Chia Yong Yong
Singapore
“Although there is much scope for policy to promote learning which meets the needs of an advanced economy like ours, the ultimate motivating factor for effective learning is still a love for it.”
“Sir, I seek two clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, in relation to the financial protection of vulnerable adults, the Minister mentioned that he is considering certain steps to be taken. So, I would like to understand a little more about what steps will be taken.”
“Thank you, Sir. As such, I would propose the amendments that I have suggested, and I would also like to ask that the Minister consider other amendments; consider provision of facilities to cater to the needs of vulnerable adults. I also ask that we not be shy to exercise and to apply for powers of exclusion of the abusers.”
“Section 7(1) provides that the Director is not required to exercise any power under section 6 if consent is refused by the vulnerable adult with mental capacity. Making the application to Court becomes discretionary. In other words, the Director may also choose not to make an application to Court.”
“Moving on to my questions, Sir, what efforts have been undertaken by the Public Service to understand ground sentiments, address misapprehensions and implement policies in line with declared intent conveyed through Ministerial speeches?”
“Thank you, Sir. In conclusion, in order for Budget 2018 to succeed, we must begin to think differently – a quest, a thirst, with something bigger and better, a mind unafraid to dream, a heart unafraid to fail.”
The complete record
Every one of 219 lines we hold for Chia Yong Yong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Short-term grant support for programmes or corporate functions. The difficulty is that VWOs cannot stop a programme or terminate staff just because the funding has ended. Therefore, we Page: 98 often hesitate before we undertake a programme. Ultimately, the beneficiaries suffer. Having stated the above, I do want to acknowledge that the current two-year Corporate Development Fund Scheme is a good start. Moving forward, I hope that the Government will provide more sustainable and recurrent funding or allow VWOs to explore more creative revenue models to sustain their own operations. Specifically, for this debate, I would like to ask if the Government would be able to streamline and simplify the criteria and the process for the application of Government grants. Secondly, would the Government provide greater and more sustained support to VWOs in their corporate funding, so that their operational capabilities can be strengthened to better support the delivery of good social programmes?”
“Thank you, Sir. Before my involvement in the social services sector, I took the view that social service professionals served out of passion and therefore, should expect a pay cut, compared to their peers in other sectors. I also took the view that my donations, however paltry, should go to direct services to beneficiaries and not towards the administration of the charity. I did not realise then how wrong I was. We should not penalise anyone for serving out of passion. We should remember that they have families to feed, children and loved ones whom they wish to provide for. They have aspirations and, if they leave the sector to fulfil those legitimate aspirations, our beneficiaries will suffer. I did not realise that for a VWO to help their beneficiaries effectively, it must run well as a whole organisation. Corporate support functions and good governance are important. We need good professionals and staff to manage and operate corporate support, to implement good governance, in order for our therapists, social workers and counsellors to serve and support our beneficiaries effectively. So, we need to engage, develop and retain competent staff within the VWO sector. In recent years, the Government has increased funding support for VWOs to make sure that VWOs are able to remunerate their staff better and granted funds to help improve the corporate capabilities of the social service sector. However, VWOs encounter challenges in some of this funding and I would like to share some of them. Challenge in putting up funding proposals. Most VWOs do not have resources to put up proposals to access the funding. Restrictions on grant usage limit the usefulness of some of such grants. An example would be the Innovation and Productivity Grant.”
“VWOs also have an understanding of assistance schemes and the care options provided by institutions that can be matched to the needs of the beneficiaries. If we can equip VWOs with the necessary financial skillsets to help the families of such beneficiaries plan for care arrangements when they are no longer around, plan for the anticipated care arrangements and help to prepare the beneficiaries for such future living arrangements, that would be ideal. Permanency planning can be taken into account in the beneficiary's current customised care plans to enable caregivers and VWOs to have regular conversations on how to review and update such permanency planning. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider providing funding support for social service professionals to undergo structured training for the purposes of undertaking permanency planning. Page: 96 We will be spending a little bit now for a longer future. Social Service Sector”
“Thank you, Sir. I understand that, to date, around 140 companies have applied for funds under the Open Door Programme (ODP) and the average claim per company was $3,000. Whilst we have made progress in reaching out to employers, we are clearly still short of desired levels of outreach. 5.45 pm In what ways can the Government create greater awareness of the assistance funds available and encourage more companies to apply under the ODP? Also, has the Open Job Portal been an effective platform for job seekers with disabilities and employers? Permanency Planning Sir, second cut. We worry about our children, our parents and our loved ones. All the more, when such children, parents or loved ones have special needs, disabilities, illnesses or are in other ways vulnerable. We worry for them, even when we are here to look after them. When we are not here anymore, what will happen to them? With smaller families and an ageing population, there are fewer family members to share the caregiving role. Many caregivers of persons with disabilities are elderly parents, who, in no time, will no longer be able to continue in their caregiving roles. Caregivers of elderly parents, spouses or siblings with disabilities will also grow older. In the vicissitudes of life, some of us will not survive the ones that we take care of. We do not want to leave our loved ones to charity; neither do we want to burden the state unnecessarily. It is, therefore, important that caregivers be equipped and guided to make arrangements for continued, qualitative care for our loved ones when we are not around anymore. We are referring to "permanency planning". We should try to do this ground-up. VWOs look after their beneficiaries, they understand the needs of the beneficiaries and the caregivers.”
“Madam, technology is a powerful enabler. Despite medical advancements, the number of persons with functional disabilities, whether congenital or acquired, will increase. As Singapore ramps up its drive to be a Smart Nation, it is critical that we integrate considerations of the needs of persons with functional disabilities in the planning process. Beyond infrastructural cost savings and business efficiency, Smart Nation can play a critical role in homecare and healthcare support and disability intervention and mitigation right from our homes, offices and community spaces, as well as mainstream integration of persons with functional disabilities and limitations. In this connection, can the Government give an update of the integration on such considerations? More than Smart Nation, let it be an instrument for One Nation.”
“Madam, the Government has been progressive and flexible in the implementation of SkillsFuture for all Singaporeans, including seniors and persons with disabilities. As we continue to expand and deepen SkillsFuture, I hope we will continue to extend reasonable accommodation to seniors and persons with disabilities to enable them to secure job opportunities and attain career progression. As such, I would like to know whether training Page: 45 providers will be required to grant reasonable accommodation to these groups of trainees and make their training facilities and venues accessible to them. In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a group of special students. They have disabilities, and are mostly attending SPED schools. This group of students will finish school at a much later age than their peers. And, unlike their peers, they will require longer training pathways to acquire vocational skills for employment. I would urge the Government to consider making SkillsFuture credit available to this group of students at an earlier age to support them during the training pathways prior to employment. SkillsFuture Uptake and Expansion”
“Can I suggest that the Ministry consider, specifically approaching training providers for more efficiency and greater efficacy in outcome? More Support for Special Needs Students”
“Thank you, Madam. The setting up of Disability Support Offices (DSOs) in 2014 in all publicly-funded tertiary institutions was a great step of facilitation for students with disabilities in such institutions. In addition, Singaporean students with physical or sensory-related impairments who are in such tertiary institutions may tap upon the Special Education Needs (SEN) fund to purchase assistive technology devices and supporting services, such as signing interpretation and Braille printing. Could the Minister let us know: (a) the number of students who have received assistance from DSOs to date and the nature and outcome of such assistance; (b) the number of students who have utilised the SEN fund and the average amount utilised; (c) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the take-up rate; and (d) what measures would the Ministry be taking to facilitate students taking up more of such services? Page: 25 Allied Educators Currently, all primary schools are staffed with at least one AED(LBS) to support students with mild special educational needs (SENs). As of July 2015, 81 secondary schools have each been resourced with one AED(LBS) to support students with mild SENs. About 10% to 20% of teachers in every mainstream school are trained to have a deeper knowledge and skills to support students with special needs. In addition, all newly-recruited allied educators are required to attend a one-year, full-time Diploma in Special Education Programme conducted by the National Institute of Education (NIE). MOE is continuing to train teachers in special needs, and I thank the Ministry for that. The current training, unfortunately, is undertaken by individual schools on a request basis where special potential training providers submit training proposals.”
“I am not arguing that all IP rights must be owned by the Singapore Government, but rather that the IP rights must be owned within Singapore, whether it is the Government, industry, enterprise or individuals. Of course, I would also prefer very much that grantees of Government funds for purposes of research and innovation would use the IP that they own and grant licences to the Government for national applications. Economic impact and community impact – we have a lot of talk about that. We need to know what the measurable outcomes should be – long-term, mid-term, short-term, tangible, intangible. Therefore, I would like to know the guidelines and principles, applied and to be applied in the settings of key performance indicators (KPIs). Who determines such KPIs? I would also request to know what the consequences of not meeting KPIs may be. Last, but not least, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the structured framework suggested in my speech during the debate, that is, for the larger involvement of industry as client, rather than feedback provider, and as IP owner and recipient of research grants. SMEs to Leverage Research Innovation Enterprise (RIE)2020 Plan”
“Mdm Chair, during the debate on the Budget Statement, I urged hon Members that we should consciously work towards owning intellectual property (IP) rights arising from innovation. At the very least, we should own IP rights which are of strategic value to Singapore. My point was simple: without ownership, we do not have the liberty to own, use and exploit such IP for Singapore. If ownership flows out of Singapore, we not only lose the opportunity for value creation, growth and revenue, we run the risk of being rendered obsolete. We must, therefore, have safeguards against the inadvertent use of our funds and resources to equip our competitors. Mdm Chair, lest I be misunderstood, I wholly support research collaboration, including collaborations with non-Singaporean entities. There is much that we can learn and benefit from such collaborations. I understand there has to be give-and-take. All I am saying is that in giving and taking, we must know what we want to take for what we are willing to give. Why this on and on about ownership? Because it is intimately and ultimately affecting the flow-through from our research, the flow-through to Singapore, which is why I would like to know the requirements in place, or the requirements that will be in place, to ensure that Singapore's rights to IP created through its funding are adequately secured. I would like to know the Government's requirements in the retention of valuable foreground IP to benefit Singapore and to be commercialised by Singapore entities. Here, I would like to clarify that when I refer to Singapore, I am not referring to the Government alone.”
“I do not want him to sacrifice his career development or lose his job because he is looking after me. "Be kind to my parents when I throw tantrums. It is not because they did not teach me well. I simply cannot comprehend my external environment. "Please play with me. My legs are weak, but I still have a sense of adventure. "Thank you for accepting me." Madam, a disability is not caused by a medical condition per se. A disability – a person is disabled by external and internal barriers that impede his development and participation in the community. We have people who do not feel included because they do not know what disabilities and what challenges we have. Can we ask this House to be that platform to convey the little voices that I have just shared? Let our people know that there are disabilities they cannot see, they cannot perceive. But those are disabilities that are real and hurting. I ask for a national education campaign so that we can reach out to our people. I ask that we understand so that we can be one, and I ask that when we understand and when we are one, we can then build a country together. We will then have a caring and resilient society. It matters not then whether our society is rich or poor; we will all be rich. So, Madam, I support the Motion. [Applause.] Page: 61”
“As a wheelchair user, I do not relish the thought of having more persons on wheelchairs. But it is not for me to wish otherwise, because there are things beyond our control. So, I have recapped what the Government has done. I have spoken about the culture of kindness and generosity, and I have spoken about the form of experience that some of us had, either personally or distally, with disability. And we know that we can suffer disability at any time. Page: 60 So, why then do persons with disabilities still not feel included in our society? It cannot be that it is because people are not kind. Could it be that it is because we have a lack of awareness? Could it be that it is because there are disabilities that are not visible? Could it be that it is because there are disabilities that are perceived as disabilities? Here, I would like to share some small voices: "We hope for you to be patient when we are slow in entering the elevator. We do not like to hold up others. "We hope for you to be accommodating when we make strange loud noises. We cannot control our muscles. "We hope for you to give up your seats in the train. We feel bad for you not to have a seat, but our ankles are weak and we cannot stand for long. "Please understand if I refuse to communicate; sometimes, I am afraid and confused from the many voices I hear in my own head. "Do not be offended if I do not respond to your greetings. I cannot hear you. "Give us a chance to train and upgrade our skills so that we can work. We cherish our hope for a brighter future. "Give us a chance to work, so that we can be less of a burden to our families. "Let my son have flexible working schedules so that he can accompany me for my medical and therapy sessions.”
“I welcome the enhancement of the Workfare Training Support Scheme which allows persons with disabilities who earn low wages and are younger than 35 years old to be eligible for funding in their learning. These enhancements show the Government's recognition that persons with disabilities can be economically productive, and its flexibility in providing for the limitations and needs of persons with disabilities in the support for their employment progression. Why do I recap this? Because I believe that the Government has set a good framework and built a good foundation for the cultivation of a caring and resilient society. This is critical; this is basic. But what more do we need? Beyond this framework, beyond all the financial measures, we need people to make this successful. Madam, I believe we do have a kind and caring society in Singapore. Of course, we have discordant voices and there will always be. Singaporeans, on the whole, are known for their kindness and generosity. I have experienced that through the years in my personal journey. In terms also of relationship, we are not really too remote from persons who may have some form of special need. It could be a child, sibling, spouse, parent, grandparent, friend, colleague. Or we may know someone who is related to or associated with such a person. For some of us, by reason of illness or accidents, we acquire some form of disability. And for all of us, as we age, we slowly lose our vision, hearing, speech, mobility. When we buy insurance, there is a category of protection for permanent disability. The insured can claim insurance payout if he or she suffers permanent disability. This is a reminder that any of us could suffer a permanent disability.”
“I am encouraged that the Minister makes specific mention early on in this section, of the three groups of special people within the Singaporean society: those who have special needs, those who are less well off or who have fallen on hard times, and seniors. I welcome Budget 2016 for its Page: 59 inclusiveness and initiatives to empower persons with disabilities, the seniors and the economically disadvantaged. We have, indeed, come a long way. We have come a long way, since the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech in 2004, in taking care of vulnerable groups in our society. The second Enabling Masterplan ends this year, and the steering committee for the third Enabling Masterplan has been appointed. We have made great improvements in infrastructural accessibility. There is greater breadth and depth in our programmes for persons with special needs, the seniors and the economically disadvantaged. The appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Tharman as Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social Policies sends a strong message that economic policies cannot be segregated from social policies and affirms the Government's commitment to include vulnerable groups in national planning and nation-building. The Public Service initiative to employ persons with disabilities is another important milestone in the Government's walk of the talk. The opening of the Enabling Village, a one-stop community space and service centre dedicated to integrating persons with disabilities in society, serves to bring new opportunities for persons with disabilities. I welcome the recent Enhanced Wage Credit Scheme and the SEC scheme for persons with disabilities.”
“I also believe this framework would result in the creation of IPs that would be relevant to the industry, which would, in turn, create an intangible impact on the Singapore economy and community. As a corollary, funding for industry-research collaboration projects should be granted to the commercial entity or the TACs for them to appoint research institutions for such purposes. This framework, I believe, will enable the industry to enter into other collaboration agreements with its members, or with other industries, and to proliferate further value creation and growth. In addition, it would be able to monetise the economic value in the IP, be profitable and competitive. Ultimately, the benefits will be shared by the Singapore economy and community. Madam, I have filed COS cuts, so I will speak more on this later. But suffice it to say that the agencies administering the grants, the industries and research institutions must see themselves as being in partnership for Singapore's future, beyond their respective KPIs, beyond the granting of patents, for the future of Singapore. As the Finance Minister says, "We must remain prudent in expenditures, and ensure every additional dollar spent is spent responsibly." Indeed, let us move forward on this issue courageously, decisively and responsibly. Madam, allow me now to move on to the third section of the Finance Minister's speech, on building a caring and resilient society. Here, I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and board member of SG Enable. In this portion of my speech, I will be referring to persons with "disabilities" or "special needs", but they will all be the same group.”
“The collaboration has to be conducted at a high level with mutual respect and understanding between the industry and research institutions. It is important that the industry plays a more active role than that of a mere feedback provider. The industry and research institutions should collaborate to identify the outcomes that are impactful and strategic and cross-validate each other's inputs. We should not be content with just filing patents. The number of patent grants is not a measure of the success of our investments. We need to see the tangible economic and social impact from such innovations. In addition, in order for the IPs created to be more effectively exploited and applied within the industry, the IPs should be owned by the industry or the commercial entity, possibly either represented by the TACs or, as I had said, by the company itself. To encourage further research, we could have schemes for the licence back of such IPs. We would require cross-licensing to other entities within the same industry, and we could commercialise and derive revenue from them. I would, therefore, suggest, for the consideration of this House, a structured framework wherein the industry-research collaboration proceeds on the basis of the industry specifying, validating and accepting the outcome of the research, whilst the research institutions use their expertise to achieve the desired outcomes. This structured framework differentiates the industry as the client, as opposed to a feedback provider, and the research institution as the expert adviser, researcher and developer. As a client, the industry will be better able to communicate its greater insights to direct the outcome of the research.”
“I acknowledge that we cannot have our way always, particularly in collaborations. The good thing about IP is that rights are a complex bundle and there are strategic structures that can be customised in dealing with this bundle. The point that I would like to emphasise, hon Members and Madam, is that we must be careful in our research collaboration negotiations not to concede valuable foreground IP in return for consolation IP. Otherwise, we would be like the man who owns the land, pays the builder to build a house, but stays in the house as a tenant of the builder. No, Madam, we want to use such intellectual property for value creation and growth so that we can harness the economic and social value of such a property. That is why we are investing the money, is that not so, so that we can be competitive and profitable? We want to be able to monetise such intellectual property rights so that we can receive revenue, whether it be a one-time payment for transfer or recurring revenue by way of royalties and licence fees. We need to know what to retain and what we concede. Therefore, I hope that the Government will set clear guidelines for the retention of IPs which are of strategic value to Singapore. We must not let Singapore pay money to be used as a test bed without retaining valuable strategic IPs arising from such research. Page: 58 Madam, on industry-research collaboration. In order for us to generate value creation and growth for the relevant industry and ultimately our economy, we must identify the measurable outcomes to be attained. Tangible outcomes should be differentiated from intangible outcomes. We should ensure that we are in a position to correctly identify the outcomes which are impactful and strategic to the industry and direct the research accordingly.”
“One of the four major thrusts of RIE 2020 is to strengthen flow-through from research to its eventual impact on society and the economy. To ensure that we can effectively do so, we need to own the IPs or, at least own the rights, on a sustained long-term basis to achieve that impact. The issue of ownership of IPs is particularly important in research collaboration. We need to be clear as to who owns what IPs. This issue should be considered even more carefully where the parties to the research collaborations involve non-Singaporean entities and that happens pretty often. I think we would all agree that unless we own something, we do not have full rights to do whatever we want with it. If I am using a borrowed mobile phone, I have no rights to sell it. I do not even have a right to lease it to another person. I am currently using a dictation software which I bought. It transcribes my dictation into text. I can use it. But I have no rights to reverse engineer, I have no rights to copy or to make improvements. In fact, I cannot even install it beyond a stipulated number of devices. I cannot generate recurring revenue through royalties and licence fees. Why? Because I do not own the software. So, unless we own the IP rights or have meaningful rights to the IP in the innovation, we do not have the rights to deal with the IP in the way we want to. Unless we own the IP rights, we would have to be bound and limited by terms of licences and permissions granted by the IP owners. Would we think it is odd for us to pay billions of dollars and not have full or have meaningful rights to our IPs in our innovations? I think we would consider that odd. Is it possible for that to happen? Yes, I submit, very possible.”
“" The total allocation of funds under the RIE 2020 Plan, from 2016 to 2020, is $19 billion, out of which a sum of up to $4 billion will be directed to industry-research collaboration. This allocation represents, again I quote the Finance Minister, "a concerted shift towards innovation and enterprise, to capture the economic and social value of R&D." In addition, there will be a top-up of $1.5 billion to NRF this year to support the RIE 2020 Plan. There should be a few key observations on the innovation drive. These would be: (a) the purpose of innovation is to meet the needs of people and industries better; (b) innovation is the engine of value creation and growth; (c) there is economic and social value in R&D; and (d) ownership of IP allows companies to realise the value of their efforts. I will just paraphrased the Finance Minister. In order to achieve the outcomes, we are: (a) making a concerted shift towards innovation and enterprise; (b) placing great emphasis on industry-research collaboration; (c) spending billions of dollars on this; and (d) in this for the long term. Madam, what we want is for innovation to create IPs which are relevant to our people and industries, meet their needs better, enable them be more productive, profitable, and competitive, Page: 57 propel them and Singapore into a different and higher league, IP which translates into better a quality of life for all Singaporeans, generates more such IPs, multiplying their positive effect and impact on our economy and our society. And for that, we are investing billions of dollars and we will be in this for the long haul. With the foregoing as the background, I will now address two fundamental issues which, ideally, we should tackle. One, IP ownership.”
“Thank you, Madam. I echo the Finance Minister's call for Singaporeans to work together in new ways to transform our economy and strengthen our society. The Finance Minister said, and I quote, "Everyone has a role, and together, we are weaving a rich tapestry – each thread a different colour and texture, but woven together to give strength and resilience to our economy and our society." To have a strong resilient tapestry, we cannot reinforce one part and allow another to fall apart. It may sound trite, but our individual destinies are interwoven, and how our individual and collective destinies play out will, to a large extent, determine the destinies of our future generations. So, we need to be responsible for one another: the Government for its people, and the people for themselves and their country. Undergirding this relationship of interdependence and cross-responsibility is accountability: the Government to its people, and the people to themselves and their country. We should, therefore, approach Budget 2016 with this sense of responsibility and accountability. Government spending has increased substantially. I welcome the measures, but because we are using public funds, I would like to see that our funds are prudently disbursed, responsibly utilised and effectively achieve the expected and intended outcomes. By way of illustration, Madam, allow me to address the drive for innovation under the Industry Transformation Programme. First, I would like to declare my interest as a partner of Yusarn Audrey, which is a law firm specialising in intellectual property and the commercialisation of intellectual property. The Finance Minister states, again I quote, "The ownership of intellectual property (or IP) allows companies to realise the value of its efforts.”
“While we are on the topic of Smart Nation, the current EM refers to the setting up of the National Technology Centre. How is that coming along and how would that fit into the Smart Nation initiative?”
“I thank the Minister. I do recognise that there are initiatives within the sector and I do speak as someone from SPD as well as SG Enable and here I declare my interest. But it is also because of where we are right now that we feel that the reach for assistive technology to persons with disabilities is not sufficient. It cannot be the work just of VWOs, however many VWOs collaborate. It has got to be a national effort. Hence, Minister, my question is, again, how we fit all these efforts within the national initiative so that it does not become a stand-alone project, but it is a continuum of our phasing of persons within the community, a truly whole-of-Government approach, Minister. I am looking forward to your sharing of more concrete plans as well as a more definite timeline for us to work on, so that we know how to prepare ourselves.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification and we want to thank the Government for the ATF as well as the other initiatives that have been made available to persons with disabilities. My question relates more to where persons with disabilities come in, in the Smart Nation initiatives. We do understand that that is in the course of being built, but do persons with disabilities play a role? And specifically, Minister, if you could share with us the road map towards including persons with disabilities within this larger Smart Nation initiative – what the strategies are to empower, enable and facilitate persons with disabilities to be able to live independently, work independently? What initiatives will there be to increase or build on the capability within the sector, the AT assessors, the occupational therapists, for example? Minister, if you could clarify.”
“Thus far, the penalties do not seem to be working very well in terms of ensuring that there are smooth operations for the benefit of commuters. Right now, we are also having an issue with SMRT wanting to go into another area of business which is not its core business. I know the Minister has stated that the Ministry will ensure that they continue to give good services and adhere to the transport standards that are required. But in more specific terms, how would the Ministry ensure that they do not get distracted by making more profits, seeing, of course, that the computation of the penalties could possibly be quite minuscule, particularly if it is limited only to revenue of a particular line?”
“But to do that, we also need to have our educators who believe in that. How do we ensure that our teachers believe in that, our principals believe in that? How do we ensure that our civil servants believe in that? Do we all do that or are we just here to do a job? I thought maybe, as Singaporeans, that is what we want to be thinking about as well, that, as we reflect on the solidarity that we have shown – thankfully for that – and, yet, something that we should not take for granted because it is something that we must develop and entrench within the way we think and the way that we live our lives. So, I urge the Government to think about how we can help our citizens, particularly our children, to remember all these things.”
“Madam, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the other hon Members who have spoken. Whilst I am not against the idea of having memorials, I also do question the use of spending so much time debating on the issue of memorials. We are not short of memorials Page: 55 in Singapore. We have got Kranji, we have got the Civil War Memorial, we have got the Tan Kim Seng Memorial. We have got memorials everywhere but how much of it has actually impacted the way we think and carry out our duties as Singaporeans? How much of it has really impacted the way we live our lives as Singaporeans and our Singaporean identity? The Prime Minister and other speakers have spoken about how Mr Lee had his ideals and wanted us to carry on those ideals and that the best way for us to honour his memory and that of our founding fathers would be to carry on those ideals. I thought a more important question is: how are we going to ensure those ideals are shared and imbibed by all Singaporeans and are carried on through the generations so that we will always be proud to say that we are Singaporeans, so that we always say we believe in those ideals? We can have a memorial but, after a while, people would look at the memorial and say, "Oh, yeah, he did something for Singapore". But it is the ideals and values that are so important to make sure that we continue to thrive and be strong as a nation. Perhaps, also we might want to think about how our children can be educated. Instead of just being told about certain days to remember, but exactly what a difference those days make to us and how we can make that difference, too, and how children in schools can be taught those ideals and they can imbibe them and they become a part of the Singaporean psyche.”
“Because, this is Singapore. Did he do well for Singapore? Look around us. We can say what we will, history shall be the judge. History will judge those who act and history will judge those who only speak. As for me, I am convinced that if I were born in Singapore in an earlier era, or if I were born in a similar era, but in another Asian country, being a girl with a disability coming from a poor family with no connections, I would not have been able to go to school, enter a profession and serve the community today. But I was born in Singapore, in this era. Shortly after he had taken office, he said he had the lives of a few million people to account for. He said Singapore would survive. By any measure, Singapore has more than survived. Today, we are a reckoned player in the international scene. Today, our lives have improved, and Singaporeans have a strong foundation upon which to work hard to make life better for ourselves and our children. My parents taught me that when I take a drink of water, I must remember its source. 饮水思源. Son of Singapore. Father of Singapore. Pardon my inability to craft a tribute worthy of you. Words fail me. And today, all that I can say to you, my first Prime Minister, is what I never had the opportunity to tell you in person: Thank you, Mr Lee. My father pays tribute to Mr Lee thus: 建国之道 光耀承传，建国之路 人民承担. Page: 33 He has completed his sojourn with us. But his journey, and the journey that he and our forefathers began, has not ended. That journey will continue. This is our Singapore. And we will build it, and we will protect it. So be it. [Applause.] 5.32 pm”
“Mdm Speaker, I speak in honour of a man whom I had never met. Yet, I knew him, from my earliest memories and for a long time, as my Prime Minister. I never met him, never spoke with him, not even when he came to Parliamentary sittings. I never met him, but he did much for me, for my family, for my country. He was an icon to me during my growing up years. Even as a child, I respected him greatly. But, when I grew into a young adult, I became critical of some of his views and policies. Who was this man? I will never know. Some say that he was ruthless. But he said he was accountable for the lives of a few million people. He said it was about his life and our lives. Page: 32 Some say he was ambitious for himself. But he assumed leadership over what, given the circumstances at that time, could have been a catastrophic failure, dooming his name in history – forever. Some say he was arrogant. It would, indeed, be an unusual human being who is not. On the other hand, I recall he said this of the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, "Of all my Cabinet colleagues, it was Goh Keng Swee who made the greatest difference to the outcome for Singapore… When he held a contrary view, he would challenge my decisions and make me re-examine the premises on which they were made. As a result, we reached better decisions for Singapore." He said he was not concerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity. Again, some say he was arrogant. But he said he thought a leader who is thus obsessed or concerned is a weak leader. It is a hard lesson for me. Some say that he was ruthless, unforgiving, unrelenting. But children of his political foes had rights and opportunities like any other children. They were able to enter professions, able to become lawyers, doctors, public servants.”
“What we need to do is to be able to train and expose young children, from the time that they are young, to children with disabilities so that they will grow up together with them as one. And when they become colleagues and when they become bosses or superiors in due course, there will be a less of an awkwardness. That would be the long-term plan, but in the short term, what can we do? Can we have more national education initiatives starting from schools, in the trade associations, in the commercial sectors and even in the social service sector? Very often, we train people with skills and we equipped them with soft skills to go into the workforce, but is the take-up rate not as satisfactory? Why is it not the way we have hoped? On the one hand, we have people who say, "I want to work", on the other hand, we have people who say, "I want to employ". Why can we not find the match? There has got to be something that is missing in between. Is it perhaps a lack or an inadequacy in the way we are training our people? Is it an inadequacy in the exposure of potential employers? If Ministry could work with the relevant agencies and look into more of these issues at a more specific level, I think we would be much better able to grasp the issues. And I raise this even though I am from SPD. I must say that we really do not have the answers. We feel that it has got to be driven at a much higher level because this has got to be done from different Ministries at different levels. And I also, at this point, urge that the Government, as the largest employer, lead by example as well. If you show to the employers out there that you can and you do employ persons with disabilities because you are able to train them and because you believe in their potential as well. Adults with Special Needs”
“Thank you, Sir. I thank the Government for the schemes such as the Open Door Programme and the Open Job Portal. Both offer opportunities that enhance the employability of persons with disabilities. However, not every person is suitable for employment. There may be some who may be more suitable for self-employment and, perhaps, the Ministry could also look into specific or more streamlined schemes to help persons with disabilities on a micro-finance basis for them to run their own little cottage businesses. I requested for this to address both cuts together as one because I feel that the issue on employability is not just one that relates to the Open Door Programme and on and so forth alone, but it is one that involves too many sectors, too many Ministries, too many agencies. Overall, public education and public perception is very, very important. When we look at a person with disability, there is always a concern and a fear that if I employ someone who has a different need, I may have different challenges in having to absorb that person into my employment, into my workforce. If we are able to have public initiatives – public education initiatives – and share with employers what they can do and what they do not have to do, I think it would help a lot. There have been many conferences that had been organised but very often, I think, we are just preaching to the converted. How do we reach out to those who are not attending the conferences because these are the ones we need to reach out to? Perhaps the trade associations; perhaps all the other schools, the institutions can help us. What we need to do Page: 160 is to equip a child from young to be employable, to be a part of a bigger community.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I have leave also to take both cuts as one rather than consecutively?”
“There is actually nothing wrong with running programmes that generate revenue as long as we do not lose focus of our mission, we do not neglect the needy and as long as we remain beneficiary-centric. Profit, of course, cannot be the overriding factor in our service but we cannot say profit is not important either. Can the Government assure us that when we undertake programmes and explore ways to generate revenue, the VWOs would be able to still retain their charity status and their IPC status? In Page: 151 this respect also, can the Government help to equip the sector to generate our own revenue? The third point relates to greater collaboration between Ministries and VWOs. We can barely, scarcely afford to have VWOs operate in silos or on a territorial basis or for Ministries to operate as if they were running their own Ministries alone. We welcome the Social Service Net and Social Service Offices, and we hope to see more of such measures to stimulate, facilitate the service delivery and for greater, better follow-through of all the services within the sector. Social Services”
“Mr Chairman, I spoke last week on the importance of a social service sector that is sustainable. I fully agree with what was spoken by the hon Member Ms Denise Phua and I would like to just share three more factors which I feel are also important for consideration. 6.30 pm One, manpower. The sector also faces a crucial crunch, just like any other sector, in the availability of suitably qualified professionals. Whilst we appreciate that the Government is taking active steps to ramp up the supply of such professionals, the fact remains that in the interim, we are not able to serve as many beneficiaries as is needed. The sector recognises that we have to play our part in the management and nurturing of our human resources in order to retain and develop them, but the fact remains that we do not have the ability to attract and remunerate the professionals and pay them as competitively as we would like. While there are schemes from the Government to assist the VWOs, the schemes are often short term and do not permit us to make long-term plans. As such, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are plans to further train locals, whether locally or foreign, and whether we are going to have plans to arrange for them to have internship. What other financial assistance can be extended to the VWOs in order that we might be able to attract and retain talent competitively. More importantly, and also for the long term, how can we equip the social service VWOs to be able to nurture and manage their human resources to retain and to develop them for the sector? Secondly, the change of mindsets. We need to change the mindset that VWOs should only always be run like charities.”
“We must also continue to support and strengthen organisations of people with mental health problems, psychosocial disabilities, as well as their families and caregivers. With the Mental Health Blueprint, progress has been made but we still have far to go. As in other areas of medicine, there must always be considerations for evidence- based protocols and practices, incorporation of human rights principles, respect for individual Page: 114 autonomy and effective collaborations. Moving forward, how does MOH plan to align with the Global Mental Health Action Plan 2020? Will there be new programmes or framework to enhance and integrate with the existing ones: at the primary level, through mental wellness programmes and intervention strategies; at the secondary level, from early intervention and control of symptoms and to maintain stability of disease; and, at the tertiary level, for rehabilitation and recovery to be optimised for all our patients? The issue of stigma continues to plague us as well. There are still patients and relatives who refuse to seek care and treatment at IMH. They would rather be attended to by psychiatrists and doctors in other hospitals. Can MOH work with the relevant mental health partners to help with publicity, creation of awareness and appropriate understanding to help reduce stigma and to assist the public and family members to be empowered to handle persons in mental health crisis? The mass media, too, has a critical role to play in aligning with this. Better still, a whole-of-Government and media approach and alignment would be optimal. Finally, can I ask MOH if we can consider having some empowerment course such as skills to handle family members with mental health diseases under the new SkillsFuture scheme? Mental Illness”
“Mdm Chair, disability is not someone else's problem. It can affect any of our loved ones. It can affect any of us, at any time, at any stage of our lives. Even without accidents or illnesses, we lose our functional abilities as we age. It is, therefore, important that we should effectively create greater awareness and understanding of the risks of disability and the measures to prevent or mitigate disabilities. I request the Government to consider public education initiatives to reduce the incidents and to mitigate the degree of disabilities. I know we can never achieve zero disability but let us try to reduce and do what we can to mitigate. Such initiatives may address risk factors, early detection and management of complications and loss of functions. I am not talking about medical intervention. I am not even talking about Allied Health Professionals being involved in this. But how do we educate our members of the public, people who live in our own HDB flats, in our own homes to be able to detect the early onset of a disability or the early onset of complications arising from a disability? Relevant measures also would include taking such public education initiatives to schools, to workplaces and to just the public in general. As such, public education should be taken on a focused basis as well as holistically because it is a part of public health. As much as we are good in conducting campaigns, I hope the Government would also consider more public education initiatives in this respect and I await the Government's response. Mental Health and Wellness Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Madam, mental health considerations and interventions must continue to be mainstreamed into healthcare development plans and policies.”
“Madam, thank you. I thank also the MOE for its enlightened approach in including persons with disabilities (PwDs) in mainstream education. And as the hon Member Ms Denise Phua has pointed out, the setting up of the Disability Support Offices or DSOs was welcome news to the sector last year. Likewise, the launch of the Special Education Needs Fund. We also hope that Ministry would consider extending to children of other disabilities. Page: 102 Apart from funds, and apart from just skills and equipment, I would also like to ask more specifically how much budget will be allocated for capability development and training of the persons who will be staffing the DSOs? Also, in relation to that, on a broader and higher-level culture of the IHLs. We cannot have DSOs built as operating as silos. They are there to facilitate but they are not there to do all the work. So, how does Ministry envisage that steps will be taken to build a culture of inclusiveness from top down and amongst the faculty and staff of the IHLs? Multinational Youth Interaction”
“Madam, thank you. I have heard our Ministers speak about the commitment, the importance of the heart and also of how people have spoken about how they are very proud and committed to be soldiers. In my own experience, I have spoken with many people and it is refreshing to hear those who say positive things about National Service because the majority of the people I have spoken with have very negative views about National Service. Many of them are cynical and I have heard people who say, "I do not see any reason why I should defend the country". There are people who have said, "We have not been trained well enough". I would like to ask the Minister how we would want to address those. I think we may have certain generations who have passed, but for the younger ones who are coming into National Service, how are we going to build up that heart of passion and love for the country, so that regardless of the people and circumstances, they will want to train because they believe in defending the country?”
“What I would want to conclude with, Madam, is that when we talk about collective responsibility, we need to understand that collective responsibility must also be exercised responsibly, on a collective basis as well as a personal basis. When the Government talks about redistributing wealth, we welcome that. The people who are going to be implementing the schemes, conducting the training, doing the assessments, evaluating the curriculum, the people who are dispensing the funds and whatever we are doing have to exercise personal responsibility to ensure that there is no wastage. There will always be inevitable leakage. The people who benefit also have to ensure personal responsibility in acting with integrity in their claims for money. When we talk about personal choice, choice always comes with responsibility. Benefits come with obligations and when we exercise our personal choice, there is a price to be paid. And Madam, I submit that price should not be paid by someone else. With that, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“I am not entirely sure, but I know at the end of the day that because I am not the only person contributing to that fund, I cannot be the only person to call the shots as to how I am going to spend it. At the very least, I have a moral obligation to spend it wisely. Why do I say that? Because if I am not judicious in my spending, at the end of the day, who is going to maintain me in my twilight years? The state? Who? Ultimately, it means someone else is bearing it, right? Another taxpayer. So, if I am not judicious and I am arguing, "This is my money," I am not going to be responsible in my use. And, if I argue, "This is your money; you use it anyway you want". I am not responsible as a citizen. There is also the role of the family. We talk a lot about educating CPF members as to how they can withdraw their money, how they should use or should not use it. But there Page: 82 must be a lot more education on whether or not the families should support their retirees, support their parents in their retirement. Is that going to feature when we allow the flexibility in the withdrawal? Madam, I have great unease and I cannot support this recommendation that we allow such flexibility to the people. I have unease because I think we are placing a very great fiscal obligation upon our future generations, living off what our forefathers have built for us. So, in conclusion, we have a Budget that is arguably very generous and for which I am also very thankful. We have a Budget that has been praised and approved that is being leaning towards the left. But I would also argue that if we lean too much to the left, we would not have much left.”
“How do we ensure that we are able to isolate in our negotiations with our collaborators the items and the desired outcomes that we want? How do we know which part of the foreground intellectual property would be relevant, useful and strategic for us? I do know again that the answer is likely to be that the people who run the programmes would be the best persons to tell us. But I do also ask that perhaps we may want to exercise a little bit more diligence. I am not sure of the full process that is involved and perhaps the Government can clarify this. Let us not put $1 billion and end up with insignificant intellectual property. In relation to the issue of CPF, this was just mentioned barely in passing. And the Workers' Party has also spoken about that. I believe that we have the right to spend our money anyway we want, whenever we want. I believe also that we can do anything we want, whenever we want. But when what we do is going to have a foreseeable effect or will cause foreseeable loss or injury to another person, there is merit for us to argue that that right has got to be circumscribed. In relation to the use of CPF monies, we have heard proponents who argue that CPF money is theirs. It is our money; it is in our account; it is our retirement money; I want it out; I will spend it anyway I want. Fine. Is it our money? I am not sure if I want to go into legalese, but I certainly do not want to argue about ownership rights. Our CPF savings are enhanced, enforced savings which are accumulated through our own deferred consumption, through co-payment by our employers and through top-ups from public funds. Is it really my private money? Do I have the right to spend it the way that I would spend my own salary?”
“Unlike infrastructure investment, where we can see the returns and the outcomes, how can we ensure that the SkillsFuture investment that we are going to make will yield positive, significant impact? I do not know. I do not have the answer. Perhaps, it may be premature to ask for answers at this moment. But I do want to say that the people who are going to be running the curriculum, the people who are going to be conducting the training, have to exercise integrity and professionalism. They have to look at the picture at the macro level. It would be a sad day, indeed, if people were to say, "Let's spend it; we have got the budget anyway. It doesn't matter what course we do; just give them a certificate." It is going to defeat what we are going to do because we are going to be investing in long-term development of the employment skills of our people, because we are talking about moving into the future. I have other concerns and they relate to the budget for research and development. We are going to be putting $1 billion into the National Research Fund. It is a good thing; I believe in the importance of intellectual property. But I also believe that we need to understand the nature of intellectual property very clearly before we work out the KPIs to measure the success of each investment. In every collaboration and I do believe that our national research initiatives are mainly collaborative efforts, there will always be negotiations on who owns what at the end of the day. I bring in this, you bring in that, and then, how are we going to be differentiating. Page: 81 How are the researchers motivated? By the production of research papers, or by the production of foreground intellectual property that is of strategic importance to Singapore?”
“In the early days, when we had the social welfare department and what was done was inadequate, we had charities mushrooming, coming up to fill the gaps. They were mainly driven by volunteers and they were mainly driven by compassion and charity. We need to move away, ironically, from a charity mindset for the social service sector. We need to have a sector that behaves and drives itself professionally and not depend only on charity. The sector has benefited largely from the generosity of the Government in past Budgets. But I think it is important and imperative that we should help the sector to become sustainable. Page: 80 In this respect, I would ask the Government to consider how you can help to catalyse and help to provide support for the sector to be able to enhance and augment the resources that we have, to be able to raise revenue in a way that is more sustainable to run the programmes that we need to run. Madam, I now move on to the next portion of my speech and this would be a little more fragmented, but essentially, it will be based primarily, not on collective responsibility but personal responsibility. There has been a lot of talk on collective responsibility. I do respect that and I do agree that it is important. What I want to share is that we need to talk about collective responsibility in the context of each person exercising their personal responsibility as well. If we take SkillsFuture, there has been a lot of praise for that. I like that and I do not like to be negative but, unfortunately, I am. I am afraid that if we do not run SkillsFuture properly, then, for the every $1 billion that we are going to spend for the next five years, we are going to have it go down the drain.”
“They are our very own resources that like any other, we have to respect, nurture and tap upon. So, when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance announced SkillsFuture, it was encouraging. Encouraging because here, we now have another scheme and hopefully, at a more macro level, in which we can train our people with deeper skills to move into the future. Let us do it inclusively. Let us try not to waste and duplicate courses. Where we can, consolidate and bring all in. In training together, we also achieve the advantage of having persons with or without disabilities working together and that also assists and facilitates their inclusion into the workforce. In relation also to the strengthening of the collaboration between trade unions, employers and other persons within industries, I trust that the social service sector's input will be tapped and that the social service sector will be looked upon as a key partner in this respect. There is much, in terms of experience, that the sector can offer and that is also a good channel for us to move into and tap the previously latent potential of the persons who are served within the sector. Faced with a tightening labour market, I do not think we have a choice, apart from the fact that we do have an enduring interest to ensure that everyone in Singapore, whether they are persons with or without disability, whether they are well-off or they are less endowed, that each of us has the dignity of holding a job and has the dignity of saying that we contribute to our country. Underlying what I am saying is that we need to create a social service sector that is sustainable by itself.”
“But I think that the landscape has changed and what we are going to be doing with our 24 "Hock Lee Pors" would be very different from what the earlier "Hock Lee Por" used to do. The earlier Social Welfare Department services or looks at needs: "You cannot do this, I help you." And, primarily, the assistance is given through financial means. Times have changed. The landscape has changed; aspirations have changed. People expect more; people hope for more. They dream higher and they dream bigger. In connection with that, the social service sector requirements have also grown more stringent. There is greater requirement for professionalism and for governance. As a result, we now have a social service sector that is driven not primarily by volunteers – although volunteers form a very important part of the sector – but it is also driven by professionals. The need to professionalise the sector cannot be underestimated. Likewise, the need also to equip and empower the persons who are served within the sector, not just to receive the monthly allowances but to be financially independent. So, we are now faced with a sector that demands more, that is required to give a lot more. Page: 79 Because of that, I would urge the House and the Government to consider the need for us to place greater and more integrated emphasis on the training of persons with disabilities within the sector. We need to try ways in which we can align and consolidate and review the schemes that we now have to train persons with disabilities so that we can empower them and so that we can equip them to be independent financially to the fullest extent possible. We know that people who have disabilities can serve. These are an important pool of resources.”
“Madam, I thank you for this opportunity to take part in the debate and I do want to say that I have heard many good things about this debate. But I do also want to share a few of my thoughts. The Budget is focused on building Singapore's future and it follows the fundamental policy shifts spoken of by the Prime Minister in his New Year message to Singaporeans. The Page: 78 focus is on Singaporeans and I agree that it should be. The Budget makes provision for families, students, the elderly, employers, employees, Singapore businesses. It has been hailed as "inclusive". But unlike the previous Budgets, it has not made – I have not heard it make – specific provisions for persons who serve in the social service sector or for persons who are served by the social service sector. However, I would not raise alarm bells prematurely. The term "Singaporeans" includes persons with disabilities and persons with other needs and I trust that the Budget Statement is broad enough to include the social service sector. That being the case, I look forward to the Committee of Supply debate for greater clarity on the inclusiveness of the Budget. With that preface, I would like to raise a few issues for clarification, consideration and debate in the interim. There are two main parts to my speech. The first relates to the social service sector and, in this respect, I again declare my interest as the President of SPD and as a Board Member of SG Enable. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance referred in his speech to the "Hock Lee Pors'" (福利部) of the early days. I assure him that I belong to that generation that recognises and knows the meaning of that term. He also shared that there will be "Hock Lee Pors" coming in the coming years.”
“I would like to ask the Minister: in relation to the provision of public transport, is there not also a duty on the part of the providers to see that as part of their public service? In other words, we should not look at profitability and determine the price of public transport fares, just solely on the basis that the buses may or may not be making profits. The fact is that there is cross-subsidisation within the company, and overall, there is profit. So, should the PTC then not take that into account in determining the fare as well?”
“Thank you, Madam, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister of State. I think my earlier request for clarification in relation to the appeal was not just in circumstances where the condition has improved but also when the classification is made and the decision to impose premium loading is also made. At that point in time, is there a mechanism for an appeal to be lodged?”
“This is our opportunity to show our kampong spirit, and to express our respect for the dignity of fellow Singaporeans. This is when Singaporeans walk the talk. The success or failure of the scheme, and, indeed, of our society, lies within our own hands. Mdm Speaker, on that note, I support the MediShield Life Scheme Bill. 3.01 pm”
“How strict are we, how stringent are we, how robust are we in enforcing?" It helps, it helps, and that is why I have not talked about penalty because, personally, I think it is important. But we must go out and we must explain to people as my hon colleagues have done, that it can happen to just any of us, and it is important for us to have this sense of collective responsibility. The MediShield Life Scheme, as the Minister pointed out, is not just about insurance. It is also not just about premium loading, Premium Subsidies or penalties. It is about corporate responsibility. Undergirding the whole scheme is the higher ideal of a collective responsibility and societal cohesion. It is not about abuse; it is not about compassion; it is not about charity. It is about respecting the dignity of Singaporeans, in sickness or in health, and it is about us as a country. During the "Our Singapore Conversation", many participants emphasised the need to bring back the kampong spirit. There has also been much feedback, from the ground and "Our Singapore Conversation", on the inadequacies in the provision for disadvantaged persons. How much more can be done; how much more should be done for the people in our community. I am personally heartened by such feedback because it shows that our people care for the disadvantaged in the community. So, I now call upon these ones who gave that feedback and these ones who believe in it to rally behind and to support the scheme, to go out and to be the ambassadors to other Singaporeans so that they, too, will rally behind and support the scheme. This is our opportunity, by contributing to the pool of premiums, to play our part in ensuring that every Singaporean has access to medical care.”
“So, there would be other considerations and I hope that the Minister would take those other criteria into account. Another point that has been raised by fellow Members is the issue of the importance of ensuring that medical costs do not soar as a result of the provision of insurance. After all, if I do not have to pay, why worry about spending? Minister, I think I would like to share my thinking that the focus of the Bill is really on treatment, and cost is important, but cost is ancillary. So, while we should be careful about managing the costs, we must also be judicious in the way in which we are going to be monitoring the spending because we must not harness our doctors. They are the ones who know best how to treat, and so we must not have guidelines that tie their hands. I certainly hope that the Ministry would look into this, that even as we monitor, we will be judicious in our guidelines. My final point, Madam, although not the least important, for the scheme to be sustainable in the long term, we need the Government to continue to honour this commitment. But, whilst we can legislate the proportions of contributions to the MediShield Life Fund and we can legislate how much the contributions are going to be, we cannot legislate empathy, and we also cannot legislate acceptance of persons within our community Page: 71 who have greater needs. The people of Singapore must believe in this scheme and support it. It must emanate from within their hearts and minds. For this, we need the mindshare of the people and the heart-share of the people of Singapore. We cannot run the Scheme and legislate and force people to pay. We cannot talk about penalties and say, "Oh, you know, if they do not pay, what are we going to do?”