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 5 of 5.
“Madam, my third issue concerns the application of section 59 subsection (6) and subsection (7) of the CPF Act, as sought to be amended under the Bill. Can the Minister clarify the application of the amended subsections to the MediShield Life Scheme? The subsections Page: 70 govern the appointment and the assignment of liabilities under the original MediShield scheme to appointed insurers. How is that going to be applied to the MediShield Life Scheme? Will private insurers be appointed, and if not, then why are the amendments sought to be made under the Bill? And if not, then why is the current section 56A of the CPF Act not to be repealed? If private insurers are to be appointed to manage the Scheme, then I think there is great cause for concern insofar as sustainability, insofar as the protection of private data and those who insofar as, whether or not at the end of day, we could be held to ransom because there are just far too few insurers out there who can manage this Scheme for us. I then move on, Madam, to the fourth issue which has been raised by my fellow Members on affordability and subsidies. I will not belabour the points that have been raised but I do want to thank the Government and the Minister for the re-assurance that persons who cannot afford to pay premiums will be assisted with that. I also, however, want to request the Minister to consider including additional criteria apart from income and household house value in assessing whether or not an insured person qualifies for Premium Subsidies. The reason is simple – anyone with a pre-existing medical condition would naturally have to spend a lot more in terms of treatment and in terms of other ancillary requirements, such as even transport costs.”
“The MOH Factsheet states that those with "serious pre-existing conditions" would be liable to premium loading. Is it then correct to say that "non-serious" pre-existing medical conditions will not be subject to premium loading? And I see the Minister nodding so I suppose that is the answer, then, I do not have to ask any more. Thank you. Noting the recommendation also of the MediShield Life Review Committee to exclude from the Scheme treatment for self-inflicted injuries and attempted suicide, will the Minister consider persons who suffer from self-inflicted injuries or who attempt suicide by reason of mental illness? Can this class of treatment be included under the Bill? Noting also that the determination of a pre-existing illness and, therefore, the application of premium loading will have an adverse impact on any future application for insurance cover, will the Minister consider an appeal process whereby persons can make a direct appeal and have their conditions re-assessed? Madam, the second issue that I would like to raise concerns the payment of premiums for persons above 21 years old who lack capacity within the Mental Capacity Act. These are the people who may not have donees, who may not have court-appointed deputies and who are above 21 years old. How will the Government ensure that premiums are paid? It would be onerous to require them to make an application to court or to require their caregivers to make an application to court just so that premiums can be paid. I would request the Minister to consider making provision for premiums to be paid by the donee, deputy, or in the absence of either, a parent or both parents of such an insured person.”
“Thank you, Madam. I speak in support of the MediShield Life Scheme Bill. I also declare my interest as the President of SPD and board member of SG Enable, both of which organisations serve persons with disabilities, that is, persons with pre-existing medical conditions. I am also personally interested, being currently subject to policy exclusions on grounds of my physical disability and being closely related to persons who are currently subject to policy exclusions or totally excluded from insurance cover. I applaud the Government's move towards universal health coverage, erstwhile elusive. The MediShield Life Scheme marks another significant commitment by the Government towards greater acceptance and inclusion of persons with disabilities within our society. The Scheme promises to make significant social impact, but it comes with its corresponding costs and burdens and as such, we must be particularly careful in its enactment and execution. Page: 69 The nation's interest is served not simply by the introduction of this scheme but more by its acceptance by Singaporeans and its fair, effective and sustainable execution. With this in mind, I raise five issues for the consideration of the House. Firstly, the scope and definition of "pre-existing medical conditions". Clarity, as much as is achievable, is important in this respect, given that premium loading will be applied based on the same. I therefore seek clarification from the Minister on the following. I noted that the Minister did say he was going to share broad categories of the pre-existing medical conditions with members of the public. I also request that more details be given and also that criteria in assessing premium loading be shared and made transparent as well.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. Does MOH have statistics on children and young people with mental health issues? Also, given the importance of community support and acceptance, how are these children and young people supported and integrated into schools and the community?”
“A clarification for the Minister. I am heartened to note that SHPL is taking ownership and taking steps to ensure that what happened before would not happen again. However, if the maintenance and the management continue to be unsatisfactory from the perspective of Singapore's reputation, then is there an exit clause that enables SportSG to treat the non-performance or the failure of obligation as a breach of contract and award the management to another entity?”
“Madam, in view of the explanation given by the Senior Minister of State, I would not move the amendment. And I apologise to the House for the late notice. [(proc text) Clauses 18 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]”
“Chairman, I beg to move, "In page 6, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" and insert the word "Pioneers". [(proc text) Amendment negatived. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Senior Minister of State. I do apologise, but I would like to put this to the House. Thank you, Mdm Speaker.”
“With Mdm Speaker's permission, if I could just clarify my motivation to move this amendment. I have heard the Senior Minister of State. I think, all the more, if the intention is that we do not wish to conduct any means-testing, that we should remove any doubt that financial need may be a criterion in any scheme that is to benefit under the Fund. This is to avoid any argument subsequently that a scheme had been improperly administered because it fell outside or did not satisfy clause 3 because there was no requirement for financial differentiation. I would urge the Senior Minister of State to consider and advise me accordingly.”
“Yes, Madam [A handout was distributed to hon Members]. Madam, I beg to move, In page 6, line 12 and 13, to leave out the words "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" and insert the word "Pioneers".”
“This Fund is but a token of appreciation to recognise their past. We, their children, benefited from our economic progress built on their past and their sacrifices. We must work together with the State to galvanise more efforts to provide the seniors and the Pioneers with a dignified twilight. Page: 56 Mdm Speaker, on that note, I support the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill.”
“Are we willing to redesign the work scope and workspace to accommodate their needs whilst tapping on their experience? We see our seniors taking public transport, working in public places. Should we be kind and gracious to them? Do we even notice them? Or do we think that someone else will? It is not a scheme or package that makes a country kind and gracious. Yes, that sets the tone. But it is every individual – you and I. Singaporeans. The young today will be aged one day. The able-bodied will slowly suffer functional disabilities. It is not someone else’s problem. It is our problem. We are the ones who determine the type of community we live in and the type of community we will live in in the future. The Government has set the tone for us in this Bill. The question now is: what will we, the common folk, do? Our Pioneers merit special treatment. They made extraordinary sacrifices to build families under unfavourable conditions. Born before 1949, there was barely any real opportunity to secure any education or home. They grew up among the ravages of unemployment and socio-economic disadvantages in the 1950s and 1960s. CPF was started only in 1955. Neither was there a real opportunity to build up savings with their meagre salaries. The true benefits of economic progress were enjoyed by the younger generations born after them. Our healthcare system has prolonged their life expectancies. Our education has made it hard for them to participate in the labour force. Even our modestly-priced public housing in the initial years was beyond the reach of many low-skilled workers. Some have been displaced from their agricultural livelihoods to make way for public housing, industrialisation and infrastructure. In other words, they were displaced to make way for our future.”
“So, you could have a Pioneer with different bank accounts for PioneerDAS, ElderShield, IDAPE and the Foreign Domestic Worker Grant. We are concerned that the potential number of bank accounts would result in greater difficulty for the Pioneer to monitor and track transaction trails. I would, therefore, also urge the Government to rationalise payments into a single account, regardless of whether the schemes are administered by the public, voluntary or private sectors. Having said the above, I would also like to urge my fellow Singaporeans to recognise that the responsibility should not be the Government's alone. It must be a family and community effort. Honouring our Pioneers does not lie in dispensing funds alone. It lies in according them respect and dignity. They should not be viewed as a burden to our community, but as valuable members of our community and, where applicable, as role models and mentors for the younger generation. It is as frightful to be aged and lonely as it is to be aged and poor. The role of the family is something which no Government or VWO can assume. Loneliness is not a condition that the Government or a VWO can relieve. Love is not something that the Government or a VWO can give. Page: 55 As we consider, debate upon and execute various Government schemes for Pioneers, I urge each Singaporean to examine our roles in relation to the Pioneers, seniors, people with different or special needs and others within our families and community. We, who have seniors in our families, are we willing to assume responsibility for them? We, who have seniors in our neighbourhood, are we willing to be neighbours to them? We, who are employers, are we willing to engage and employ our seniors on fair terms?”
“Page: 54 In relation to PioneerDAS, the FAQs state that the sums disbursed under PioneerDAS may be used to pay for any expenses, at the discretion of the Pioneer. The Pioneer may also nominate a caregiver who is at least 18 years old to receive the payments. I have two concerns, which apply to all disbursements under the PG Fund. The first is that the Pioneer may be vulnerable and subject to undue influence. The second is that the minimum age of a caregiver who may be nominated to receive the payments should be raised to above 18 years. The minimum age would be an arbitrary number, I agree, but the relevant authorities would be in a good position to assess what an appropriate uniform minimum age would be, with discretion granted to the various scheme administrators to make exceptions as the circumstances may warrant. Pioneers should also be strongly encouraged to nominate suppliers and service providers to receive the relevant funds received from the PG Fund. This would reduce the risks of dissipation, which may otherwise leave the Pioneer deprived of the funds. Under PioneerDAS, the FAQs also state that if a Pioneer passes away, the caregiver is required to submit a death certificate. Potentially, disbursements can continue to be made for as long as the death certificate is not submitted. Instead of relying on the diligence or good faith of the caregiver and the claw-back provisions, the registration of the death of a Pioneer could be immediately uploaded onto the scheme administrator's system through the Registry of Births and Deaths. The FAQs also state that the Pioneer and his caregiver may nominate different bank accounts for different schemes.”
“In as much as the intention is to make the PG Fund accessible to Pioneers, we need to take a holistic approach between schemes under the PG Package and other existing schemes. We should make accessibility to all these schemes as seamless and painless as possible. For example, whilst one common Functional Assessment Report is utilised for schemes administered by AIC, Sg Enable, SNTC and HDB, the form of the report states that it is, I quote, "NOT valid for claims under ElderShield and the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly (IDAPE)". With due respect, I fail to see a compelling reason, notwithstanding that ElderShield and IDAPE are administered by insurers, to subject the elderly to different functional assessment exercises for a similar assessment outcome. Would the Government consider rationalising the Functional Assessment Report requirements? We should bear in mind the challenges enroute to obtaining such assessment reports. There are transport and other logistical challenges, such as how to go, who to accompany; there are cost constraints, such as taxi fare, caregiver to take leave, sometimes no-pay leave, payment for costs of assessment and certification; waiting time to obtain appointments, waiting time at the relevant clinics. It can be very debilitating for the patient and caregiver. Let us not make our Pioneers whom we wish to honour and their caregivers who are already under tremendous stress, undergo multiple assessments unnecessarily. On a similar note, I would, therefore, request the Minister also to clarify if there would be requirements for periodic reassessment after an initial functional assessment has concluded that a disability is permanent or likely to be permanent.”
“That would be inconsistent with the declared intentions that the announced healthcare-related schemes should be drawn from the PG Fund because the current announced schemes do not require means-testing. To address the foregoing concern, as well as concerns as to whether a Pioneer participated and made sacrifices in the development of Singapore, the language in clause 3 may be amended by replacing "them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of" with simply "Pioneers". This would remove doubts as to whether the PG Package healthcare-related schemes, as announced, are eligible for funding under the PG Fund and would also grant the Government greater flexibility in designing and qualifying future schemes under Page: 53 the PG Fund. I do recognise that there are other possible interpretations of clause 3. But I would suggest that we should make a plain reading plain. Madam, I support the provision under section 13(3)(c), which provides that a verification application for an individual under mental incapacity may be made by a donee under a lasting power of attorney. I would request that in the drafting of the regulations, a verification application may also be made by a Court-appointed deputy. In relation to section 18 of the Bill, Parliament may also wish to consider the need to reserve a power or discretion to exclude or restrict any Pioneer or class of Pioneers from receiving benefits under the Act where it is expedient in the public interest, particularly in view of the stated purpose of the Act. This power or discretion may be incorporated into section 18(2). Madam, allow me to now move on to some practical issues.”
“Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of the Pioneer Generation Fund Bill. I also declare my interest: I am the President of SPD, a voluntary welfare organisation which falls within the definition of "healthcare provider" under the Bill, and a board member of SG Enable. Madam, the principle of honouring our Pioneers and caring for this special group in their senior years is right and laudable. The healthcare-related needs of seniors intensify with age. It is, therefore, good and timely that greater attention is paid to such needs. An important component would, naturally, be financial assistance. It is heartening that the healthcare-related schemes announced to-date by the Government under the PG Package do not require means-testing. By such, the PG Fund is rendered more accessible to Pioneers. In this context, it is noted that clause 3 of the Bill states the purpose of the Act as "to recognise and honour the participation and sacrifice of Singapore's Pioneers in the development of Singapore by providing to them who are now elderly and are or may be in need of financial relief, assistance or other support to meet their healthcare costs, and other costs of living in Singapore." The Explanatory Statement to the Bill is similarly worded. Madam, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the phrase "and are/or may be in need of financial relief". This phrase suggests that for a scheme to qualify for funding under the PG Fund, the disbursement of monies or provision of benefits to any Pioneer must be subject to means-testing or differentiation on the ground of financial need. If so, a scheme that benefits Pioneers without the requirement for means-testing would not qualify for funding under the PG Fund.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Thank you, Madam, for this opportunity to ask a supplementary question. Given the time lag in the training and the fact that we do have a number of children who require assistance and development intervention, I would like to ask the Minister if his Ministry and the Ministry of Page: 36 Manpower would favourably consider the recruitment of suitably qualified foreigners and the retention of those who are already employed here.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his clarifications. I have two supplementary questions. First, in relation to the re-employment issue, I would like to ask if the Government can give the assurance that the job scope and Page: 21 the benefits will not be re-scoped solely on pecuniary grounds based on budgetary considerations. In relation to the Deputy Prime Minister's clarification on the second point, I do understand that employment is on a merit basis. Nonetheless, as we encourage private sector employers to employ and to be flexible in job scope, job re-design and hours, I would like to ask what steps the public sector would be taking to lead the private sector in this respect.”