefer to receive cash, but many whom I have spoken with do that because they do not know any other trusted options, yet. Mandatory electronic payment of salaries by employers will automatically allow for one million migrant workers to be part of our financial system so they do not remain unbanked or underbanked as rapidly fintech threatens to leave them behind. This gives them access to more payment and remittance options, lower or zero fees, as well as the benefits of speed and security. As an illustration of my point, the Post Office Savings Bank's (POSB's) jolly app waives the fee – though it does state for a limited time only, so, hopefully, that stays for a long time – for remittances made to India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines but requires employers to open bank accounts for wage payments. Sir, I mentioned earlier that understanding the needs of our migrant workers is not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do. US$5.”
“Take, for example, Iris, a domestic worker from the Philippines. She does not have a bank account because: (a) she remits her money in cash, a total of $800 to $1,000, every month at Lucky Plaza to support her two sons in college; and (b) most banks have a prohibitive minimum balance, under which account holders have to pay Fall Below Service Fees. Without a bank account or a digital wallet, Iris is excluded from our financial e-transaction system. She is not alone. According to a report by KPMG, 75% of foreign domestic workers are paid in cash. In addition, remittance agencies charge $5 to $12 for every transaction. This chips away at the already low wages these workers receive. High remittance charges and the lack of remittance options also cause workers to turn to illegal means to remit their money, in addition to the need for money to reach their families urgently in times of emergency. Allow me to share the experience of Nayan, a Bangladeshi, who did not resort to these illegal options when he encountered an emergency situation, yet paid a hefty price nonetheless. Nayan's mother suffered a stroke and needed to be admitted to a city hospital with better facilities. Unfortunately, this happened during a work day. So, he could not remit the money immediately until he completed his basic duty at 4.30 pm before heading to a remittance centre in Farrer Park. The treatment was, therefore, delayed for his mother, creating implications for her chance of a full recovery. Further, Nayan had to forgo 5.5 hours of overtime work which resulted in loss of income for him. I am sure we will all agree that what I have just shared about Iris and Nayan can be called anything but effective.”
“Mr Speaker, before I start, may I once again invite the House to take a 3-breath 30-second mental pause with me. Thank you for your indulgence. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in support of the Bill. The payments landscape has changed considerably with the introduction of various types of payment services. The Payment Services Bill seeks to broaden the scope of regulated activities and allow for separate regulatory frameworks for major payment institutions and smaller players. However, please allow me to highlight a significant area of consideration in the implementation of the said Bill and related regulations. According to a World Bank Report published in April 2018, migrant workers in Singapore sent a grand total of at least US$5.6 billion in remittances to the top five remittance destination countries alone. These countries were China, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Indonesia. Mr Speaker, I am sure we will all agree that US$5.6 billion – and that is just the remittances to five countries – makes our migrant workers a decidedly significant stakeholder in the payments landscape. It is, therefore, not just the right, but also the smart thing to do for us to be intentional and inclusive of their banking and payment needs. The one million migrant workers on Work Permit rely on payment and remittance services to pay their existing debts and transfer money to their families. Yet, current options to remit money are limited. Many work punishing hours with only Sundays off, which they then spend travelling long distances to queue for hours to perform remittances, rather than resting. While most of us have registered bank accounts with financial intermediaries that afford us an array of payment and e-banking options with fintech, we must not forget the people who do not.”
“The world changes rapidly, our fundamental needs as humans – not so much. Beyond the basic needs of food, water and shelter, we thrive and flourish when we feel supported in improving our abilities, pursuing our aspirations and living with purpose. We can come back stronger with setbacks if we know we are not alone. Lewis, from the Hush TeaBar team, has, with workplace adjustments, made remarkable strides in his recovery and is now leading a team of Deaf facilitators in operations and finance. Workplace well-being has a direct impact on productivity and innovation and in the quality of life of employees. Every employee is a member of our society. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that a caring, inclusive and resilient Singapore can only come from caring, inclusive and resilient workplaces. We must always remember "human" comes first when we talk about human resources or human capital. There is a great need to change attitudes and perceptions of mental health through education and legislation, from school through work. Employee well-being must be an intentional outcome of our employment policies. This may be a journey of a thousand miles. The amendments proposed by this Bill signal an exciting single step towards the direction of inclusion and diversity. I look forward to more progressive steps ahead, including those I have outlined above. Mr Deputy Speaker, I, therefore, stand in support of this Bill.”
“It would seem that such personal information does not, indeed, contribute to the evaluation process of the application in any material form and instead only serves to prejudice the employee adversely because he or she may feel compelled to lie and not declare any such medical history because of the shame and fear of not being selected; and/or live in anxiety of being judged later on by his or her colleagues should they have a relapse, especially if there are no psychosocial support programmes available within the organisation. An informal check with several persons-in-recovery, including Lewis, revealed that most choose not to declare. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be a fair statement to say that the Government can and should, in line with the new direction and tone we are taking towards recognising employee well-being and encouraging inclusive employment practices, consider prohibiting to a reasonable extent, employers from requiring job applicants to declare their history of health conditions, be it physical or mental. At this juncture, I would also like to acknowledge that a fine balance, obviously, has to be struck between (a) such a legal prohibition against requiring health declarations and (b) ensuring that our laws do not unduly restrict social and economic conduct. To my mind, such a balance could entail, for instance, prohibiting employers from making enquiries about an applicant’s medical history too early on in the recruitment process, much like what the UK has done in the Equality Act 2010. Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest asset is our people. It is not just because we do not have any natural resources, because even that would be finite. Singapore’s biggest asset is our people because the human potential is infinite.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, even as ground-up efforts promoting employee well-being and inclusive employment practices are making sensible strides to ensure we do not have karo-jisatu, I think it is time our employment laws reinforce these efforts to explicitly state that workplace health and safety include psychosocial health and safety beyond physical health and safety. On a related note, public understanding of mental health issues and the public’s attitude towards persons in recovery from mental health conditions play an important role in creating a healthy workplace. In a study conducted by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), close to one in two Singaporeans were not willing to work with persons with mental health issues while 70% of employers agreed that negative attitudes of co-workers are major barriers to employing persons in recovery. Mr Deputy Speaker, in light of the social stigma indicated above and the spirit of the proposed amendment that regulates employment practices that would adversely affect the well-being of employees, I would like to highlight one such existing practice that, in my view, falls within the purview of this provision. Many employers, mostly local and the Civil Service, still demand for declarations early on in the recruitment process on the history of illnesses, including mental health conditions. They have maintained that declaration of any existing medical condition, including mental illnesses, does not disqualify a candidate from being considered. This naturally raises the question of the need for and use of such information.”
“There is clearly a need to persuade and push for employers to have these support structures in place for employee well-being. It is commendable that the Ministry, in proposing clause 22(a), is signalling a change in how we approach workplace well-being. However, I cannot help but wonder if Lewis – or any other employee whose psychosocial well-being has been adversely affected by an employer – would be in any practical position to exercise their rights under this provision? I would like to ask the Minister whether the intent to recognise and promote employee well-being can be better served by enacting clear and deliberate provisions that are upstream and preventive in nature. Some examples of such legislative efforts to influence employers have been made in countries like Germany, Australia and Japan, just to name a few. They appear in different forms to fit the workplace and workforce context. For example, in Germany, risk assessment and implementation of countermeasures are a legal obligation. These obligations state that work should be organised in such a way that prevents a risk to physical and mental health as far as possible. In Australia, psychological injuries or mental disorders arising from stress in the workplace are compensable and are commonly referred to as work-stress claims. In Japan, the government established the "Promotion and Maintenance of Mental Health of Workers" guidelines, which though not legally binding, have become a standard practice for employers in light of the social phenomenon of "karo-jisatu", commonly known as suicide from overwork.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, research estimates that one in eight Singaporeans experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. This means that part of our workforce will have to grapple with mental health conditions while under employment. Further, 90% of psychological conditions with adults in Singapore have their root cause in workplace stress. Yet, studies have shown that an overwhelming 86.5% of those employed do not seek help for their mental health difficulties. At this juncture, Sir, I would like to remind the House that when we refer to employees and their well-being in the amendment, we are also including workers who are differently-abled and non-domestic migrant workers. Of particular concern to me is the mental well-being of our 1.1 million non-domestic migrant workers. Over 60% of our non-domestic migrant workers who had outstanding injury and salary claims were predicted to be suffering from serious mental illnesses. Another study found over 20% of these workers suffer from non-specific psychological distress. Just two weeks ago, it was reported that injuries at the workplace have increased. Many studies have found links between occupational injury and psychological hazards. We cannot make light the gravity of these workers’ mental well-being, particularly given the nature of their employment conditions which more often than not include risk of physical injury. Yet, even as 72% of employers in Singapore consider stress and mental health an issue affecting productivity, only 51% have emotional and psychosocial programmes in place. More specifically, I wonder how many employers of non-domestic migrant workers have psychosocial programmes in place.”
“At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as Founder of Hush TeaBar which, aside from Deaf persons, also employs persons with and in recovery from mental health conditions. I further declare my interest as a founding member of the WorkWell Leaders Workgroup, a private sector-driven effort by business and non-business leaders to champion workplace and employee well-being as a leadership priority. Please let me share a real-life example of why this policy objective is morally and economically important. Lewis, from the Hush TeaBar team who now lives with depression and mild schizophrenia, could have had a very different life trajectory if he was protected by such a provision many years ago, against an employer early on in his career who verbally abused him repeatedly with every sales call he made in front of her. His mental health suffered adversely through this protracted period of abuse which subsequently affected his employability and quality of life. This is certainly not an employment outcome we desire for a contributing member of our society. On that, it therefore baffled me to learn that clause 22(c) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill prescribes any violation of the regulations to be implemented under the proposed clause 22(a) as a civil contravention, instead of an offence. We are all aware that there are certain drawbacks to the mechanism of civil contraventions, not least of which is the lack of a public record of the nature and severity of a violation, especially so for vulnerable workers. Clarification from the Ministry on the reasons behind its choice of prescribing such violations as civil contraventions is welcome.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your indulgence to let me use 30 seconds of my time to invite the Members of this House to take a mental pause with me to take three deep breaths. Only we humans can do intentional or volitional breathing, but we do not do enough of it. Thank you for coming together for our mental well-being. I am heartened by what might, for now, appear to be a minor but is, to my mind, a significant amendment to section 139 of the EA proposed by clause 22(a) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The existing section 139 provides that the Minister of Manpower may, in addition to the powers expressly conferred by any other provisions of the Act, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the EA. The amendment of this Act proposes that such regulations may now, and I quote directly from the Bill, "regulate the conduct of an employer towards an employee, for the purposes of protecting the employee from any employment practice that may adversely affect the well-being of the employee". Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this is the first time the wording of "employee well-being" has made its way into our legislation in this particular manner. It is clear that "well-being" in this case goes beyond physical safety and welfare to include the psychological and social needs of an employee. This, in my view, marks a momentous shift in policymaking from one that views employees primarily as "resources" to one that truly puts the "human" back in "human resources" by recognising the holistic and complex needs of employees. It is, in fact, a policy imperative, given the changing nature of work in an increasingly disruptive and volatile world.”