Denise Phua Lay Peng
Singapore
“Sir, as Singapore ages, disability and ageing will increasingly overlap. The line between disability services and elder care services will blur. Many adults with disabilities face similar challenges as seniors in varying degrees, but at a younger age.”
“But the SPED schools are run by a lot of the other professionals as well such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, coaches and so forth. And I ask for MOE, as it always looks at SPED educators, to also focus on this other very important group; because retention is capacity.”
“Are there other strategies that the Prime Minister will consider, like easier adoption procedures to have more people adopt, more of us Singaporeans adopting? The second is, in terms of immigration as well, to bring in people who are of the right profile and suitable profile to grow our Singaporean population?”
“Enterprise grants should include accessibility compliance requirements. Inclusion cannot rely on goodwill alone. It must be systemically built-in. And finally, move five: on strengthening intermediaries and social service agencies (SSAs). Sir, if AI is to be whole-of-society, then SSAs cannot be left behind.”
“When SSAs become AI-enabled, the most vulnerable of us benefit. In conclusion Sir, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious direction: AI ecosystems, SkillsFuture strengthening, innovation hubs such as Lorong AI and the future AI Park at one-north. Ambition is necessary, but it is execution that determines whether progress is shared.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her assurance, assuring the House that there are indeed alternative identification methods available for those who are unable to use facial recognition. Just a couple of supplementary questions. Number one, are these measures systemic and applicable for all fully digital or not fully digital banks?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,094 lines we hold for Denise Phua Lay Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 22.
“Sir, the attention given to students with special needs in schools has grown from strength to strength, thanks to the MOE team. However, with the backdrop of the rapidly disruptive economy and employment market, I am concerned that this special population would still be left behind unless we put in more strategic focus and priority. Many students with special needs fall off the cliff after completing their formal schooling at age 18 or 21. Unlike their typical peers, SkillsFuture does not quite cater to them yet. But advances like artificial intelligence (AI) will not only replace low-skilled jobs but also some tasks performed in higher-skilled jobs. How can MOE ensure that persons with special needs can continue to learn and upgrade their academic, vocational and life skills throughout their lives? How have the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Smart Nation Initiative specifically supported the special needs community in terms of curriculum development, delivery and assessment and nurture both students and staff? I propose a Lifelong Learning Masterplan be developed and implemented to empower and equip young and adult learners with special needs to be future-ready. Recently, I was told of the story of Mary, and this is about enhanced support for those in mainstream schools. I was told the story of Mary, not her real name, who is now 17 years old. Her mother wrote, "We discovered Mary was musical from Primary 3. She was in the school choir and competed in international choir competitions, winning awards with the school. Also, a strong member of the speech and drama group. She was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and struggled in school with inconsistent learning support for her education needs.”
“I recall what a very dedicated MOE mainstream educator told me, and I quote, "Ms Phua, I know there are a lot of things to consider before we can abolish PSLE. But the fact of the matter is − if you ask a teacher if he or she would teach differently in a class if there is no PSLE, I am quite sure the answer is a yes. There are just not enough time and room to develop the skills they need to survive in the future world – skills like creativity, flexibility, 21st century competencies that MOE has been advocating. We need more time to look into non-examinable subjects, such as inquiry, discovering and development of strengths of our students". Last year, at the Committee of Supply (COS), I spoke about Alibaba founder, Jack Ma, and his partner's intent to start the YunGu School – a 15-year through train system up to high school. I do not believe my reference was acknowledged or addressed. I had been stalking the online media of YunGu School and it has been inspiring so far – with a strong values base and a good balance in information technology (IT), other Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics (STEAM) subjects. I have great confidence that Singapore can design an even more superior localised model. Do we dare pilot a through-train school of the future and, if good enough, scale it? Past designers of the Singapore education system have often prided themselves in taking an evolutionary instead of a revolutionary approach. But in a time such as this, we must have the dare to go beyond tweaking our school system or we will end up taking one step forward and two steps backward in preparing an education model that befits the future. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“She will spend her next two years in an engineering course in the hope that she can obtain a Higher-National ITE Certificate (NITEC) so that she can apply for Laselle or the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA). She would have qualified, her mum says, if she had done better in her academics. Her mother wrote to me, "Ms Phua, I am sharing this in the hope that it serves as an opportunity to point our education system to areas where we can do differently, to better cater to a wider spectrum of needs, as the time and tide have changed. Although MOE has acknowledged Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences, our school system still leans towards our traditional definition of academic excellence". If we have improved in dealing with these hot button issues, why do many parents and students still fret incessantly over them? Could it be that it is insufficient to simply tweak the system through changes, such as PSLE banding instead of T-scores, by allowing subject combinations instead of removing the labels of Express, Normal (Academic) (NA) and Normal (Technical) (NT) and Special Schools? Are we merely rearranging the chairs on the deck and not making deep enough changes? In this age of disruptions, do we dare proactively disrupt our current education systems by slaying some of the sacred cows that we inherited from the proverbial third Industrial Revolution when we are already in the fourth? One sacred cow is, of course, the PSLE, a practice we have inherited for decades. I have many times in this House shared on how we need to remove this structural thorn in the flesh of the system. There are highly respected education systems globally which do not sort students at the age of 12.”
“Holiday and/or enrichment programmes of children from more affluent backgrounds, for instance, have now moved from speech, drama and music lessons to the 21st century's coding, robotics, 3-D printing bootcamps and the like. A concern that has been raised globally is that of Digital Equity. As mobile devices become the gateways to learning, and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programmes allow students to use their own devices in a classroom, there must be found a way by which learners from all socioeconomic backgrounds have access to learning devices in schools up to IHLs. Can MOE please provide an update on what has been done in this aspect of digital equity? On existing hot-button issues of over-emphasis on high-stakes exams and the tuition syndrome, it is not uncommon to tease parents whose children are taking the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) that they themselves are also taking the PSLE. It is not uncommon to still hear parents who are highly anxious and highly strung as they report that their children are taking the General Certificate of Education (GCE) examinations. The tuition industry is still a booming industry because doing well in high-stakes exams is still the ultimate aim of many parents and teachers of especially primary school and secondary school education. Teachers also have learnt to "teach to test". I know of a young girl who is talented in singing and speech and drama but who is taking an Electrical Engineering Course in the Institute of Education (ITE). She achieved a score of 14 in her GCE Normal (Academic) level exams with 2As and 4Bs but only qualify for the Direct-Entry Scheme to Polytechnic Programme (DPP) which does not have any options in Performing or Creative Arts in the ITE or polytechnic.”
“M-learning, instead of e-learning, enables learners to access content even more freely. Educators will need the technical and pedagogical support to integrate M-learning in their curricula. As a consultant told me, the role of educators is to think carefully now about the things that they typically do. Can the Minister update this House on how aware and prepared are our educators in their changing role in this new world of education? What proportion of them are still in the mode of repeating lectures or rehearsing for high-stakes exams? How have we equipped our educators to take on the role of designers of quality learning experiences, curators of content available online, creators of content and coaches of their students in matters of life? Should there be an ITM as well for the educators to build the capability and deep skills of educators to keep pace with the needs of 21st century learners? How do educators of the future address skills deficits in the workforce and, if that is getting increasingly unpredictable, how do we prepare the students to acquire more learning agility to face the future? On equal access to opportunities for all students: much has been spoken at last week's Budget Debate on inequality and/or inequity amongst citizens from low-income households versus others who are more affluent. Whilst it is true that it is hard to ensure equality in life outcomes, it is certainly possible for the Government to do even more to ensure equal access to opportunities in learning and exposures that will further one's future readiness. The money and meals provided in the EduSave and Meals programme in Budget 2018 are appreciated. But we need to also update and articulate the changing nature of the gaps in today's setting.”
“Other trends include the move from Pedagogy (child-focused teaching approaches), to Andragogy (the study of teaching adults), to Heutagogy (self-directed learning); and from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math) to develop critical thinking and more creative approaches to problem solving. I would like to seek the Ministers' responses to my following questions. How has MOE kept pace with these new education trends that are the outcome of rapid technological and economic disruptions? How has the work of the Council for the Future Economy (CFE) and Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) affected the shape of education for students and educators? The 21st Century Competency Model drawn up by MOE has been developed quite some time ago, more than a decade. When was the last time this has been reviewed and how does the prevailing work by CFE and Smart Nation change curriculum creation, development and assessment in schools and IHLs? What is the state of the SkillsFuture movement and what else can be done to urge Singaporeans to take even greater ownership and action to be ready for further disruptions in the labour market? As all of the IHLs aggressively embark on Continuing Education and Training (CET), directed by MOE, potential overlapping and unnecessary competition are bound to emerge. How will MOE prevent this and instead enhance the synergy that can arise? Would the Government even consider renaming MOE as the Ministry for Life-Long Learning to put the emphasis on lifelong and self-directed learning and remove barriers to learning for all citizens? On the role of educators in the future world: the pervasiveness of mobile devices, such as smartphones, smart watches and tablets, has already overtaken desktop browsing.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100". Sir, I want to first thank the educators, families and students who have given me input on what they think are important to the future of education in Singapore. On changes gone right, the most significant move that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has made in recent years is its bold decision to rope in SkillsFuture and adopt developing the capabilities of adult learners under its belt. Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) are now chartered to embark on aggressive continued education and skills training for the adult workforce. The messaging and measures by the two Education Ministers on skills mastery, applied learning and broader school and IHL admission criteria are necessary in a landscape that has over-indulged in the academic paper chase. However, Sir, the relentless changes to the education and employment landscapes remain. Technology and product and service lifecycles and shelf lives get shorter. Anything that can be repeated and learnt by machines will be replaced by machines. Futurists, such as Ray Kurzweil, predict that soon, a computer that cost US$1,000 will possess the cognitive capability of a human being by 2029. On key education trends: the writing is on the wall. Just as in business, rapid changes are sweeping through the education landscape. Google "key education trends" and you will find at least 90% of the search results reflect key trends in the realm of technology − virtual reality, augmented reality, even mixed reality, cloud technology, learning analytics, coding and the Internet of Things (IoT).”
“Good enrichment classes for children from lower-income families so that they, too, have equal access to opportunities and holiday enrichment opportunities like their peers from the more affluent families. Therefore, the CDCs and other members of the SG Cares movement encourage Singaporeans to join us to help our neighbours grow good crop. They say it is possible to give away and become wealthier, richer. It is also possible to hold on too tight to what we own and lose them all. So, Singapore, do give in order to become wealthier. In conclusion, Sir, I thank the Minister and his team for this “better-than-good” Budget. I know the team had put in tremendous efforts seeking views, way before the Budget was stitched, and mulled over the many options and even spent much time preparing communications materials so that Singaporeans will comprehend and partake in the post-Budget discussions. For that, please accept my deepest appreciation. I strongly support the Budget, Sir.”
“In Central Singapore CDC where I serve, we started a series called ENOUGH TALK to encourage people to not just criticise but take action on issues that they care about, such as the low-skilled elderly who might be doing very manual difficult work at the hawker centres and toilets, and the cardboard collectors, the homeless, the hungry; and such as urging Singapore to support climate action by simply going "plastic-light" or finding ways to reduce styrofoam plates and boxes used at the many buffets and food distribution charity activities for the needy. Our Camp Explore programme curates good enrichment classes, holiday programmes. I remember Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Kuik Shiao Yin have been talking about these to close the inequality gap.”
“Leaders like Mr Vincent Tan of Select Group who is unselfish in encouraging the food and beverage (F&B) sector to try out new technology and SkillsFuture initiatives; leaders like Mr Kang Puay Seng and his partner who, during their days starting Mr Bean, trained and supported adults with disabilities to prepare and sell soya bean products; and leaders like Mr Wee Ee Cheong and Ms Wee Wei Ling who used their business platforms in the banks and hotels to create jobs for the disabled. There are many more giants like them with whom I engage in my CDC and charity work. In North Carolina in the United States (US), students in a school’s technology centre create prosthetic arms using 3D printing for others in need and, at the same time, hone their advanced manufacturing skills. Singapore, as the chair of ASEAN this year, beyond the regional digitalisation plan that Deputy Prime Minister Tharman spoke about in the IMF meeting this week, should look into setting up a fund to encourage Singaporeans to go serve others in ASEAN. Two young staff of mine in the CDC, Caleb and Sherlyn Yap, a couple, help villagers in Thailand and Cambodia start chicken farms as a livelihood. Each year, they use their annual leave to do that. I see in this young Singaporean couple not only kindness and contentment but also a sense of purpose and a sense of meaning. Budget 2018 had put in six measures, no less, to foster a spirit of giving. My fellow Mayors and I are thankful that the Minister had paid some attention to the CDCs and increased the funding cap so that the Government will match grants for donations that the CDCs are able to raise. It will come in useful for the emerging and existing needs that we identify in each of our Districts.”
“So, when a journalist asked him for his secret of success for growing this best corn, the farmer replied, to the journalist's surprise, that he shared the corns with his neighbour farmers. The journalist was surprised and asked, "How can you, Mr Farmer, afford to share your best seeds with your neighbours when they are your competitors?" To this, the farmer explained, "Sir, you need to know this. The wind picks up pollen from ripening corns and blows them from field to field. If my neighbours grow inferior corn, the cross-pollination will affect the quality of my own corn." And herein lies the story of successful people and nations – why they should never just stick to Success, worldly Success, but move to Significance. Like the farmer, if we wish to grow good corn, we must help our neighbours grow good corn. Life is all connected. If we want a peaceful life, we must help our neighbours be peaceful as well. If we want to do well, we must seek to help others do well, too. It is not a zero-sum game. In the world of business, I saw many top busy local business leaders, some of them in the Council for the Future Economy, some in the CDC I work with. They are busy business leaders but they gave unselfishly to causes beyond themselves – leaders like Mr Robert Yap from YCH Group who helped start the Logistics Academy for the logistics sector, many of whom are his competitors.”
“I, therefore, seek the Minister to consider if a task force or a workgroup can be set up within CFE to specifically seek job opportunities for the vulnerable, the lowly-skilled elderly, the disabled and those who are not as endowed, those who are at risk or vulnerable, so that they will not be left behind, so that they do not simply just become welfare recipients. Fourthly, Sir, on bringing out the best in Singaporeans. I am not certain how many Singaporeans, especially those in the middle- and higher-income brackets, are appreciative of Budget 2018's gift of the SG ang pow as a sharing of surplus from the last financial year. But I am almost certain that there will be no end of critics who say the ang pow is too little or too much. A $100 SG Bonus "hongbao", for some, could mean just an additional dinner out for the family or for himself. But to another citizen, the bonus adds to the cash flow to purchase that milk powder or diapers for the family baby or disabled elderly parent. So, let us bring out the best in Singaporeans. Just a small request. I seek the Minister to give Singaporeans a choice to donate their SG "hongbao" (the bonus) to their favourite charities, before the SG Bonus is credited to citizens. Sir, Budget 2018 should help move Singapore from success to significance and bring out the best in each of us. This is not a job for the Government alone. It is a job for all of us – Singaporeans. It is for all of us, as a country, to imagine that we can become even better versions of ourselves. There is the story of a farmer who often wins awards for growing the best corn in his locale.”
“In executing our five CDCs' charter to enhance awareness and adoption of SkillsFuture, I find that not enough Singaporeans actually believe or fully appreciate the speed of change and the risk we are all in in a disruptive new economy – jobs that have disappeared or will be disappearing, like word processors and typists, data entry operators, some travel agents, insurance agents; jobs that we see today that never existed before, such as digital market specialists, drone operators, content creators, data scientists, app developers, Uber drivers, driverless car engineers. At the macro level, even if the economy looks good and the unemployment rate looks good – lo, Minister Lim Swee Say had famously said many times that the labour market is not short of jobs, it is short of citizens who possess the appropriate skills, the right skills, to fill the jobs of the new economy. If ordinary Singaporeans are affected by all these massive changes, what more those who are not as mobile, not as adaptable, not as culturally-sensitive to work in the global market or cognitively able – the vulnerable and the lowly-skilled, not out of choice but out of circumstances, what will happen to them? How do we ensure that, indeed, when the tide rises, all boats will rise? In the context of the Singapore economy, as opportunities abound due to technology, due to the rise of the Asian/ASEAN economies, how do we ensure that each Singaporean has a boat to ride the tide with?”
“But there still ought to be a sharper focus on creating non-physical assets and investments. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, at an IMF conference just a couple of days ago in Jakarta, spoke about the huge opportunity offered by the vision of a single digital economy for ASEAN and the potential of financial technology (Fintech) and other financial innovations. If Singapore aspires to be a Smart city and nation, playing big not just in our own country but in the region or world-wide, what non-physical assets, especially in digitalisation, are we investing in and creating? What are we doing to position ourselves as a leader in the provision and export of non-physical assets to serve not only ASEAN but the rest of the world? Are there any ways by which good solutions that we use internally in Government or in the Public Service can be developed with export as a goal and monetised to add to the national coffer? I know, for instance, of good work done by MOE and the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) in education, such as learning management systems, that I see have the potential to go beyond internal consumption, or even healthcare solutions, for that matter. I, therefore, seek the views of the Minister on how more balance can be granted to the development or investment in non-physical infrastructure assets and how good Government capabilities and solutions can be developed for export as one of the sources for our national revenue. Thirdly, on building a future for the vulnerable.”
“But if we do not settle this issue and find that balance, then we will continue to say that we want innovation in our society, in our country but, unknowingly, through our mindsets, actions, systems and processes, reward those who play safe and not try anything new nor rock the boat. I, therefore, seek the Minister's views on how we can allocate some resources to analyse the root causes of why a culture of innovation is not pervasive in the various segments of the Singapore society. And that may lead us to having more results and outcomes in trying to build a culture of innovation and ensuring innovative outcomes in all of our different aspects of the Budget. Second, on asset expenditure, a 2017 report by the Centre of Creative Leadership says that newer business models are presenting threats to traditional models, and the traditional models are the ones that are centred around assets, for example, a hotel property; services, for example, a recruitment company or online retail mall or technology products, such as an Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. This report states that in a rapidly sharing economy, a "network orchestra" model that provides platforms to bring partners together for transactions and collaborations is almost now a new normal. Hence, the rise of highly valued assets which do not themselves own physical assets, companies, such as Uber, AirBnB, Expedia and the like, are on the rise. I, therefore, cannot help but notice that, in Budget 2018, several of the big-ticket infrastructure expenditure revolve around physical infrastructure – the high-speed rail, the airport and the mega Tuas port. Needless to say, to operate these physical assets would require the corresponding software infrastructure.”
“So, I think Budget 2018 should actually allocate more resources to do a deep independent dive on what is stopping us from seeing more pervasive innovation in, one, the private sector, especially amongst our SMEs; two, in education institutions from young to older ones, and families, and especially, in the Public Service which is watching over this space. In my years as an MP, I suspect the key hindrance to fostering more pervasive innovation in the Public Service is a four-letter word "FEAR" – fear of criticism by the public, by online critics, by even Members of this House from both the ruling party or otherwise; fear of making mistakes, fear of failing, fear of being judged and punished; or even fear of making it to the Auditor-General's Office's (AGC's) annual "name and shame" list of agencies and staff who are less than perfect. Another hindrance to fostering a culture of pervasive innovation is likely the lack of vision and limitations caused by existing processes and tools. There is a story of a man who went fishing. Each time he caught a big fish, he will throw it back into the water. And if it is a smaller fish, he kept it. So, an observer nearby found this incredulous and asked him why he did that, why throw back the big fish and keep the small fish? And this man replied, "Sir, you do not understand. The dish in my kitchen for the fish is only seven inches long, and if the fish is any bigger, then it would not fit in my dish!" That is why he threw it back. Sir, such is the mentality of people who lack imagination and limit themselves and other people in the pursuit of innovation. The question then remains: how can we achieve a better balance between being fearless and visionary and having to be accountable and answer for one's actions, especially failure?”
“For Budget 2018 to be the best ever, I have several inputs for the Minister to consider for incorporation, especially during implementation. Not all of these inputs fall under the direct purview of MOF, but I am hoping the Minister will help to facilitate some of these inputs. Most of them concern mindsets because, as they say, the real battlefield is often in our minds. First, on a culture of innovation. As a member of the Council for the Future Economy (CFE), I have personally witnessed the painstaking efforts by Council members and their subcommittees in developing ITMs to anchor Singapore as an innovation, technology and enterprise node. But maps are maps, and they need tangible support and resources to become realities. Budget 2018, with its slew of 17 measures in this space, is certainly moving in the right direction to support the making of a vibrant and innovative economy. However, Sir, a vibrant and innovative economy is not developed from Budget allocations and programmes. It is not developed from only speaking up, and Member Mr Louis Ng spoke about that earlier. Although that is a good starting point, it requires a conducive setting of a culture of pervasive innovation, and we know that cultures are not built overnight. In fact, research says that a purposeful attempt at culture-building takes at least three to five years. As in raising a child, fostering a culture of pervasive innovation takes a village. Fostering pervasive innovation requires more than plug-and-play solutions. It needs a whole society to create an environment that encourages and celebrates a sense of playing, tinkering and experimenting, something that preschools, like My First Skool and MOE Kindergartens, are starting to do.”
“But Budget 2018 is, at the same time, prudent. By putting a cap on Ministry budgets, it encourages public servants to do more with less, respecting that money is hard-earned, whether at the national or personal levels. In addition, by having the AIC to coordinate activities for seniors and strengthening the Social Service Offices (SSOs) to link up the Many Helping Hands on the ground, Budget 2018 reduces overlaps and directs resources to where support is most needed on the ground. In a sense, Budget 2018, Mr Deputy Speaker, is somewhat "better than good". I believe that better national budgets are those which confront issues head on; and takes the courage to put in measures important, sometimes unpopular, to secure our future; going beyond the here and now. The team behind Budget 2018 took courage by announcing the 2% GST hike, creating what some analysts call a constant "thorn" in the side of the ruling Government, for the next several years to come. But at the same time, it promises Singaporeans that those in the lower- and average-income brackets will not have to bear the cost of this GST hike because it has the permanent GST rebate feature that comes with it. As a better-than-good budget, Budget 2018 incorporates, too, measures that align behaviours to the values that our society wishes to promote: the Proximity Housing grant, for instance, to encourage more family members to live with or near one another; the Carbon Tax, for instance, in support of the global and national movement to create a green and more liveable city; the raising of the cap and matching grants to the five CDCs so that they can raise more funds to meet gaps in the local district and support more assist, bond and connect initiatives. On the best budget.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Budget proposed by Minister Heng Swee Keat and his team. I would like to speak on what makes for good, better and the best types of Budgets. First, on what constitute good Budgets. Let me take reference from some readings from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF blog in April 2017 attempted to define several key principles underlying good fiscal policies and smart fiscal policies. The blog read that in a world of dramatic economic disruptions and globalisation, smart and good fiscal policies facilitate change, harness a country's growth potential and protect people who are hurt by the disruptions. There is a call by IMF for more room to install more growth-friendly, inclusive, strong and prudent fiscal policies around the world. National budgets are the key means by which fiscal measures, such as spendings and taxation, are implemented. By world standards, Singapore's Budget 2018 is growth-friendly, relevant, futuristic and prudent. Budget 2018 continues with the aim of building a vibrant and innovative economy through a slew of more than 20 initiatives to anchor Singapore as a Global-Asia enterprise node. It continues with its aggressive plan to train more Singaporeans in a world of technological and business disruptions. Budget 2018 also passes the test of promoting inclusion. It not only supports employers who give wage increases to Singaporeans; it provides greater financial support to students from lower- and middle-income families through higher Edusave and financial and meals programmes. It continues with the various rebate schemes for household expenditure, promises a permanent GST rebate scheme and shares $700 million of last year's Budget surplus with every citizen.”
“So, it is important for us to work together. Secondly, about using established modes of engagement, I am very sure someone who visits a home, including the PGO officers, when he or she sees someone who needs help because of disability, be it children or seniors, that it will be a stimulant for us to look at it. For example, in my area, there has been more than one occasion where my PGO officers shared with me and we have gone down to see how we can help the families better. So, we will do all we can to make Singapore more inclusive. Nevertheless, I am very heartened that we have Members in this House who care and continue to work with us to make Singapore a more inclusive society.”
“Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his constant support for this community. I would like to ask, besides the campaigns which are usually more costly, can the Ministry promote public awareness of the disability and special needs sector with a bit more sustainable effort on a daily basis. For example, putting up more information using Smart Nation strategies at the public places of interest and also at places, such as Mass Rapid Transit train stations, for example? I see that in quite a number of countries which are more progressive in this. That is one. The second is also if MSF would consider using good establishments or proven organisations, such as the Pioneer Generation Office (PGO), to include younger people with disabilities in their efforts so that, as they reach out to the elderly, some of whom are disabled, they are also able to reach out to the younger ones who may be disabled or need some support by their family members. So, just two efforts: one, more public awareness at more public places; second, using proven establishments to support these public awareness efforts. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the suggestions and we will consider them. I would like to share, as I have said earlier, we have gone through the "See the True Me" campaign. If Members have the time, please take a look at the YouTube videos. It is not only something that we want to relate to people, but I am very heartened to see the number of views that we have recorded since we launched the different videos, and the support that we get from the community. We will continue to do this and we will also look at areas where we can put posters and messages, as suggested by the Member, to see how we can reach out to more people.”
“The scale that it develops test if the board members are too engaged or too unengaged; if the structures and procedures of the charities are too restrictive or too loose, if trustee skills are too narrow or too generic to be of use, and so forth. The COC may wish to study this simple tool to help getting governance just right, in addition to its "comply or explain" and "yes/no" governance checklist. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is more to charities than just keeping their operations solvent and in line with the Charity Commission's governance standards, especially in a time such as this and in view of the increasing significance of some charity players. Over-governance is costly and stifling. Under-governance, on the other hand, puts the charity and its core mission at risk. The Charities (Amendment) Bill is a good attempt to update the governance regulations to keep up with the times. There is much more to do than to get the governance just right. I hope the COC and its partners will consider my suggestion for the development of an ITM and I hope that the next review of the Charities Act will be more transformational, more visionary and reflective of the vibrancy and the high potential charities can value-add to society. I offer, in conclusion, the COC my fullest support and assistance if required and I fully support the Bill.”
“The cost of governance includes internal and external audits, legal advice for both strategic and operational issues, costs to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, and even risk management analysis, which can take a lot of time and effort, not to mention the time expended by the staff, the management and board members of the charity. In one of the larger-sized charities that I am involved in, the cost of governance can rise to as high as more than $90,000, and that is not including the pro bono legal services and secretariat services that it obtains from its board members and the time spent to work with the internal and external auditors or professionals. Each fundraising event also carries the cost of an audit of the financial statements of each event. There are also additional hidden costs when charities, for example, run services funded sometimes by more than one funder and then are obliged to produce multiple reports for one same programme as a condition for receiving the grants. All these items add to the operational cost of both large and small charities. I therefore urge the COC to conduct a study of the different sectors under its Administrators to determine if the costs of governance in each of its sector is too low, just nice or too high, and then to provide the necessary support and to rectify the situations as needed. In conclusion, getting the governance just right. In the UK, Pilotlight Group helps UK charities and social enterprises thrive by harnessing the skills of business leaders. In 2015, the group offers yet another angle to measure the effectiveness of governance using a self-assessment thermometer to determine if governance might be too heavy or too light.”
“Whereas section 46A of the Charities Act protects the Commissioner, his Deputy Commissioner, his Assistant Commissioner or any officers appointed by the Commissioner, or any Sector Administrator, by guaranteeing "no action, suit or other legal proceedings shall be taken" for anything done in good faith. There is no corresponding protection for the "Key Persons", some of whom are volunteers, which includes key staff and board members who have acted in good faith. Sir, we should take care that the powers of the Commissioner must not make the participation of individuals so onerous so as to discourage the participation of potential contributors to the charities. Bearing in mind that many board members are busy people, volunteers with their own day jobs and many key staff in charities do their best within the constraints of the charities, surely, the Ministry should provide some assurance in the Act that they would be protected from liability if they prove to have acted in good faith and also perhaps consider liability insurance as an industry practice for board members and key officers. Next, on cost of governance. Both poor and good governance comes with a cost. Charities with poor governance standards often find themselves paying the ultimate price of not just having their key officers and board members taken to task by the law, but also the potential closure of the charities, impacting the lives of its beneficiaries. Good governance, on the other hand, does not come free either and, in many cases, paid out of the funders or other donors of the charity.”
“It is not uncommon to hear of suspect fundraisers in public places touting for donations. It is also not uncommon to sight charities who were already put on, say, restrictive orders by the COC to still carry on its activities per normal. In one of the shops selling religious artefacts in my constituency at Waterloo Mall, I have had complaints by constituents about a business owner collecting donations for themselves in a box next to legitimate donation boxes for the Community Chest. As online fundraising appeals become more common, how does the COC plan to verify the authenticity of the appeals and how donations are disbursed? Sir, in order for the Charities Act to have teeth and in the midst of even more charity applications and fundraising appeals, ways must be found by which the COC, the Sector Administrators and other partners can effectively communicate to the public and work with the public to enforce the provisions of the Act. Next, on protection of those who acted in good faith. The Charities (Amendment) Bill seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework of the COC and to further empower the Commissioner to bring any "Key Persons" to task; all this to make charities more accountable to the public and to its funders. The Bill proposes that section 2 of the Charities Act be amended to broaden the definition of "Key Persons" who can be brought to task should things go wrong. As a result, members of a charity who, I quote, "provides advice to the charity on the control and management of the administration of the charity" are now also made accountable.”
“Potential charities can then be advised by the COC and its partners or even incentivise to direct and deploy resources to where the needs might be. I can think of emerging and critical needs, such as home-based healthcare services for the elderly, transnational family challenges, services for adults with disabilities and coordination of overlapping services in elderly support, and other areas of needs that I see are less than met. I can also think of instances by which the COC and its partners can more effectively advise on areas where there are already duplicate or overlapping services to scale down fundraising appeals. An ITM for the sector should also support the diversity of income generation. A "proactive charity advisory" should not only look at policing the authenticity of fundraising appeals. Effective charities have long been encouraged to be more self-reliant and diversify their income streams so that they do not become over-reliant on only donation appeals. Where they can, charities should develop and learn to develop relevant services that are needed by their beneficiaries and generate other income streams. This may come in the form of social enterprises or the trading arms of the charities. Hence, although policing of fundraising appeals is important in order to retain public trust in charities, future reviews of the Charities Act should look at how the COC might support, for example, new developments like social enterprises or other forms of income streams in the charities. I would like to touch next on the enforcement of the Charities Act. It is well and good to set up a strict regime of governance for the charities. But it is another altogether to effectively enforce it.”
“Surely, the governance of and support of such healthcare and social charities which are developed to complement Government's efforts should be different from those, say, in the religious sector or charities which are just private endeavours. A more empathic and nurturing hand and touch ought to be provided to those who are the Government's partners, for example, in healthcare, education and other social challenges. It is too limiting to police these partners through stringent codes of governance only. Efforts ought to be made to help future-proof them and ensure their skills and competencies are updated to survive or even thrive in a society that is affected by technological and other social disruptions. The current code of governance applied to all charities according to the tier in which the size of their budgets fall smacks of, to me, a bit simplistic cookie cutter perspective of charities and does not take into account the impact and contribution of different charities to society. So, there ought to be a better differentiation of charities, and more should be done for those who are the Government's partners in service delivery in the social landscape especially. Secondly, an ITM, if developed, should also provide better clarity and direction. As a "proactive charity advisory", the aspiration of the COC and its partners should also provide greater clarity and direction on the different sectors in the charity landscape. There ought to be published mini-blueprints of the state of the union in each sector's landscape, strengths, the concerns, areas of needs and strategies to plug any gaps that the Government has not or will not step in.”
“This has given rise to public concern and higher scrutiny by the charity watchdogs and most likely contributed also to the review of the Charities (Amendment) Bill today. Four focus areas. Now, after studying the provisions in the Bill, I would like to raise four areas for the Ministry to consider. One, an Industry Transformation Map; two, on enforcement; three, on the protection of those who acted in good faith; and fourth, the cost of governance. First, on Industry Transformation Map (ITM). Sir, the rapid changes in Singapore's society place a greater onus on the Office of the Commissioner of Charity (COC) and its partners to beware of "conducting business as usual". In particular, I refer to the COC's aspiration to be a "proactive charity advisory" as stated in its Annual Report. So, more than tweaking the Charities Act, the charity "industry" needs a better landscape study and I think an ITM is in order, much like what the Future Economy committees are doing to keep up with the times. In developing the ITM, we need a better differentiation of charities. The charities landscape is too diverse to segment the players based on the size of their budgets, which is the current way by which the Charities Act is implemented through the Code of Governance. Charities should be differentiated and treated, even nurtured, according to the different nature, priority, strengths and pitfalls in the different sectors in the charity landscape. Some charities, such as the step-down community hospitals and special schools, were set up to respond to the call of the Government to meet the needs of target beneficiaries.”
“There are several key trends that I have observed in the Singapore society that calls for higher involvement of and greater attention to the charity landscape. These key trends include: (a) a rapidly ageing population resulting in higher demands for healthcare and other services, and fears of retirement inadequacy; (b) the breaking down of the traditional assumption by both children and parents that question if family should be the first port of call when needs arise in a family; (c) the rise in non-traditional family make-ups, such as transnational family members, single parents either widowed, divorced or unwed; (d) the rise in mental health issues; (e) rise in technology and the prevalence of social media as a way of life, therefore online appeals and cashless transactions are some examples; (f) higher societal expectations as a result of a better educated and vocal population; and (g) the rise of religiousity, religious fundamentalism and risk of terrorism in a Singapore that is home to at least 10 religions. Out of these societal shifts in Singapore arise new causes and areas of passion for which new charities support. There is also a notable rise in the number of large-sized charities with more than $10 million income and a rapid rise of the number of new charities seeking registration, both as charities and as IPCs. Even traditional philanthropists have chosen to register their own charities to tap on public funding and tax-exempt benefits to further their own pet causes. Along with the rise in the number of charities are also high profile controversial cases, starting from the 2005 National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga, Ren Ci and then the City Harvest Church and, recently, the Bone Marrow Donor Programme.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. I declare that I sit on the board of two large-sized charities serving in the capacity of a volunteer. The CDC of which I am Mayor is also classified as an IPC governed by the Charities Act. The charity landscape. There are almost 2,300 registered charities in Singapore in 2016. Registered charities are exempted from paying income taxes and property taxes pertaining to properties used for that charity. The charity landscape is not homogeneous. Charities come in various shapes and sizes. Out of the registered charities in Singapore, about half or more than 1,000 are religious organisations, such as churches and temples. One in five, about 18%, support social and welfare causes and others in health, healthcare, education, sports, animal welfare and others. Let me give us a sense of the size of the charity sector. The overall annual receipt, that is, Government grants, donations and fees of the charity sector, is $16.4 billion. Out of this, $2.7 billion are donations by the public. This $2.7 billion donation pie is larger than the size of the current budget of MSF, which I know is about $2.5 billion. The importance of the charity sector cannot be understated. Many of them play a key role in our society. Some of them partner the Government in providing essential services from education to health to social assistance. Some fill the gaps where public goods are lacking. The more organised and larger religious groups fill the spiritual needs of the lives of citizens, command influences over their congregations and play a role in religious harmony in a multiracial, multireligious society, such as ours.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I would like to seek clarity from the Minister on the vision of MOE's role in the early childhood education sector. MOE has initially entered this space with these MKs as a pilot to uplift the quality and raise the bar of preschool education in Singapore. I would like to ask if MOE is still doing a pilot with 50 kindergartens or is it now one of the key operators in this space. If so, how does it intend to level the playing field, especially for the preferred operators it has appointed, with MOE having a structural advantage, for example, in being able to implement policies of priority admission of children into co-located primary schools. So, I would like to ask what the vision is. Secondly, coming back to the original objective of these pilot MKs, as a subject matter expert in this space, how does MOE intend to, and how has it so far been helping the other preschools in uplifting the quality of preschool education so that every child, indeed, whether in MKs or non-MKs, has access to quality education and quality preschool options?”
“Mr Speaker, three points. I thank the Minister for taking the hot seat. For our Jalan Besar GRC, we have just had the construction of the new train line ─ the Downtown Line 3. I think a lot of these projects, the train stations actually are, what I know, engineering feats. I saw a lot of pride in the work by the teams and I just want to thank you for that. And my residents thank you. A lot of solutions that the Minister has mentioned are to do with technical and operational issues. I wanted to know if the Minister and the agencies involved have gone deep-diving into any of the HR issues. Things like, we say very broadly, cultural issues. But cultures take two to three years to establish and to change. Or even the compensation, the total compensation packages. Those are specifics that I think need to be looked into. I am especially thinking of the 90% of the engaged and good staff that the Minister mentioned in the survey that was done by Towers Watson. So, how do we continue to retain the good staff and to balance the need for accountability, of course, versus the perceived intolerance for mistakes and even blaming should things go wrong? Because that could lead to a lot of fear at the workplace and, in fact, make the culture even more negative. Secondly, also in view of the larger talent pool that you wish to attract in terms of engineering and technical personnel into the rail industry, what are the HR strategies to make sure that we can continue to attract, especially engineering and maintenance personnel, into the wider pool that is needed? These are the questions that I have.”
“Three questions. One, would the Minister consider under the CFE developing a new literacy curriculum for the 21st century workforce, especially for the adults, so that everyone would be able to rise above the current skills level and be a bit more future-ready? Two, I am really concerned about the possibility of a segment of the workforce being left behind. I would like to ask the Minister how we could ensure those elderly, low-skilled are not left behind in the future economy. Three, addressing what I see is a development where, for example, in transport, many of our professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) are taking to becoming Uber and Grab drivers when the development in the future economy is really towards driverless vehicles. I would like to ask the Minister's opinion on that.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I have to declare that I have residents in the nearby neighbourhood who have objections to the disamenities caused by the zone for many years, but I also have some residents who are the zone users themselves. I have three supplementary questions. It has been said that the users are elderly and dependent on the business at SRHZ for a living. Some also said that it is good for the elderly to be active, to push the carts in the elements and set up stalls elsewhere. I wonder what is the Government's specific response to these needs, especially for the elderly? Also, how many users has the Ministry found who are actually dependent on the zone for a livelihood? Second, I would like to ask if the Ministry has analysed the reasons, as what my colleague Er Dr Lee has mentioned, and identified further solutions on how to address the grouses of poorer business by the current users who have moved or are going to move to lock-up stalls that are provided by NEA. And by giving such priority, are there also objections to these priorities given? Can other community groups at the grassroots level also be engaged to help resolve these issues? Third, what is the Government's specific response to some of the requests of the users and supporters for relocations to several suggested replacement sites in the cities, or other preferred sites for free or very low rent with provision for storage space and shelter, and what is the Government's response if there are also other similar needs?”
“I strongly urge MOE to seize this opportunity to strengthen the new SUSS, fully invest in it, so that it will take off and it will soar as the very unique provider for a very unique group of learners in a very unique education age.”
“In addition, there is a great opportunity to further propel the SUSS' traditional strength in online and blended learning. SUSS can become a regional or global lead in not just a provider of digital education for adult learners but also a provider of expert services, consultancy in education technology and design. The current UniSIM financial model that was inherited appears to be an entrepreneurial model using primarily part-time faculty members to support a large proportion of part-time adult learner undergrads. Whilst the entrepreneurial and nimble spirit of SUSS should never be lost, the new AU must receive funding support that allows it to delve deeper into its social science domain and also not to lose its traditional strength. My third concern is on how a university like SUSS would be evaluated by the Ministry, the Government, its learners and also the public. The commonly held success criteria by which universities are gauged include the popular ranking systems, such as research robustness, publications in journals and the like. SUSS will need to establish a set of KPIs and criteria that reflect its desired positioning in the overall tertiary education landscape. I, therefore, seek clarification from the Minister on his views on how he is going to evaluate a university like SUSS and, for that matter, how he intends to measure the success and significance of all his tertiary institutions in the future learning landscape. After all, what gets measured gets done. In conclusion, Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the Bill. SUSS presents an exciting opportunity to paint and deliver the vision of what future learning for Singapore's working adults and Singapore's lifelong learning adults can be.”
“Whilst Social Science is an appealing focus, a search online would reveal that branches of Social Science can cover a full spectrum from anthropology, education, social work, business studies, economics, political science, psychology to sustainability studies. But at the same time, to add to the complication, there are also talks amongst many education experts that there is a need, like what Assoc Prof Daniel Goh said, to ensure that subjects are not taught in silos. There is a real need to blend some of the subjects, and that is what many educators are talking about. I, therefore, would like to seek the Minister's views on the long-term positioning of a university, such as SUSS. In addition, if SUSS is to provide lifelong learning programmes for adults, I seek the Minister's clarification on what "adult learners" actually are. I mean, who are they really? The current age of SUSS' undergrads today is 29 years old, I was told. Although this is older than the 19-year-olds who normally enter the other universities, how would SUSS cater to working adults who are much older and, especially, those who decide to take up new skills or a new second or third career? In a world where old jobs disappear and future jobs requiring new skills emerge, is there an intent for MOE to give these older learners more than one bite of the cherry in their pursuit of tertiary studies? Can they pursue several tertiary level courses throughout their lifetime? Is there a space for that? My second query is in the area of resourcing and funding. SUSS will need to be sufficiently resourced to allow it to acquire the faculty to deepen the disciplinary focus of social sciences and to conduct applied research in the social sciences.”
“Even before other universities jumped on the bandwagon of digital education, before the term "online learning" became a mantra, the former UniSIM had been investing in and learning the business of e-learning and blending it with face-to-face class interactions. The purpose was to deliver programmes anytime, anywhere, on any personal data assistant (PDA), via multimedia channels and blended learning, to meet the demanding schedules of its busy adult learners. At a time when most tertiary institutions are doing the catch-up on online and blended learning, SUSS is already way ahead in digital education and catering to an adult learner population in a fast-paced work setting. Sir, the Bill appears to be uncomplicated, that is, the formalisation, scoping and funding of the new AU of SUSS, from its former private school status. Clause 3 sets out the function of the university company. The main object of SUSS will be to "provide lifelong learning programmes, with a disciplinary focus in the social sciences, for adults". Clause 8 provides for Parliament to give funding and requires that the moneys given may only be applied for such objects. But the devil is in the details. So, I would like to be assured by the Minister in three specific areas so that SUSS would not end up becoming just like another ordinary university, losing its edge and the opportunity to help put Singapore on the map of future learning. The first is to do with positioning, SUSS' positioning, both in terms of what it offers and who the target learners are.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government's decision to make UniSIM, now SUSS, Singapore's sixth AU, is a good decision. It is a good decision on three counts. One, there is no other university in Singapore that currently occupies and claims that unique domain space of the applied social sciences. As Singapore's social demographics change and the needs and demands in society become graver and more challenging, the need for more in-depth analyses and application of social science studies becomes correspondingly very critical. The second reason why SUSS is a good decision is this. UniSIM was a private school with a known brand and history of more than 20 years. The Government's support of this private university will help fulfil its promise to create more university places in the public education space. This is a promise that was made when Minister Lawrence Wong was then helming the tertiary education space in MOE. SUSS will, indeed, help meet the brewing aspirations of many fresh undergraduates and working adults to get a first degree. But the most important reason why this Bill reflects a good decision is this. UniSIM's, and now SUSS', unique experience of primarily catering to busy working adults pursuing further studies falls squarely in place with Singapore's SkillsFuture movement. Our SkillsFuture movement is an important shift which encourages lifelong learning and skills mastery, and it features a very important type of education for our future economy. Perhaps less known to the public is the fact that SUSS, then UniSIM, is a forerunner in the provision of e-learning in the Singapore tertiary space.”
“Madam, there are also specific parts of the PEMA Bill that I would like to seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary. First, on the amendment of section 4 that provides for the Licensing Officer to appoint "individuals who are suitably trained" to perform the powers of inspection and other duties of the Licensing Officer. About these authorised persons, I would like to ask the Ministry on the extent of power that may be exercised by them and also the courses of action should a normal routine procedure escalate to a full-blown public disorder or even a riot situation. Second, on the amendment of section 15A, whilst I understand the need to align the two areas of licences by MHA and MCI, I would like to seek clarification so that things will be more transparent on the decision framework that the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer may impose in classifying any arts entertainment. Lastly, I would like to seek clarification on the PE Appeal Board, which is one of the additions to the Bill, as to the reasons for setting this up and the scope of this Board, the Board's decision-making framework and approach and how this might be different from the current arrangements. I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's considered response. I fully support the Bill.”
“One, adopt a whole-of-Government approach, with relevant agencies, besides MHA, URA, the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) as well, to ensure a more appropriate tenant mix of businesses with the right licences in residential estates. There should be more community services located closer to the residents, such as senior activity centres, preschools, childcare centres, polyclinics, grocery stores that will be useful to the residents. This should be part of urban planning zoning for residential estates in the city. A more family-friendly wholesome tenant mix in residential areas will certainly save considerable amounts of resources to monitor, track, raid and arrest potential culprits. Two, the Government should avoid issuing business licences for establishments, such as massage parlours, bars, jackpot operators, night entertainment licences in neighbourhoods of religious establishments. Three, in urban planning, the Government should seriously reconsider the building of mixed developments. It sounds sexy and good but it is really hard to implement, especially if these mixed developments for residential and commercial are within the same building. Nightclubs, massage parlours, bars and entertainment outlets in buildings with residents living above is a sure recipe for conflicts and tension as they are most likely always the sources of complaints and conflicts. Madam, I believe that much of the potential conflicts between residents and PE operators can be proactively alleviated if there is a more effective whole-of-Government approach, and proper public communication of zoning principles in urban planning.”
“And then, where religious activities take place in establishments, such as mosques in my Kampong Glam area, there had also been constant tension with the neighbouring food and beverage (F&B) and entertainment outlets whose offerings may be considered potentially offensive to some who go to the mosque to worship. But kudos to the diligent Singapore Police Force, the Home Team members who are based at, especially Marina Bay and the Rochor Police Posts, incidents are markedly reduced over the years. This peace is, however, achieved not without the high cost of enforcement by the Police and the supporting efforts of the local grassroots helpers and the MPs. Madam, 456 PE licences out of an approximate 2,700 island-wide are in the Bugis, Jalan Besar and Beach Road areas. My first point of concern is to seek the Ministry's assurance that these residential areas will not become unsuitable for residential living, whether in public or private developments. PE establishments, Madam, should generally not be located within residential areas. This is due to the disamenities that will most certainly arise. Disamenity issues, such as the issues of noise, that would still occur when customers arrive and leave through even sound-proofed doors, and often during the resting hours of residents. Although the Home Team brigades I work with are some of the most diligent and helpful public servants I know, on behalf of my residents, I still urge the Government to consider the following measures.”
“Madam, I rise to speak in support of PEMA. I am the local Member of Parliament (MP) in the Kampong Glam and Jalan Besar vicinity. Residents would largely welcome this Bill. Most important to many residents − not just in my area, but I think in other areas as well − the Bill will strengthen the ability of the Government to ensure that PE is not carried out in places that are not suitable to its nature. As MPs serving residents in the city district, colleagues such as Mr Melvin Yong, previously Mr Edwin Tong and myself, have had our fair share of challenges to balance the tension between the needs of residents and the needs of PE outlets and events. Let me share a few examples from my past few terms serving my residents. Along Queen Street several years ago, the problems of noise, especially from customers arriving and leaving, drinking during hours when nearby residents are sleeping, had resulted in many complaints to the Police and also gave rise to Police raids. Then, at Little India, where merchants organise live concerts to attract visitors, including tourists and foreign workers, residents, young and old, in nearby public housing, could not accept the resulting noise and crowds and often called up Member Melvin and myself. Third, at mixed developments, such as Sultan Plaza and the Textile Centre, the nearby night joints created at one time much unhappiness to the local residents living upstairs. This had resulted in many night phone calls to the Police, to the MP and Police raids as well, creating much tension between the residents and the nightspot operators.”
“Sir, these are exciting times for the special needs sector. We must take heed to not populate the EM3 with last-century mindsets, tools and solutions, otherwise, we will be throwing good money after bad and we will be pouring old wine into new wine skin, causing the wine skin to burst. Nonetheless, I am very grateful that Singapore has our own Masterplan and that I am able to share my proposals for the Minister's consideration. Employability for the Disabled”
“For the more severe trainees, there is also strong merit for the Ministry and its agents to bring back a more updated version of sheltered enterprises that could create piece-meal paid work so that those with moderate to severe needs need not adopt the more costly options of staying at home or using a day care service. I have personally witnessed programmes like these which are very successful and I am sure we can scale some of these models for this target group. Suggestion six − take a deep-dive review of the real needs of adults with moderate to severe needs. This is the most challenging of the groups that we have to support in the disability sector. It is important that the various options for adults with moderate to severe needs be studied carefully in the areas of work, care-giving and residential living. In residential living, for instance, there is sufficient literature to look at a continuum of living models. We need not only look at institutionalised built-up options. There are more community-based models of partially supported living elsewhere in the world. Conclusion − finally, Sir, the clarion call in the digital economy of the future is just as loud for special needs, for the social service sector. For a sector with many diverse needs with limited resources, the need to deep-dive, innovate, pioneer, scale and persuade other people to join us in solving the many challenges, is very necessary. I recently came across an Australian competition in which start-up digital firms pitched their digital ideas to find innovations that will revolutionalise the lives of people with disabilities − 3-D printed prosthetic limbs; a one-stop-shop that stores all the forms the community will ever need in a smart phone.”
“The history of caregiver support in the disability sector has been dotted with centralisation and decentralisation, with the DIRC, Centre for Enabled Living, SG Enable and also the whole Caregiver Support Centre networks in, for example, Asian Women's Welfare Association (AWWA) and Rainbow Centre. I feel strongly the need for caregiver needs to be more carefully analysed and segmented according to demographic and disability profiles. We should not spend resources setting up yet another Caregiver Centre or Village. Existing hubs, such as SG Enable, can coordinate and equip current centres and increase more accessible touch-points at the hospitals, schools, VWOs and even SSOs and community centres. Suggestion four − develop a more systematic and structured way to rope in community helpers. There ought to be a more structured and effective way to organise a stronger and more consistent community volunteer and help network, involving neighbouring schools, corporations, grassroots and residents in the precinct. To me, a vast resource to tap on. People want to do good. Suggestion five − conduct a review of the school-to-work scheme. I suggest that the school-to-work scheme be independently reviewed to determine its strengths and areas of weaknesses. I understand that the scheme has strong merit because it is well resourced and has the ability to tap on a network of corporate partners. However, I hear it needs to be improved because of less than structured support and follow-up. There is room for MOE, MSF and SG Enable to tap on the current job assessment and placement centres with MINDS, Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and Autism Resource Centre (ARC) so that there can be more structure, streamlining and continuity after the students graduate.”
“I, therefore, propose that an EM3 Roll-out Committee be set up and headed by the Minister himself or someone appointed by the Minister, no less. This Committee should comprise key members of the EM3 Steering Committee representing the key disability groups and representatives from other EM3-Implementing Ministries and agencies. Its mission will be to provide inputs to an Implementation Plan; and to track and report on the progress of the EM3 over the next five years. Suggestion two − encourage mini Enabling Plans by disability groups so that there is more ownership by them. Just as there is a strong need for self-driven and innovative enterprises and learners in the economy of the future, so should the social service of the future start to transform itself. There will never be sufficient public resources to meet the needs of all the disability groups, in the face of so many competing demands of the displaced, the rapidly ageing and other disadvantaged. We need to enable, recognise and nurture self-driven and innovative disability groups. The Ministry should encourage the key disability groups to start developing their own Enabling Plans so that their highest priority needs can be identified, implemented with support from parties which do not only include the Government. These mini plans are not mere inputs of the randomly assembled focus groups; their content will provide good inputs for the accurate and impactful roll-out of the Enabling Masterplan in the next five years. Suggestion three − develop a more comprehensive profiling of caregivers and needs. Caregiver needs differ, depending on the age of child, age of parents, education level, interest, disability and age of the charges.”
“Sir, the recently concluded third Enabling Masterplan (EM) is a testament to the Singapore Government's commitment to build an inclusive country in which the potential of persons with special needs can be maximised. I want to thank the Minister, the Ministry, the Steering Committee chaired by Ms Anita Fam, and my fellow Steering Committee members and all who made this possible. The Masterplan is an important milestone for our nation-building because Singapore is neither just an economy nor a corporation. If Singapore is to be a home worth defending, then every citizen born to it is worth valuing, regardless of race, religion or abilities. I would like to make six suggestions as the Ministry coordinates the roll-out of this Masterplan in the next five years. Suggestion one − set up an Enabling Masterplan Roll-out Committee. The EM3 was intentionally broad in its directions and recommendations. There is more to be uncovered, more to be added, especially in the light of a need for a 21st century social services sector in an age of digitalisation, disruption and sea changes in demographics. To me, leaving the EM3 plan to be interpreted and rolled out solely by the Government, seeking inputs and reporting only when it wishes, is not a wise and progressive strategy. This self-check and self-reporting mode will reduce the transparency and trust that the Ministry has diligently built up in the last decade. Of course, who would want to install a body to check on itself, but this is a Government Ministry. More than many other Ministries, this is a Ministry that needs to rely on the ideas, trust and volunteerism of many stakeholders to create accurate, out-of-the-box and impactful social solutions.”
“Many times, the persons in debt have to work this out themselves and they often give up. Do not pack them off to general money management courses or send them to an external Financial Counsellor. Help them work out a financial debt redemption plan. At times, it may mean being more generous also, in the financial help given directly to assist dependants, such as their children and their elderly parents. Two, work with partners and develop creative "Get-out-of-Debt" Schemes that will incentivise affected families to clear their debts. One such scheme that Methodist Welfare Services has started was to match every dollar of debt paid off by the clients, up to $100 a month. Another could be creating flexible job opportunities to allow them to work part-time to earn some extra cash. ComCare”
“Madam, chronic debt is one of the key factors perpetuating poverty. I am concerned about the families I met who are unable to get out of debt, sometimes even after receiving Government help. Now, I am not speaking about families who owe money, that run into hefty amounts due to business failure or gambling. I am referring to families who are often in arrears for phone, utilities, rental, mortgage payments and simply cannot make ends meet because of their low income, or debt burdens left by spouses, or debts accumulated due to inaction. The current financial help that MSF's Social Service Office (SSO) offers may not solve this debt spiral. One of the possible reasons is that the formula that is used usually does not factor in a needy beneficiary's financial liability status when computing the help quantum. I can understand why the state would not want to use taxpayers' money to solve financial mismanagement issues of other citizens. The SSO officers themselves may also not be trained in financial counselling. However, the effect of ignoring this is that the family continues to be in a state of poverty, impairing their ability to get out of the spiral. When they cannot clear their debts, they simply borrow more to make ends meet, getting deeper into debt. Measures like skills upgrading for better jobs or ensuring their children attend school may end up as low priority. This is the reason why the Methodist Welfare Services, during its Jubilee year, embarked on a scheme to help families clear their debts with gifts of up to $2,000. But in the absence of bonuses like this, I would like to make two suggestions to the Ministry. One, develop a "Turn-key Solution" for families of this profile.”