Claire Chiang See Ngoh
Singapore
“I am anxious to move this motion on the Chinese challenge in this House because I feel that we cannot dismiss China any longer. If we can hurry up and ride on this economic train to China, we are closer to taking that small little bite in the huge economic pie and find the new pathways of livelihood and business route for Singaporeans.”
“This Bill has kick-started a central focus on safeguarding the welfare of children and responsibility of the family, which in a resource-scarce Singapore state and in view of our declining fertility rate matched against a rapidly ageing population, are significant social pillars in shaping our sustainability.”
“Sir, can I clarify three questions? I am still not convinced why this Bill cannot cover all women and all births. I am not satisfied with the answer. The Minister also said that this Bill precisely is not just about numbers. I wish he would clarify a little more on this statement.”
“I hope this is only the beginning of a process in shaping a child development and family policy in a gradual and comprehensive manner. In that defining process, I hope the governing principles are based on upholding the worth of the child and valuing the contribution of the mother, and that it is not a numbers exercise, whether in expecti…”
“Sir, I am sure those mothers who have more than four children want their children because they are loved and because they want the children. Who is to decide then whether those children are loved and wanted? And if the mothers say they are willing to have the fourth child, would the state not support her?”
“Streaming at an early age has been controversial for many years, but it has always been a sacred cow of the Education Ministry. If we are to start from first principles now and examine every aspect of our education system, I urge that we re-examine streaming and, at the very least, modify it substantially.”
The complete record
Every one of 275 lines we hold for Claire Chiang See Ngoh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“However, there is inadequate research on the extent to which the prevalence of violence depiction desensitizes the public. There is reasonable ground to fear that children are vulnerable victims because they are immature and more easily led into committing copycat behaviour of violent portrayals in films. It is important that this Bill allows the Government to establish clear guidelines to ban obscene films as well as political films which have a negative impact on social cohesion, but violent films which have no regard for women, children and the higher ideals of the human condition must also be regulated, because they only degrade our sense of decency, impoverish our moral universe and fray the social fabric. This is not a gracious and gentle society which we promised for the people of Singapore. I hope the Minister will seriously reconsider the amendments to this Act and if need to, perhaps, in the interest of the public, subject it to a Select Committee for review and recommendations, to give Singaporeans an opportunity to question their own civic identity by airing their views on the limits of State control vis-a-vis individual rights and responsibility. This may be a significant political and social agenda on community building as we enter the 21st century. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Bill as it is.”
“Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has once said, on the subject of financial deregulation, that previously what was not expressly permitted was prohibited must now change to what is not expressly prohibited is permitted. I believe that what applies to the finance industry in Singapore should apply to the film industry. I am afraid the amendments to the Act create a situation which is what is not expressly prohibited is also not permitted. I would like to make a specific proposal that the definition of "party political film" be more realistically defined so that it can only refer to films made by political parties or groups and on specific issues related to electoral matters and that broad catch-all reference such as current policies of Government or issues of public controversies be deleted. In any Bill to prohibit an activity, I believe it is the onus of the drafters to be as precise and specific as possible and not to cover themselves by including everything under the sun. It is convenient to do so but it would only impede the development of an open and civil society. For me, self-censorship is a necessary civic function but it must be exercised based on knowledge and acceptance of terms of the contract, not out of fear and muddled understanding. Another matter which I feel that the Films Act could also address is violence, and the question of harm to children. I would like to suggest that the Censorship Board broadens its scope to include the issue of violence in films and to develop a classification scheme to define "acceptable" and "not acceptable" portrayals of violence on the screen. I am concerned that violent scenes have become more graphic and brutal.”
“What may result is an unhealthy situation of individuals, film producers, political party members as well as political institutions making allegations against one another and defending their positions on different reasons. We do not want to be drawn into this kind of unguided judgement battles. Not that such allegations will not be made under this existing Bill, but the amendments now proposed only give more room for contentious interpretations. Moreover, the offender is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. In our effort to promote the arts, Sir, the spectre of a hefty fine, due to many "possible" wrongful allegations can be daunting. I appreciate the Government's need to establish reasonable limits to self-censorship within the artistic community, but we need to offset this against an equally important need for Singaporeans to free their imagination and intellect to create without ambiguous restrictions. I do not believe that our top leaders are intolerant or afraid of criticisms. They can hold their own in any debate against any of Singapore's detractors. That makes me all the more perplexed as to why this Bill needs to have such a broad definition of "party political films". Is this not giving unnecessary broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary in our home-made film industry? I am afraid the lack of clear guidelines and definitional criteria will paralyze appropriate exercise of judgment and, worse, it cripples creative effort in our young and stifles quite legitimate and constructive commentary on Singapore society.”
“The concern of the drafters of this Bill surely cannot be trying to stifle films which legitimately and constructively comment on Singapore society. After all, the Government actively encourages the development of a local film industry. On the one hand, we complain that Singaporeans are politically apathetic and the young people are not committed to this society. We want to develop a vibrant cultural scene where Singaporeans can develop art forms, including film, which have contemporary relevance. But under this amendment, any so-called biased reference to a current policy of Government or an issue of public controversy will be banned. We all know that what constitutes "right" or "wrong", "biased" or "non-partisan" can be a less than objective exercise or evaluation, and the evaluation depends on who says it, when and with what intention. How is the mechanism of evaluation carried out anyway? From what I understand, this Bill does not disallow the making of a film by any individual nor does it require any film-maker to submit a story line and film script prior to production to the Ministry for approval. Film-makers therefore risked their money, time and talent on a production which may raise public controversy after it was screened. How would the Ministry respond to this? Whether a film will raise a political controversy in society is an uncertain and, often times, unintended outcome on the part of the producer. Even if it recognises the possibility of political tensions from such a film, it is more difficult to assess its degree of seriousness to justify its ban.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I totally support the banning of obscene films and the levy of harsh penalties on offenders in order to protect our young. I am concerned, however, by the aspect of the Bill which seeks to define and then prohibit production and dissemination of what is called "party political film". I have several specific concerns. Let me elaborate. My first concern is about the definition of what constitutes a party political film. There seems to be two components. The first is obvious, a film made by or on behalf of a political party or a group advertising its views. The second component is far more ambiguous and disturbing to me. The second definition of a party political film is if "it is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore". The term "directed towards any political end" is further defined to include specific examples, most of which relate to elections and can quite arguably be considered party politics. However, a film which "contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including but not limited to a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore" is defined as "a film which is directed towards any political end" and is therefore prohibited. That, I submit, is far too broad, Sir. What is biased and what is not biased? What is a political matter and an unpolitical matter? An issue of public controversy at one time was the COE policy. Another time was the levy on the foreign maids. Only recently, it was housing prices. Are these not political matters? And what about the current policy of the Government? Can anything be more all encompassing than this definition?”
“We should look at other measures, more significant ones, to moderate the difficulties ahead. In the next few weeks, during the Budget debate, I think a lot more attention will be paid on this concern. Yes, there are difficulties ahead and I think Mr Jeyaretnam has rightfully pointed out that there will be possible unemployment and the rest of it. All the more, we need to stay rational and identify concrete and constructive measures to ride out this difficulty. Sir, I raise some concerns for this House to debate on and I would like to hear more persuasive reasons from Members to help clarify and reinforce my own. But at this juncture, I hesitate to support this motion.”
“This is not the case from what I understand, because our Ministers' salaries are benchmarked to a set of private sector criteria. As private sector salaries drop, so do Ministers' salaries. Our leaders, like other Singaporeans, do see their incomes rise or fall depending on the state of the economy. I hope the Minister will clarify this point and in response to the motion state when and how much the last adjustment was made on Ministers' salaries. When I was sampling for opinions on this matter, I gathered different views. There are those who feel that if the Government wants to be seen as leading by moral standards - and moral leadership is important - then Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and MPs should take a pay cut to show their solidarity with the people. Hence, reaping political capital from this gesture. There are those, including myself, who reject this view because we do not agree to Government making symbolic gestures in policy decisions. Among these, some even think that Ministers' wages should not be a political issue in the first place. Even as a political issue, it should be a separate evaluation exercise from this concern on the financial uncertainty of the region. However, if Ministers and all Members in this House would like voluntarily to donate 25% of their salaries to charity to express their solidarity with Singaporeans, it is their private commitment. It is a personal gesture. Most of us would agree that the job of this Government is to govern, to find the most effective measures to address the current banking and economic difficulties. A symbolic measure such as cutting Ministers' salaries has limited impact on the scale of events to justify its adoption.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to share my views. It is by no means clear that a national crisis has now occurred which requires collective sacrifice by every Singaporean. Individual companies may have their own problems. They have to deal with them. And every company and even households should spend prudently as the economic situation is unclear. But if a collective sacrifice is required by all Singaporeans, eg, a cut in the CPF rate, a freeze on all bonuses and salaries, or even a cut in salaries by all companies, the civil service and GLCs, then Parliament should take the lead by example and be the first to undertake the sacrifice. Unless Government intends to call for a nation-wide collective austerity measure, it is not necessary, in my view, not even desirable, for Parliament or Ministers to unilaterally take pay cuts. I appreciate Mr Jeyaretnam's compassion for the hopes and dreams of the people of Singapore. But extending compassion must be an equitable exercise for all including the Members in this House. Is it fair that we ask the Government to shoulder this responsibility alone? What about those businessmen and professionals who earn even more than Ministers? Furthermore, such symbolic populist actions are undesirable because they appear emotional, without addressing the fact that the measures which will really benefit our economy have nothing to do with a cut in Ministers' salaries. The right thing to do is to find solutions to cure the ills of the economy. There is no running away from this. Mr Jeyaretnam's motion perhaps implies that while other Singaporeans suffer a drop in standards of living, our Ministers are unfairly insulated.”
“Facing the threat of retrenchment during these difficult times, how do unions and Government protect their capacity to generate income to help them fend for their children and, eventually, their old age? As non-unionised workers, what recourses do they have? What kind of special community-based childcare options can unions and Government offer to this group of one-income households? What kind of family-sensitive housing policies can be specially tailored to meet the needs of single parent households to offer them stable, affordable and adequate housing? A tripartite policy agenda in restructuring, training and raising productivity - all these suggestions brought up by Mr Lim Swee Say earlier on were very convincing - but this has to be balanced with a family policy agenda to minimise the strains and stresses our workers may face in the home front, so that they can concentrate in their work. Sir, I do not need to over emphasise here that when we allow family life to become weak, the society begins to deteriorate. In the end, the strength of the nation will be undermined.”
“These are low-end jobs and they are not attractive in the first place. Fourth, give specific attention to women workers' expectations by helping them get jobs within their residential vicinity and design flexi-time schedule to help them balance work and family needs. There were numerous recommendations being made to the Institute of Policy Studies in September 1997, ranging from fiscal measures, labour legislation, family policies to management practices. Please consult this report. In the light of current and future labour shortages and our wish to cut down on foreign labour cost for enterprises, the ability to attract females who had left the workforce and want to work, or to retain those who are already in the workforce, take on an economic significance. My fifth and last point is a call for us to focus on the vulnerable groups. I would like to highlight one vulnerable group who needs, during these difficult times, special attention. These are the single parents, largely female who have little education, low skill, in daily paid jobs and irregular work. The 1990 census reported that single parent family households comprise 60,999 households with widowed parents and 17,585 households with divorced parents, representing approximately 10% of all family-based households. The typical profile of a single parent who is a client in our Family Service Centres is likely to be a divorced person in her thirties, young, with low education, earning a monthly salary of less than $1,000 per month and mother of at least two dependent children. This is not a case of them being women that we need to protect. It is more a case of protecting our workers who are vulnerable, who happen to be women with young children.”
“There were correspondingly 11,700 potential male entrants. I hope the Ministry will tap this large labour resource, which is young, educated, trainable and employable. In a Business Times report from interviews they carried out in the back-to-work programme launched in 1996, there were women who liked to work but they did not know where to work. There were also those who wished to work part time, but companies only offered full-time work. Others would like to set up "virtual" offices at home, but offers were very limited. And there were complaints about mismatch of skills and job vacancies. I hope the tripartite partners in the back-to-work programme will seriously review their strategy, find out the reasons why these employable, educated men and women did not respond to re-employment opportunities and create new ways of mobilising them. I have a few suggestions: strengthen the mechanism for recruitment of part-time workers in the Employment Service Department of the Ministry, by serving as an effective one-stop clearing house facility to match worker attributes and job specifications. Second suggestion: launch regularly an awareness campaign island-wide through a variety of media channels and reinforce this effort by offering a toll-free jobline information service. And I think the National Helpline recently launched by CDC may want to consider offering an information and job placement service to its constituents. Third, broaden up supply base to offer part-time work to industries such as financial, insurance and business services with proper pre-work training and orientation. Currently, most of the part-time work is still concentrated in commerce, community and personal services, and the manufacturing sectors.”
“Will the Government consider not renewing the work permits of foreign workers who job-hop within a few months of service? These measures, as argued by some employers and by Mr Tay earlier on, could serve as disincentives for job-hopping while helping employers regain some payments as compensation for productivity loss. Sir, this may seem to skew towards the side of employers, but employers here argue that the model of tripartism must include in it an ethos of mutual obligations, work commitment and company loyalty, which workers themselves must commit to. Without these fundamental commitments to work and company, there cannot be enduring worker and company growth and, in the long run, sound economic development. My fourth issue, Sir, is helping employers lower overall labour cost by tapping on a large source of labour for part-time employment. The tripartite partnership in 1996 between the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with SNEF, NTUC and the Productivity and Standards Board, attempted to get women and retirees back to work. However, despite the offer of training courses and grants and with 4,000 vacancies being created by 18 employers participating in this programme, the take-up rate was low. If we look at our workforce today, while there are workers who are going to be retrenched, there are already one million economically inactive persons. They form 35.4% of the population. Among these, there are 700,000 who are women, 210,000 have `O' level, 77,000 have `A' levels, diplomas or degrees. In the 1996 survey, 59,000 indicated that they wanted to work. Most of these people who had indicated that they intended to work were women, most of them married, home-makers, young between 20-49 years old, had secondary education, had worked before, but liked to work part time.”
“My third issue is about productivity and opportunity costs caused by the workers who job-hop. We have heard Members from the floor today who propose changing workers' attitude, increasing productivity and upgrading skills. As an employer, I ask who is going to pay for all that. I have, as a Human Resource Director in my company, trained a number of workers and, at the end of the course, they left for another company for a few dollars more. Let me give some figures. According to a Business Times' report, the average labour turnover in 1997 was 38.4%. The highest turnover rate being 56.4% in the commerce sector, followed by the clerical and sales sector at 50.4%, the professional and technical sector at 28.8% and production workers at 39.6%. These figures were based on the first quarter of 1997. I hope it was more encouraging in the last quarter. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy report in 1997 marked Singaporean workers, in terms of company loyalty, at 6.03 in a scale of 0-10 with 0 representing the best situation possible and 10, the worst. We are at 6.03. In the sample of 12 countries, Vietnam is the worst, scoring a high 7; Japan, the best in company loyalty, scoring 2.5; Singapore is the third worst. I am concerned, Sir, that a lack of company loyalty among Singaporean workers is not helpful during difficult times because now more than before, employers need organisational and operational stability to ride out the currency turmoil. What measures could we consider to stem out workers' job-hopping behaviour? Will the Government support employers by returning to the company some portion of the personal CPF contribution of workers who leave with no valid reasons within six months of employment?”
“Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. I rise to support this motion. In the face of very difficult circumstances and the bad times ahead, it is necessary for us to come together to tackle the growing challenges. I think there will be tough choices, probably tougher than the ones we had in 1985 when we had a recession. We survived that and I hope this one we will do better. I am going to raise five issues, Sir. During the last recession in 1985, the Government resorted to temporary cutting of the employer's CPF contribution as a measure to revive the economy. Given that, nowadays, most people have drawn down their CPF contribution to service their housing loans or to buy shares, thus reducing the security nests for old age protection, does the Government consider cutting the CPF as still possible this time round? My second issue. Employers are looking closely at cost cutting and cost containment strategies to ride out this turmoil. One of the key factors in this exercise, and I am sure is the focus of this tripartite discussion, is wage control. In 1986, the Government called for wage restraint policy. I remembered the protests of the workers and the applause from the employers at the same time. And I would like to know if a similar strategy is considered appropriate this time round to ease the cost burdens of struggling enterprises. And to reinforce Mr Tay Beng Chuan's proposal earlier on, since the civil service sector is by far the largest employer in Singapore and its wage policy inevitably sets the tone for the employers in Singapore, will the Government take the lead to set the example and impose a wage restraint policy similar to the one in 1986, if possible with a wage freeze?”
“Will the Minister clarify that under the University Act, the Department of Social Work can then become a School of Social Work? Does the Minister think that this is an appropriate course of development in the long run to attract students to the Department to meet the manpower needs in social services?”
“I agree that it is a shared responsibility. I merely was asking if there were provisions made in terms of expanding the intake into the polytechnics and in giving certificates or diplomas for particular fields created within the polytechnics. So it is not just aptitudes. It is really providing at the curriculum level and meeting the needs of manpower in the social services.”
“Our wish list comprises: Career recognition; Shared passion for social courses to be encouraged at all community and administrative levels; Service with a clear mind and a trained skill; A closer and trusted communication at all levels between institutions in the helping process; Access to information and open exchanges of experiences; Clearer protocols and procedures in case management to achieve an integrated approach; and A sharing of responsibility by enforcement personnel across all Ministries. Conclusion In conclusion, I hope the Ministers for Finance, Education and Community Development will give meaningful focus to this wish list for the social services in the Singapore 21 plan. The community would like to see a Social Services 21 Committee being set up whereby grassroots social service professionals could make recommendations and propose integrated programmes for the sector. I would like to clarify that by proposing SS 21, I am not asking for more and more subsidies. I believe in the `many helping hands' principle, but I stress we also need many helping skills. Sir, we need a fresh mindset willing to recognise new priorities and change old cultures of organisations and work, if we are to reach beyond the already successful Singaporeans who touch the lives of the marginalised and the disadvantaged - I mean the underachievers, delinquents, children and families at risk, the aged, the disabled and the poor. We can certainly start by recognising that in today's affluent Singapore, we must move beyond economic fundamentals to address the equally important social fundamentals. [Applause].”
“Social Services 21 Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that a balanced development requires both economic and social help. In our efforts to create this care-and-share society, who do we see are the heartware specialists? Government sets the tone and provides the vision but the help will actually be delivered by grassroots advocates. The creation of CDCs and their sincere attempts to partner with neighbourhood agencies are a welcome strategy to foster community building. Such cooperative involvement is what gives Singaporeans a sense of relevance and how we keep the daughters and sons of Singapore on this soil. The long-term return on investments for dollars spent on heartware resources is when a Singaporean will say, "I may not be rich but I am cared for, my work is relevant and being recognised, and I feel I belong." I hope the Government will see the social service community as one key partner in its vision of building a heartware society. We need a paradigm shift to see social welfare beyond handing out benefits here and there. Instead, welfare involves a focus on social services as a heartware fundamental, integral to any effort in governance to ensure social equity and the total wellness of Singaporeans. In response, the social service community would like to help translate these tenets of a care and share Singapore 21 with a wish list.”
“I have worked with many police case officers, social service providers and other Ministry administrators, and invariably, a culture of anxiety is omni-present. Most of them are competent, dedicated, but they are afraid to make decisions for fear that they would be judged as wrong decisions. Therefore, it is better to dawdle, rather than make a decision, especially one which may break new ground. At other times, their hesitations were compounded by inadequate training, poor understanding of the standard operation procedures. PM has spoken of the need to decentralise decision making so that we do not just have a top-down society, but a lateral society of interaction and dialogue. Sir, I think that if we are to achieve PM's vision, we must seriously tackle this fear of failure, culture of anxiety, whatever you call it, because it prevents the empowerment of Singaporeans at all levels. And in the arena of crisis intervention, when on-the-spot decisions have to be made to save lives, the failure by frontline officers to act could lead to disastrous outcomes. We do not need more weeny hose. No one doubts that Singapore is where it is today because of our commitment to competition and meritocracy in all fields of our endeavours. But if we are, as PM has encouraged, to look at improving our society with no preconceptions, I urge that we look at how we can replace the culture of anxiety with a culture of initiative. By that, I mean, Sir, give people the freedom and the responsibility to choose the course of action and face the consequences, make the mistakes and learn from them without being judged too harshly. This open spirit and acquired confidence in making a right and good judgment can only enhance our commitment to competition and meritocracy.”
“This is a national liability because individuals in such mental state have lost the capacity and competence to be contributing citizens. The situation may not only be applicable to the social service sector. Let me quote the survey on the General Health of the Singapore Population conducted in 1989. A minor psychiatric morbidity (MPM), which is an indicator for establishing the extent of our population at risk of mental health problems, was a high 18% compared to other countries in the region which ranged from 8% to 20%. MPM does not mean we are all mad. But it does mean that we are not all too well. And a subsequent report published by the IPS in 1991 indicated that, among other factors, low self-esteem, performance anxiety, stress, inadequate coping skills were some of the causes for MPM. My concern is while our GDP may not be dramatically affected by a high MPM rate, it undermines our national sense of self and weakens our collective psyche. It may not prepare us to cope with the extraordinary stresses. Culture of Anxiety I am also concerned, Sir, that all our efforts to upgrade our heartware resources will come to nought if we do not rid ourselves of the culture of anxiety which infuses our system. I am not referring to the external stresses which are part of the human condition, ie, poverty, making ends meet, relating to life partner, and so on. I refer to an anxiety syndrome within the Government service. The anxiety started at an early age where within the school system, young people are socialised into worrying how to get through the system without tripping up. They are driven by the fear of being wrong rather than the desire to be right. These are two different motivations. The first is inhibited and paralysing; the second, proactive and choice-focused.”
“Even if we were to start in 1998 to increase our undergraduate and polytechnic student intakes into the Social Work Department and start to change our curriculum from a general one to a specialised one, we will only see the outcome in 2001. There is an urgency to attend to this matter now. One idea related to manpower shortage was raised by the community, whether we could create opportunities for mature adults like home-makers or early retirees to train for a social work degree in the university. They could fill the manpower shortage in the sector and at the same time add value to the quality of service delivery by sharing their life experiences when they handle families with multiple problems. Our young social workers, graduated at 21 or 22, find family therapy work overwhelming due to their youth and inexperiences. Importing foreign talent is obviously a short-term solution. But in the long run, Sir, we cannot have a society where the poor, the aged, the sick and the less fortunate are all cared for by foreigners while Singaporeans write the cheques for the carers and givers. If we are to build on the ethos of volunteerism and service excellence, then we must have a strong corps of grown decently paid and well-respected social service professionals. To borrow an analogy. Even if a volunteer citizen army is to work, it must have a corps of highly motivated and trained professional officers. It is no different for social work. Job Demoralisation: A national liability But it is not just about the economics of manpower planning. When people are demoralised due to a perceived loss of personal relevance, it is the end of all motivation for change and improvement.”
“Yet others feel strongly about their sense of helplessness vis-a-vis Ministry administrators and frontline enforcement officers who are too over-worked and equally ill-equipped to facilitate the helping process. It comes to no surprise then that against this backdrop of low morale, we face higher attrition rate among social work graduates. Minister Tarmugi reported in 1994 that since 1974, the university had trained an estimated 830 social workers. We are looking at 40 a year. In 1992, the Singapore Association of Social Workers conducted a study on the number of social workers in social work related jobs. The study found that over the years, half the university social work graduates of each cohort took up social work related jobs. Subsequently, only a third of the cohort remained in social work related jobs. Sir, an overall 30% success rate is not a cost effective educational investment. Nor could it meet increasing service needs. The Government is now talking about developing more family service centres by the year 2000. Where do we get this manpower to run these centres? What kind of service do we offer to Singaporeans seeking therapeutic help? Do we risk the possibility of re-traumatising our clients due to poor service delivery? How many programmes were not implemented simply because we did not have the expertise to teach our young social workers? We are at a stage, Sir, when we need specialists, therapists and consultants for the sector. Start with the University Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise that in the arena of human resource development, we need a long lead time to change mindset and upgrade existing skills.”
“Do we need generic services? Or do we need more specialised ones? Is 2% training budget sufficient for our VWOs to upgrade themselves annually? How are our services being prepared for many of the recovery programmes in abuse cases to support mandatory counselling court orders? While recognising the complexity of these issues as there are no easy answers readily available, the social service community is anxious to hear from the Minister if there is a comprehensive policy for the delivery of social services and how the priority concerns mentioned will be translated and implemented in the next millennium. Mindset Change I am concerned that unless there is a mindset change about the proper role of social service professionals, even the best action plans will not be fully realised. These professionals are almost an invisible category in our community. Seen as quasi-volunteers, do-gooders, people with a kind and stalwart heart, and many volunteers have done outstanding charity work without regard, we overlook the need to promote a highly trained and well-paid corps of professionals to offer best practices in counselling, therapeutic and rehabilitation services. Volunteers in community services are acknowledged through various public service medals. But full-time direct social service professionals who live with their clients' multiple family problems are not always recognised. Other social service professionals who do not care about either money or recognition identify inadequate skills and resources as well as poor career development in the sector as major problems.”
“Sir, in the realm of community services, we require a professional corps of "sharers and carers" - I mean the social service professionals - who would translate this vision by serving as a catalyst, the bridges and, by their own personal examples, as a role model of service to the needy. Besides people, the way social services are organised to translate heartware into realisable components may require the same kind of detailed, cohesive and committed action plan which would be implemented if we were to achieve economic goals. At this point, allow me, Sir, to raise some priority issues. First, the need for relevant social service institutions and effective programmes which cut across Ministries. Second, the need for additional resources to expand and upgrade the skills of the social service professionals. Third, the need to develop a substantive understanding among social service providers on social issues and programme management. Fourth, the need for clearer role differentiation between Government and volunteer agencies. And, fifth, the need for service standards and audit procedures to guarantee best practices in our frontline service agencies. I know the Ministry of Community Development must have deliberated these issues. Some Members have been invited to sit in committees to give feedback. As a result, working committees were formed, new agencies were set up, new courses were developed in NIE, NUS, NCSS, the Family Research and Training Centre (FRTC) and by select VWOs. There remains a concern, however, about whether these assets were coordinated and integrated enough to provide a relevant continuum of services for our community, or whether they were ad hoc, sometimes fragmented, and stand-alone training modules, which lacked consistent therapy methodology.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this House. We have watched how the recent currency turmoil has raised unexpected speed to turn Asia's economic miracle into a meltdown. One consistent message has emerged from this mess - the need for good governance and good leaders acting in the best interest of the people. I am grateful that Singapore has again demonstrated through this crisis that it has a government who knows how to manage its economic fundamentals. Yet it is not smugly complacent. Despite the turmoil in the region, it has set up five Singapore 21 Committees to identify more and new ways to strengthen a "heartware" society, as defined by the Prime Minister. That is a good word, Sir. It is this commitment by the Government to listen to the people of Singapore which prompts me to rise to raise my concerns. I will raise five matters today: the need to prioritise social services, recognise the role of social service professionals, expand tertiary curriculum, encourage a culture of initiative and setting up Social Services 21. Social Services as Priority Concern While we build on our economic fundamentals, how are we strengthening our social fundamentals? My concern here is: how are we nurturing an effective human resource structure for our social service agencies which are vital agents in the exercise to forge unity of cohesion? The process of fleshing out the vision of a `care and share' society certainly requires more than committee meetings, reports and national campaigns.”