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 6 of 22.
“Mdm Tan, a resident of mine, and I am sure her plight is heard elsewhere too. She is a supplier of container packaging to industries ranging from food to paints to solvents. She told me her struggles arising from not only supply chain disruptions during the pandemic but also high global energy costs. A loyal Singapore PowerGrid customer for a long time, her business was subject to fluctuations in electricity rates since last September, from 14 cents to 75 cents per kilowatt. It has gone down recently. Hope came in the form of MTI’s very popular Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme, or TRECS, which offered monthly fixed price plans. Alas, utility supplier after supplier turned down Mdm Tan's application citing full subscription and to try in July 2022. Mdm Tan fears that cost of doing business for SMEs like hers might further escalate with news like the carbon tax increases and the war in Ukraine and Russia. She certainly has no intent to close her business, this being a family business and doing quite okay for a long time. I have discussed the matter with Minister Tan See Leng in his MTI role and I know that he too – and he is a very earnest Minister – is mulling over the issue. Would MOF be willing, would the Government be willing to consider providing an energy rebate equivalent to, for example, the U-Save Vouchers given to residents, if expanding the TRECS programme is not viable? Still on "C", cost of doing business, the rise in qualifying salaries of the foreign workforce. Another major input heard from SMEs concerns the well-intended increased qualifying salaries of S Pass and E Pass holders. The policy intent is this: to bring in the right calibre of imported talents and to make it more attractive for companies to employ Singaporeans.”
“We do not easily borrow nor freely tap on past reserves. We save for the future; for rainy days such as that during the Lehman Brothers collapse and the COVID-19 pandemic. And when we draw down on resources, we will return it back promptly when we are able to for the use of future generations and for future rainy days – the principle of Prudence. Next, the principle of Preparedness. This Government invests highly in the education and training of our people through initiatives – proactive initiatives – such as SkillsFuture and capability building schemes for businesses across the private, people and public sectors. We are ready and able to defend ourselves so as to prevent ourselves from landing in a position such as the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. It is the principle of Preparedness. The principle of Inclusiveness. This Government no intent to leave anyone behind and intentionally develop measures and programmes to uplift the low-wage workers, households and the vulnerable amongst us. So, these three principles of Prudence, Preparedness and Inclusiveness. The extent that we as a people agree on these principles is the extent of how united we are to forge ahead. So, PCR. The next is "C", the Cost of doing business. Like all things, Budget 2022 is never perfect, though the undergirding principles of this Government are clear. Let me share touch on one of several areas that is, to me, worth reviewing and that is on SMEs' concerns on cost of doing business. Matters of cost of living and cost of doing business are not new topics, raised in and outside Parliament. But it is still noteworthy to hear out the local enterprises who are struggling, despite doing their best, especially in such a time as this. One case in point is rise in energy cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of Budget 2022. The delay and staggering of the GST hike and the slew of subsidies to soften the blow on most of the population are a relief. I thank Finance Minister for the decision to continue with the CDC Vouchers scheme so that every Singaporean household, regardless of abode or income, can tap on them. I thank also the CDCs’ partners such as the Merchant Associations, the Heartland Enterprise Centres, the People’s Association, GovTech, Enterprise Singapore, IMDA and several other partners for developing and supporting a scheme that: (a) allows not only residents but also heartland merchants to benefit from the money injected into the heartland economy to spur enterprise; (b) allows participating merchants to be reimbursed in the next day instead of having to wait; (c) allows for the printing of CDC Vouchers for the elderly who are non-tech-savvy so that they can personally use them. So, thank you very much. Now, I wish to touch on three topics today. I call it PCR, namely P for Principles of stewardship; C for Cost of doing business; and R for Resourcing of charities. On "P", Principles. Budget 2022 is a clear articulation of the principles of how Singapore stewards its resources. Former US President Dwight Eisenhower once said, "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." What are the principles that undergirds the Budget of 2022 and by this Government. There are many. I will name three. One, the principle of Prudence. Two, the principle of Preparedness. And three, the principle of Inclusiveness. The principle of Prudence. It explains the conservative and cautious stand by which Government builds up and draws down its reserves. We spend within and sometimes below our means.”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for clarifying Singapore's stand. Beyond declaring our principles, I would like to ask if the Government would review the ongoing initiatives and projects, whether economic, defence or cultural, with the Russian government and any of the government-linked organisations, especially for those based in Singapore, and decide after the review, what action it will take that will support the principles that the Minister had just articulated?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I would like to request special attention be given to especially the North-South Corridor (NSC), which is a long stretch of project works along roads in the Central District. Works, such as the NSC, are right in the residential areas in central Singapore, such as Thomson Road and so forth. Not anybody's fault, but it poses a lot of challenges for both LTA and the residents. My grassroots and I meet very regularly with the LTA team. And I know they are trying really hard, but I think they will need a lot more resources to be dedicated to address a lot of these issues that happen. Things like the narrow pathways, where there are errant PMD riders and errant contractors who proceeded with noisy works even beyond the agreed hours. I feel so much that the LTA team needs a lot more support. I am, therefore, asking for MOT to direct more resources to support these staff, for a win-win for both the residents and the staff. I would like to request special attention and resources be given to the NSC staff working on the project in central Singapore.”
“The issues are really not easy to be settled by just one party: whether it is people, public or private sector. It is all of us. And then, how can we better tap on, especially train and support ground volunteers, such as those in the grassroots movement? I think there are many of them that have the hearts, but just not so organised, together by us. SG Cares volunteers, even parent groups themselves – how can we involve them and get just better outcomes? So, that is my first question: how to share more strategic information throughout and involve the ground better? The second question is, how can we have stronger and more focused work to join the many dots, to peel the onions underneath all the wonderful programmes the Minister listed, to peel the onion further to get to the root causes and then get better outcomes. For example, we need to prevent so many overlaps, so many groups doing the same thing and to ensure better outcomes in not just caregiver support, but also awareness building and so forth. Hence, I just want to seek the Minister's assurance. I want to thank the Ministries and everybody who has been helping out, for helping out.”
“I thank the Ministers; very grateful for the heart and hard work that both Ministries have put in. I speak as a disability service provider, a volunteer, a parent of a special needs adult and a parliamentarian. My worry is that the spate of unfortunate events concerning the recent two families will not be the last of it. Yes, it takes a village – all of us, the Government, disabilities agencies, families, volunteers. We need to take our place and organise better, to get better outcomes. I think when each party thinks that the other party should do it – whether the Government or somebody else – then no one will do it because no one wants to catch the ball alone. It is just too difficult. There are lots of things going on, quite a lot of overlaps, differing standards, noise and so forth. So, two supplementary questions; I seek the Minister's assurance. One, at the macro level, to share more strategic information, not just when things happen or in Parliamentary settings. Also, involve the ground better. Strategic information, such as sizing the issue, validating the planning assumptions of the Government Ministries, communicating plans ahead for inputs, ensuring the right partners are onboard and information, such as how many students or adults with special education needs or disabilities are flowing through the system. And what is the plan? What are the planning assumptions? Where do students go when they exit? What are their prognoses like? How are the current support models, especially in the mainstream schools where the two recent cases are cited? What can be done further to make it more effective? And what are all the immense challenges in the adult disability space?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask both the Minister and Minister of State about the overall prognosis and relevance of the physical IR business model. I have several reasons for asking. Number one is, with COVID-19, whether endemic or pandemic, there is a lot less travel, especially in business travel. So, I wanted to know, in terms of jobs created and the MICE industry and tourism management expertise that we were supposed to acquire as a result of the IR policy – how has this physical IR model actually benefited the Singapore economy. The second is that we all know that there is a rapid rise of online gambling. And I wanted to ask the Minister how the gambling duties for this rapidly rising source of gambling revenue are collected and whether more attention is applied to the space of online gambling because, actually, over the last 10 to 15 years, a lot of things have changed, in fact.”
“So, take heart, whether you are medalled or not. Of course, Pin Xiu is our pride and joy. But also all the others who have just made such a difference. I hope like what Jamus has said, let us take heed, take heart, the rest of Singapore, that we have this culture that is also supportive, whether our representatives are medalled or make it to the podium or not. As long as they have tried their best, I think that is part of our Team Singapore family. So, thank you. You have placed a small nation like ours on the world stage, you have helped our country punch way above our weight in this space. For that, we honour and salute you. Congratulations. [Applause.]”
“Make sports accessible, inclusive and prevalent for all persons with disabilities in Singapore and change the headline from what we always debate about after every major game, about disparity, to equality and to something more positive and exciting. In conclusion, Sir, let me return to Minister Edwin’s Motion of congratulating our beloved Team Singapore. Today, this House formally honour and thank the Olympians and Paralympians who did us so proud at the Tokyo Games. Medalled or not, you have accomplished a feat that many of us can only dream of achieving. We, who mostly merely cheered you in the comforts of our homes, watching our phone or TV screens, owe you, your families, coaches and support teams, we owe you much. So, take heart, whether you are medalled or not. As the former US President Roosevelt famously said in his speech "Citizenship in a Republic", he said this, it is one of my favourite quotes and I know that it is repeated by some coaches before they go for games, and part of the extract says this: "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly." Indeed, the credit belongs to you, our dear Olympians and Paralympians, who in your journey to sports excellence, must have tried, fallen, rose, tried again and again; and not many could have done that, not many could have seen that.”
“As Singapore strives to become more inclusive and as Singaporeans ask for more parity, they speak up more articulately about inclusion and they want more equality amongst differently abled sports talents, it is time to bite the bullet, to change the game. Do not wait for the Paris Games in 2024, in a few years' time, to revive this conversation and debate again. Let us start to rewrite the headline of the past decades, always comparing inequality in prize money for Olympians versus Paralympians; making it sound like the Government is heartless, Singapore is so heartless and not supportive of inclusion. As one of the advocates for the disabled, I know this to be far from true. In this regard, I call for the Government to weigh in, to facilitate the process to reimagine, to review and to resource not only the High Performance Disability Sports system but also to widen the sports participation, to widen the talent pipeline through greater sports participation. This is a happy occasion, but at another occasion, I shall ask for an update from the Minister to the Disability Sports Master Plan including the need for developing a dashboard and review of the structure and the system, so that there is parity in both form and substance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the time indeed has come. Singapore has adopted and ratified the United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to grant equal rights to the disabled. Our country has moved decisively in the last decade or more to narrow the gap between persons of different abilities in the important realms of life, in education, healthcare, transport, employment. We are still doing that, we still have not arrived, but we are doing that. So, let us make a statement in sports.”
“First up, Government, as the Minister has mentioned, the Singapore Government has always maintained its position to invest upstream in overall sports participation and then, in grooming sports talents to get to the podium at national, regional, global games under its High Performance Sports system. The Government has hitherto been reluctant to use public funds for what it calls post-podium awards, especially cash awards. So, that is one thing I found out. The second is this. The two cash awards schemes for medalists are the Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme (MAP) for the Olympians and then, the Athlete Achievement Award (AAA) for the Paralympians. They are administered by different NGOs or non-governmental bodies, SNOC and SNPC. They have different genesis, they started at different times and they have different scopes and features. The AAA for the Paralympians is managed by the Singapore National Paralympic Council (SNPC) for the para-athletes. Chairman is the ever-passionate Dr Teo-Koh Sock Miang. I think she is there. Dr Teo-Koh. The Olympians are governed by Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) chaired by none other than our also very enthusiastic Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin. Both NGOs separately negotiated for the prize awards at different times, much later for the para-athletes and managed to get quite different sponsorships. There are some features. For instance, under the MAP, a gold-winning Olympian may win $1 million but will not get more if he scores another gold medal. For the Paralympians, a gold-winning Paralympian, on the other hand, will earn a $200,000 award each time he or she wins a gold. The whole system is not quite neat at all and bears a review. Now, I have a call for action.”
“I thought it opportune to bring up the topic of a debate, or a controversy that some people have mentioned before on the difference between cash awards for medalled Olympians versus medalled Paralympians. Persons in the sector, in fact, quipped that this conversation, this debate over prize, always occurs every four years, often after the Games. The last was in 2016 after the Rio Games. Proponents calling for equality, or parity, in cash awards for medalists at the Paralympics and Olympic Games, often cite a few reasons: first, that the efforts put in by our sportsmen and women to prepare for the Paralympics are equal to, if not more intense than, the Olympics; two, that Singapore ought to emulate the spirit shown by countries that have equalised the awards, countries such as Japan, United States, Malaysia and the like. Others defending the current difference in awards cited that there is a difference in scope and depth and, sometimes, appeal of the two Games. I do not know about that, but there is a difference in scope, they say. And that private donors, and not the Government, are the ones footing the bill for the awards and, therefore, it is they who traditionally felt that the awareness and appeal of sponsoring disability sports is lower than that of mainstream sports, leading to a lower prize for medalled disabled athletes. So, those are the reasons. When I dug deeper into the issue to decide where I stand on this controversial issue, I found that there is more than meets the eye. For this happy occasion, I will just state some very brief background findings.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join Minister Edwin Tong in congratulating our Olympians and Paralympians here. I thought the Minister would have made a very good sports commentator, because he was so excited when he shared the journey and their feats. So, thank you, Minister, for being so enthusiastic. As the Minister has mentioned, behind every successful sportsman is that village behind them. I, therefore, also join the Government in commending all the wonderful families, caregivers, coaches, educators, volunteers, national sports agencies, SNOC, SNPC, SDSC, Chefs de Mission, SportsSG’s SSI, NYSI and so forth – as you can see, we are a country of abbreviated institutions. Many others, many institutions were involved in this journey to the Tokyo Games. As an advisor to The Purple Parade organising committee, I am really delighted that our Vice Chair Pin Xiu and member Maximillian had set foot again on the world stage, proudly representing Singapore and doing Singapore so proud. In the WhatsApp message that we are having, many of the Purple Parade guys are rooting for you and congratulating you. So, read that later. Watching the Games reminded me of the time when I was a young girl – that was a long time ago – chasing the Malaysia Cup even when I was studying for exams. Holding my books and watching the game on TV, admiring heroes such as the late Mohamed Noh. The national team did not always bring home the Malaysia Cup but I remember we were always proud of our then "Team Singapore". Sir, this is the month of The Purple Parade in Singapore when many supporters of the disability community visibly show their support for inclusion and celebrate the abilities of people with disabilities.”
“— and they just do not know where to get the answers. Thank you.”
“I thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I know it is really a very difficult time for everyone. We also want to support as much as possible, but I cannot help asking these two supplementary questions. Number one is, thank you for letting us know that Home Recovery now is a default option for COVID-19 positive residents. My questions are specifically for those who are vulnerable. What if home recovery is the default option but a resident is just not suitable for recovery at home? For example, in the Central district, we have a lot of rental flats where there is a lot of sharing of facilities like toilets and living rooms, with just one door for everybody to get through. What if the homes are just not suitable for home recovery? Or what if there are just very large families in some of these homes? The second supplementary question is this. Thank you to Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary for making it very clear that caregivers are allowed to accompany those who are vulnerable like the elderly who are not independent, the disabled young or old and so forth. As Members of Parliament, we often get questions that come fast and furious from residents. If the questions come directly to us, we always get responsive replies, especially when we write to MOH officeholders (POHs). But, in general, how does the public get to know that the caregivers can accompany the more vulnerable, especially if the MOH hotline is very stretched at the moment? So, what if quick responses are required —”
“I wonder if there is another more effective way of looking into beyond the ComCare line, to ensure that it is more effective. Perhaps looking at different ways of doing it, for instance, setting up call centres that are actually answered by real persons and not by a machine. So, all the above for the Ministry's consideration.”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I also pledge that organisations and ground partners, like our CDCs, will continue to work to assist the vulnerable in the community. A few supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Number one – obviously, there are many good programmes that are supporting existing vulnerable in the community. But looking at the communications channels listed by MSF, many people who want to help or who need help still would not naturally go to that official MSF channel. So, I wonder if the Ministry could invest even more aggressively and effectively in communications to reach those who need help and those who are willing or want to offer to help, whether in print or social media, or TV and channels and so forth. So, that is one, to invest more. The second one is to invest more in public education. There are many persons in the community, in the public, who, whatever their intentions are, have the habit of, for example, just taking a photograph or a video, and then posting it on social media, most of the time, without permission. This kind of effort actually does not render sustainable help to the persons in need. So, I think to discourage such habits which are actually not that effective and sometimes, not very respectful of those who need help, I wonder if the Ministry could consider investing even more in aggressive public education in this, so that, more can be helped in a more dignified way. My third supplementary question is on the ComCare helpline. I tried to call the ComCare helpline myself. I find that the response is in English and by a machine to re-direct perhaps due to the need to triage the needs.”
“Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned for my adult residents who are incapacitated, due to old age or birth or accident and so on, or have become incapacitated but they all are without an LPA. They and their families who have to decide on their behalf and look after them are often clueless and helpless. I understand that a process for the application and appointment for deputies has been put in place under the existing Act. However, the low level of awareness of the need and the process remains baffling to the main in the street. Usually, it is too late by the time they know about this and the process often takes too long, leaving the family in limbo and distress. While progress have been made to encourage deputyships for clients in disability organisations – I know such as MINDS for the intellectually disabled – there is still a sizeable population out there who need to know about the matters of deputyship appointments. They ought to urgently start the process of application and appointment, before it is too late. Hence, I urge the Government to allocate more resources, both financial and for Ministry to allocate more time, to similarly enable a faster, customer-centric and effective process for those who are now without mental capacity. In summary, Sir, the proposed amendments provide for welcomed changes to an otherwise more cumbersome system. I have listed four major concerns and provided recommendations for the Ministry’s consideration. Resources will be needed but they will be monies and time well invested. The cost of not investing in this important life planning tool will most certainly be higher later. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments.”
“The current Act states that the LPA CI must be either one, a medical practitioner accredited by the Public Guardian; or a practicing lawyer; or a registered psychiatrist. Just three professions. Findings in countries such as Hong Kong, for instance, have shown that many do not approach these professionals for various reasons: the cost or the perception of the cost; and the fear or discomfort of approaching or interacting with these experts. Legislation in England and Wales, of which the Singapore MCA is modelled after, provides for a "Certificate Provider" to be someone a donor knows well. So, I think that is a bit broad and general and I do not support that. But they also include professional persons such as one of the following: either a registered healthcare professional; a solicitor, barrister or advocate; a registered social worker; or an independent mental capacity advocate. So, the professional pool is larger than that in Singapore. Whilst technical qualification is a proxy of a CI’s competency, it is only one of several competencies required of a good CI. A responsible CI should be able to and is interested in detecting the donors who are vulnerable, unduly pressured or influenced into giving power to certain donees. Why, for example, can certified, accredited social workers or psychologists not be accredited by the Public Guardian? Why can they not be included in the pool of CIs, so that the pool can be enlarged for choice by the donor? I recommend that the pool of CIs be enlarged. Concern four and the final concern: families of persons who lack or lost mental capacity and are without LPA.”
“In an IMDA survey of 2019, it was revealed that 58% of residents above age 60 are Internet users compared to 89% for all residents – a percentage-point difference of about 30%. Then, there are persons with disabilities who are differently abled and they are different. Some may have mental capacity but will still need help to understand and complete the process of LPA application and registration. Some may not pass the test for full mental capacity as stated in MCA. For example, that is to understand, to be able to retain information, to weigh decision and to communicate. They and/or their caregivers will need advice and guidance on whether LPAs are relevant or whether deputies should be appointed to protect them. There is an obvious need to seriously invest in a track for the vulnerable. I suggest that the Ministry considers the following options to ensure that the vulnerable are included and protected. One, to set up specific LPA clinics at the major community centres staffed by trained professionals with technical knowledge and/or language fluency that is required. Much like the vaccination centres albeit at a smaller scale. These can be permanent for bigger towns for longer period or they can be mobile LPA clinics to serve smaller precincts. And second is to consider adopting a parallel run allowing for a co-existing physical and online system until our nation is more ready to go fully online in this matter. Concern three: Certificate Issuers. One important party to the process of LPA application is the Certificate Issuer or CI. The CI is a witness for the donor and certifies that the donor has the capacity to make an LPA and that there is no fraud or undue influence used to induce the donor to make the LPA.”
“In a 2015 study conducted by the Well Being of the Singapore Elderly or WiSE led by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), one in 10 people aged 60 and above may have dementia. In 2018, ChannelNewsAsia ran an article featuring more Singaporeans being diagnosed with dementia at an even younger age and even younger age. There is clearly an increasing number of Singaporeans at risk of losing their mental capacity. There is also an inertia to take the initiative by many to apply for an LPA. So, even if the expected number of LPAs is expected to rise to more than 30,000 with the proposed amendments, there is still a large pool of Singaporeans who need more than a nudge. A more aggressive and robust communications and outreach plan is in need. The current video example available to MSF and the other measures are obviously not enough. So, I strongly advise the development and implementation of a comprehensive communications and outreach plan covering: (a) different target audiences with demographics and so forth; (b) analyses of their communications style, the language, channels of communication; (c) ways by which they can be reached through an effective marketing mix or communications mix of TV, radio, print, grassroots workshops, volunteer workshops and incentive programmes. Concern number two: the vulnerable and the need to include and protect their interests. Sir, some members of society who most need an LPA are the least likely to apply for an LPA. They may be the less educated, not defined by one’s paper qualifications, who may not understand the concept or need for an LPA. They may be the less technically savvy who are averse to the use of Singpass, electronic signatures and so forth.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Mental Capacity Act. The amendments primarily provide for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPAs) to be made and registered online through the formation of an what the Parliamentary Secretary calls OPGO, an Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system. There are good reasons for this change: (a) to cope with the rising LPA volume, which has increased nine-fold from 2,681 in year 2014 to close to 25,000 in 2019; (b) to enable a faster and more convenient process – the change removes the need to physically print and submit hardcopies or affix wet-ink seals and signatures currently need for LPA deeds; (c) and the third good reason, the proposed amendments provide for new features to better store, search and retrieve electronic LPAs versus hard copy LPAs. New safeguards to check on donees and cybersecurity features are also added. These changes bode well for Singaporeans who were previously deterred by the longer and more cumbersome process and especially for those who are IT-savvy and who can self-help. However, I would like to highlight four concerns which I hope the Ministry can address. Concern number one: the underlying inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA. Sir, I fear that the amendments will not address the underlying cause of inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA. Despite the encouraging increase in the number of LPAs registered – more than 20,000 annually in recent years – the total number remains relatively low compared to the population which is eligible. The data bears testimony, supports this concern. More than one million Singaporeans are above the age of 55. More Singaporeans are expected to be hit by dementia or loss of mental capacity gradually.”
“Most donors do not fund important corporate services, but these are essential for compliance, for growth and for governance. Help the larger SSAs safely generate better returns from their reserves, which are sometimes large because of the need to save to pay for recurring high-cost services such as day activity centres. Consider setting aside a percentage of Singapore Savings Bonds or infrastructure bonds for the larger SSAs. Sir, in conclusion, the only way to predict the future is to help create it. The disability sector needs as much help as it can get. The Government cannot do it alone. Embracing People of Different Abilities”
“The last published third Enabling Masterplan (EMP3), for instance, was not updated with the most significant change of our time—the COVID-19 pandemic. Next, on strengthening disability social service agencies, or SSAs. Many of the early intervention, special education and services for PWDs are run by these social service agencies. They provide disability expertise and harness the support of the community assets. Beyond programme grants, the Government has been supportive through measures such as the Government matching of charity donations through the 250% tax exempt benefit and the latest Change for Charity initiative. I call for the Government to provide more tailored support to its partner SSAs. Smaller SSAs will need greater support in resources such as shared services in fundraising, human resource, volunteer management and financial reporting and compliance. Larger SSAs too will need support. It is a fallacy that larger charities do not need help nor that they will naturally do well on their own. Just as Deputy Prime Minister Heng has encouraged the support of large local enterprises (LLEs), so should the same be considered for these larger SSAs. Some specific ways of support include the following. Identify their needs and support larger SSAs as they scale or develop deeper capabilities to move into new essential territories. Seed and better support the social enterprises of these SSAs so they can help meet targeted social bottom lines that are important for the community such as jobs in sheltered or supported worksites. Next, pay or co-fund corporate services such as the CEO and key financial, technology and human resource positions so that these SSAs can focus on and excel in their core services.”
“Mr Chairman, in the Parliament Adjournment Motion I filed in October 2020, I called for society to change the way it views persons with disabilities, or PWDs. I called for several key gaps to be addressed, for more progress reporting and for more inclusion of the voice of PWDs in policy-making. I wish to speak on two other topics today. First, on Enabling Masterplans for the Disabled. The Singapore Government has supported the development of three five-year Enabling Masterplans for the Disabled. These plans list recommendations to enable PWDs to realise their potential and to become integral and contributing members of society. The current plan will be expiring this year and a new one is expected. I would like to seek the latest update for the current third Enabling Masterplan. Next, I would also like to propose suggestions for the next Enabling Masterplan. The current Enabling Masterplans take a life-cycle approach and cover general disability issues. But the needs of different disability groups are not homogeneous. I hence propose that the next masterplan also incorporate the inputs of each major disability group. The autism group, for example, where I help and volunteer, has just completed their own enabling masterplan, which I hope will be supported by the Government and the rest of society. By encouraging each major disability group to take ownership, study the landscape, prioritise their top needs and invite solutions and partners, the national Enabling Masterplan will be all the more relevant and richer in content. Masterplans that are five years long also should be constantly updated and reported to reflect the latest achievements and challenges.”
“ComLinks are piloted to bring together various service partners to provide holistic solutions to vulnerable families with children. In Central District which I oversee, there are many elderly singles and couples living in rental flats. Can ComLink be scaled to include these households although the elderly, for example, are technically under MOH. Can Government give more resources to MSF so that can comb entire rental housing blocks and not only specific profiles?”
“Chairman, Sir, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, we witness many acts of kindness especially the lost, the least and the last in society. I work with some of the best social service professionals from MSF and social service agencies, grassroots and non-grassroots volunteers in my district. Despite this, there are still gaps in the last mile of social service delivery that need to be addressed. I will touch on three Cs – Coordination, communication and ComLink. Coordination. A common sight on the ground especially in rental housing estates is an overlap of services such as free distribution of food, masks, groceries, health screening and even home cleaning. During a recent long weekend before the Lunar New Year, I met six groups, some are regular and some are ad hoc, distributing lunch bento boxes to the same group of rental residents. Is there a more effective way of coordination so that there is less overlap, less wastage and better allocation of precious resources? Next, communication. Sir, it is not uncommon to read from social media anecdotes of vulnerable persons such as the homeless, tissue paper sellers and "beggars" sometimes outside places of worship where there are many kind devotees. Yet, from my work with many Social Service partners, including volunteer groups, such as Mummy Yummy, Homeless HEARTS and Keeping Hope Alive, I know that many current help channels do exist. Can the Ministry facilitate a national communication plan at both strategic and tactical level, so that many more know where to get help or to help signpost where help can be obtained? My CDC, of course, would be a willing partner. Finally, on ComLink or Communication Link.”
“Chairman, I have two questions for MOE for the Minister first. I would like to thank the Minister for assuring us that he supports the need to re-imagine education because of the fast and furious changes we are seeing. And that there will be few sacred cows – or stones! – that he will be not willing to turn and look at. May I ask the Minister to provide some details on what is next in re-imagining education and how do we get the map to show that indeed, the sum can be larger than the parts? And what about stones like PSLE which we have discussed much in the past? And how to turn, for example, to build on strengths of some of the tuition centres so that parents, families and students do not have to rely so much on tuition centres. That is first clarification. The second one is for the Minister of State Sun Xueling. I have three questions. One is, why would students with mild intellectual disability (ID) with no other conditions, why cannot they be included into mainstream schools, for example? So, that is one. Two, can the Minister of State comment on my request for joint visioning for SPED schools of the future? And also, to ask whether MOE would consider looking into piloting lifelong learning SPED schools which might improve the landscape and the outcomes for students with SEN needs in SPED schools.”
“Finally, on Special Education, or SPED, schools, which are run in collaboration with disability social service agencies, or SSAs. Many SPED students in SPED schools need a longer pathway or runway to learn both literacy and life skills. The runway is even longer with the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. More than the rest of their peers, SPED school students badly need lifelong learning. Recent years saw interesting developments in the special education sector: (a) an increasing number of SPED schools in Singapore; (b) an increase in secondment of MOE career mainstream principals to run special schools; and (c) an increase in MOE headquarters' SPED management, control and reporting requirements. Tight governance, compliance and reporting are all very critical matters whenever resources, public or community, are expended. But for especially the SPED sector, where challenges abound, the Government needs to find a better way to bring out the best in its disability charity partners and the community assets that the latter can harness. I have three suggestions for MOE's favourable consideration: (a) conduct a joint visioning exercise amongst key stakeholder groups on the SPED schools of the future; (b) develop alliances for action to effectively look into how the sector can innovatively better the education and life outcomes for these students; and (c) design and pilot lifelong learning SPED schools with willing partners and sponsors for the major disability groups. I look forward to MOE's considered and favourable response. Para Sports Education in Schools”
“Sir, over the last 15 years, MOE has been paying increasing attention to and investing in students with special education needs, or SEN. This is deeply appreciated. About 20% of students with SEN attend some 19 Special Education, or SPED, schools. The rest, 80%, attend mainstream schools in Singapore. A proportion of these students then move on to Institutions of Higher Learning, or IHLs. First, on students with SEN at the IHL level. Sir, internships are vital to IHL students, offering them work exposure and boosting their chances of obtaining future employment. Many students with SEN find challenges in securing internship opportunities to get the authentic work experiences that they need. Without proper support, their chances in securing and completing the internships are low. I, therefore, seek to find out the success rate of securing and completing internships for students with SEN in IHLs and how MOE is supporting the institutions and these students. Next, turning to mainstream Primary and Secondary schools. Students with SEN in the mainstream schools follow the national curriculum set by MOE. Their eligibility for the next level of education often weighs heavily on their academic scores and the academic subjects understandably take precedence during curriculum time. Teachers and supporting Allied Educators often give the feedback that there is insufficient time and expertise to build and coach these students in non-academic life skills, which they often badly need. Can MOE update on its plans to provide more support so that students with SEN in mainstream schools are better prepared for their next phase of life – either to the IHLs, the next level of learning, or for work? Is there another model different from the current model that might work?”
“I totally understand the wisdom of not throwing the "baby out with the bathwater". But in the face of changes that come so fast and furious, there is merit to consider some disruptive innovation. Therefore, I ask MOE to conduct a national exercise to answer the question of, "What would be the ideal education system for Singapore, if we were starting from a clean slate?" Citizenship Education”
“Locally last year, education experts such as Dr Varaprasad and Dr S Gopinathan shared a similar vision of a future education for Singapore – one that is tailored to the individual, learning anytime, anywhere and at any age. They dreamt of an end to high stake state exams, physical classrooms and teacher-led mass learning. Indeed, if that were the model of future education, then many concerns raised here and outside of this House such as class sizes, excessive tuition, PSLE, Mother Tongue scoring and so on – are issues surrounding the current education model. Past education reviews such as the PERI – the Primary Education Review, the Secondary School Review, ASPIRE, and even Special Education Reviews; were mostly fine tuning of the current system whilst retaining the same structural pillars. Alas for me, the true train 10 years school system without the PSLE is still a pipe drink for me. Dr Prasad and Dr Gopinathan, both former MOE staff, concluded that it would be challenging to transform Singapore's education system for the very reason that it is so well-established. They spoke of the difficulties of reforming a well-established and well-polished education system due to legacy and structural rigidities; and how even making incremental changes will require changes across a very vast, complex system and overcoming resistance from many stakeholder groups. But Chairman, I call upon the wisdom of Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen's renowned work on innovation. The good Prof convinced many senior leaders, some of whom are in our Government, that even the most outstanding companies with established products can become irrelevant unless they know how and when to abandon traditional business practices. Hence, the need for what he calls, "disruptive innovation".”
“Chairman, Sir, "What would be the ideal education system for Singapore, if we were starting from a clean slate?” This is the question I would like to ask MOE. The world of teaching and learning has been disrupted, like never before. The COVID-19 pandemic threw us a curveball. Thankfully, education technology that the MOE has, such as the Student Learning Space and the Personal Learning Devices (PDL) they had in mind, were already in the works for use by the students. COVID-19 had significantly compressed the timeline to digitise education; and ground challenges like educator, student and family readiness are not uncommon. In higher education, further disruptions are expected. Burning Glass Technology, a consulting firm that analysed close to a billion job postings and resumes in 2019, reported that good future jobs are "hybrid" jobs – more complex and multi-disciplinary. A good mobile app developer, for instance, needs to understand not only programming coding, but also user interface design, content and marketing. The demands of a hybrid job market, for instance, makes cross learnings across departments and disciplines, especially in higher education, not only important but urgent. The call for change is widespread. In the United States, Khan Academy's Sal Khan, who was the visionary ahead of his time in creating individualised online student learning free, called out the need to: one, make available personalised and tailored education at a mass scale, citing a list of good quality online resources developed in the US; two, empowering parents and teachers as better partners for education; and three, uplifting every student at every stage of life, including the adults.”
“Chairman, I just have a clarification for Minister Indranee. I was asking for a bit more flexibility and more liberalisation of the immigration policy for the foreign spouses of Singaporeans. They are either widowed or abandoned. Minister mentioned just now, and I wanted to seek clarification, that these spouses who are widowed or abandoned, the Minister mentioned that they would only get long-term visit pass until the Singaporean child is 21. Is that correct? Because if so, by the time they can apply for PR will be actually quite late. And many of them would have Singaporean roots and the children and the families would all be here. So, I think it would make sense to provide them the PR or citizenship status. I am just seeking clarification on that.”
“I seek Government’s careful consideration to include them and their children as resident Singaporeans. The burden and stress they have to pay, sometimes in the form of very high school fees and healthcare costs, should be relieved. I propose that there be more flexibility and leniency in granting both PR and citizenship to families such as them. National Population and Talent Division”
“Consider providing free universal infant care and child care up to the age of seven. And next, for couples who are willing and unable or find difficulty in conceiving: one, provide a greater range of support measures of fertility care and education; two, study carefully and consider addition of new fertility techniques such as egg freezing into the slew of assisted reproduction measures. And for couples who are able to conceive but are reluctant or unwilling, provide respective and effective platforms for more inside-out education and sharing – dare I say, counselling – services for them to consider parenthood. And next, on the immigration policy of Singapore, through better supporting transnational families with one Singapore Citizen parent. Sir, I am deeply empathetic to residents of mine who are affected by the very strict and I know well-intended immigration decisions of our Government. Qin Hao, the stepson of my resident, came to Singapore only in his teens when his mother remarried here. He cannot speak very good English, but a really good boy. He tried very hard to catch up with his English proficiency and worked very hard in school and later went to ITE. He was a diligent community volunteer. I helped support part of his ITE education but alas, when he reached 21 years of age, he had to leave Singapore. His mother, brother and stepfather are all Singaporeans. They are separated. In other families, foreign women either widowed or abandoned by their Singapore spouses with children, are not assured of their stay in Singapore when they apply for PR or Singapore Citizenship, due to our strict migration policies. They have either a mix of children born locally and/or children from their past marriages.”
“The TFR for resident Singaporeans stands at 1.14 as at 2019, the lowest registered in Singapore so far. But the developed countries all over the world struggle with low birth rates. A case in point is South Korea which has TFR lower than Singapore. Since 2006, South Korea was reported to have spent almost US$250 billion on mostly cash schemes such as medical subsidies for pregnant ladies, cash for each baby born and for raising the child till he was one, and monthly allowance for families with children under seven. However, South Korea still has a very lacklustre track record in terms of TFR, mainly due to the lack of desire to marry amongst the young people and also, their decision for alternate lifestyle choices. It is obvious external outside-in strategies such as cash incentives are insufficient and they would have to be balanced with a strong dose of inside-out effort to shift social mindsets. I seek the consideration of Government to the following suggestions to both increase TFR and our resident Singapore population. One, to encourage earlier marriage, consider offering support and grants to organisations with larger staff sizes and especially gender-dominant sectors like nursing, teaching, the army, to create opportunities, dignified, respectable opportunities for interaction; for example, in sports, in learning, or in forming interest clubs. Second, also to encourage parenthood for those who are married, consider the following measures. For couples are willing and able to conceive, introduce even more generous housing priority benefits. Consider second timers, for example, for HDB flat priorities and also assure couples and all of this Interim Rental Flat that they will need before they get their flat.”
“I have to say that I am probably the only full-time Mayor. That is because the Prime Minister feel that I am running the largest district here – 23 divisions. My fellow Mayors are all double hatting or triple hatting sometimes; and so I do not know whether you consider them full-time Mayors or not. But I do know that they only get one pay. So, I think that is the current situation. So, I do not know whether you consider them full-time or part-time. But I am probably guilty of being the only full-time Mayor and I take it that that is why I do some national initiative projects as well. And other Mayors, please feel free to speak up.”
“When Prime Minister Lee graciously created the role of the Leader of the Opposition, much to the surprise of Mr Singh himself, did Mr Singh not accept the role when asked, and the office and the research assistant and the salary and try to do his best to be relevant too? Singaporeans also ask what the role of the Leader of Opposition in our Parliament is, under the circumstances that all nine of the elected Opposition Members of Parliament, all one single Party. What has been different? Nonetheless, I want to still thank Mr Pritam Singh for bringing up the subject of CDCs. His comment on the CDCs' "relative absence" in the public mindshare has also given us some food for thought. Perhaps, the biggest mistake the CDCs made was not to have better publicised the work we do. But the real work is in the work. How much publicity does one have to put out just to justify one's existence and to prove one's value-add? The real work is in the work and the people we benefited. So, I hope that there are no attempts to politicise the good work of the CDCs and especially our partners. [Applause.] Would Singapore society be worse or better off without the CDCs? Sir, this is a question that is best answered by the beneficiaries of the work done by the CDCs. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]”
“The Purple Parade is Singapore’s largest movement to support inclusion and to celebrate the abilities of persons with disabilities. The disability cause has been supported by Central Singapore CDC since 2013 and is one of its signature initiatives – perhaps still unknown to some. But many of the participants are not people with disabilities. They are people who believe in the cause and they joined us. The Purple Parade reached out to over 10,000 participants annually and connected over 200 corporate and community partners – MNCs like Apple, HP and so forth, local Statutory Boards like the Building Construction Authority (BCA), LTA, MSF, MOE, SMEs, large local enterprises, schools and more than 40 disability organisations – every year. And we have just a small team to work on this. And how we did this was with so many partners. The COVID-19 pandemic did not stop the Purple Parade and it went online for the first time last year and continued to receive very encouraging support – again, made possible by the strong network cultivated by the CDCs over the years. I have been an active volunteer in the disability sector but I do not think I can pull off the Purple Parade without the support of the CDCs and my fellow Mayors. I am not even certain that there will be a Purple Parade, if not for the CDC. Sir, I can take another Budget Day to share what the CDCs do. Mr Pritam Singh's accusation that the Government is trying to find some way for the CDCs to be relevant by asking them to manage the CDC vouchers scheme, is belittling the CDCs and their partners. There is nothing to be ashamed about making sure one is always relevant and can add value, as times change especially.”
“We have developed programmes through innovative solutioning and collaborations with partners to better serve target residents. Some of the more signature district programmes include – let me name just a few on behalf of my fellow Mayors: (a) North West CDC’s Club 100 which has close to 800 regular donors collectively contributing $1 million a year towards the Northwest Food Aid Programme which benefits low-income households in their 19 divisions; (b) South East CDC’s famous WALK FOR RICE @ South East in which rice and oats are donated to the district’s vulnerable families, for every 300 metres that participants walk or run; (c) South West – under Ms Low Yen Ling – South West CDC’s ADOPT @ South West leads more than 100 corporate and community partners to uplift the vulnerable in social wellness, healthcare, home safety, education and enrichment; (d) North East CDC’s Project Refresh, led by Mayor Desmond Choo, which supports more than 10 volunteer agencies and have refurbished close to 400 households; activating close to 3,500 corporate volunteers; (e) For Central Singapore district, my CDC, with which, of course, I am most familiar – there are 52 actually in the suite of programmes we have – let me name a few: (a) Ready for School Cheques, vouchers donated by Far East Organisation to relieve cost of starting school for 12,000 students in the rental households; (b) The holiday Digital Bootcamps sponsored by UOB for 2,000 students so they would not be overly affected or left behind by any digital divide; (c) Pan-district projects like The Purple Parade – and I thank Members of Parliament who have joined in this Parade – which is supported by all five Mayors and CDCs. Speaker is always supporting as well, thank you so much!”
“With these networks, the five CDCs were able to quickly roll out, during the pandemic between February and October 2020, close to 70 local district initiatives that served over 676,000 beneficiaries. A recent example is the CDC Student Meals. Within 10 days of the Circuit Breaker, the Mayors received ground feedback that vulnerable students who used to go to the school and received free school meals in school, might not be able to afford meals or might be deprived of free meals during the Circuit Breaker. We sprung into action with a lot of help from the community, we garnered support from corporate partner Grab Singapore, raised funds from a philanthropist introduced by a friend and put in place an initiative to give out e-food vouchers to students in rental flats. The agility and ability to garner resources are one of the CDCs’ uniqueness because we are not part of the big Ministry and we are on the ground with a small team but that is how we remain agile. Over the years, the CDCs have also championed the culture of giving back to the society. We have regular platforms to foster the spirit of giving by individual volunteers, individual donors, businesses and other partners, either for existing programmes or new ones co-created with our partners. Donors, such as Far East Organisation, United Overseas Bank, StarHub, MayBank, Ngee Ann Kongsi and Kwang Ming San Temples, are but some of the donors that the CDCs were able to approach for our districts' residents. Last year, the CDCs drew on their networks to raise $12.3 million, in cash and kind. The value of the CDC structure, although within the People’s Association, is its relative agility and ability to respond and develop programmes in the district faster than a bigger Government Ministry.”
“On the work of the CDCs, as I have said, the CDCs operate at the district level and continue to be called upon to support national initiatives, such as the CDC vouchers scheme I have mentioned. We also do other things, support other national initiatives. For instance, many of us Mayors are very in support of the lifelong learning culture and SkillsFuture movement of Singapore. In fact, a total of 4,819 free SkillsFuture Advice workshops run by the five CDCs had reached more than 127,000 participants in the last three years. During COVID-19, the five CDCs quickly acquired online capabilities and aggregated resources from Government and non-Government agencies, such as MOE’s SkillsFuture Singapore (SFS) and MOM’s WSG, NTUC's e2i, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and private training companies as well. This network, assembled by the CDCs, helped residents navigate the SkillsFuture landscape for them to stay relevant and find jobs during the pandemic. In fact, in one week last year, the partners managed to reach out and connect over 250,000 viewers online and more than 6,000 of them joined in the online SkillsFuture workshops. So, that is one of the examples where the CDCs support national initiatives. CDCs work at the district level, complementing the work of the grassroots and the Government Ministries, but, more importantly, they are active in the non-grassroots space. The CDCs keep in regular touch with non-grassroots players, such as the district’s business and corporate community, the social service agencies, schools and Institutes of Higher Learning, to name some.”
“Details will be announced once they are ready. I hope that heartland merchants from all the constituencies of Members of Parliament of this House, including Hougang, Aljunied and SengKang GRCs, will join the CDC Voucher scheme so that both merchants and more residents will benefit from it. Next, I wish to speak on the role of CDCs and Mayors. The idea of the CDCs was first mooted by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1996 as part of his vision of a "tightly-knit, compassionate and self-reliant community in Singapore, with the more able in society helping the less able". Unlike Government Ministries, which have very focused functions and missions, CDCs are geographic district-based entities. It is another way to serve citizens who need help. The key mission is to assist, bond and connect. For many years, the CDCs focused primarily on "assisting" and are known mostly to the lower income households for administering, because they administer the Government’s financial assistance schemes. This administration has since been taken over by MSF’s Social Service Offices or SSOs. Although the SSOs are now administering the financial assistance schemes, CDCs continue to assist in different ways. At the district level, CDCs perform duties that grassroots or Government Ministries are not quite set up to do – effectively, three functions – A, B and C: (a) Aggregating – finding out – aggregating the needs and distributing resources at the district level; (b) Building capability for our residents at the district level; and (c) Connecting all the players who are willing to help in the community.”
“Instead, merchant and hawker associations are reached by tapping on a network that is organised by the CDCs that comprise CDC and CC staff, contract staff, grassroots volunteers and national bodies, such as the Singapore Federation of Merchants’ Associations and its subsidiary, the Heartlands Enterprise Singapore (HECS). Sir, Mr Singh’s suggestion to have the CCCs or grassroots volunteers run this multi-million help scheme is either ignorant of or insensitive to the reality on the ground. Grassroots CCCs are not set up to run schemes of this magnitude. In the last year, in fact, many grassroots volunteers were quietly helping in the massive distribution of free sanitizers, free meals, millions of face masks and the Trace Together Token. Even today, they are knocking on doors to encourage residents to go for their vaccinations to get the herd immunity that Singapore would need to keep us safe from COVDI-19. In any case, the CCCs or the grassroots are not set up to organise schemes, such as the CDC Voucher Scheme. Finally, Sir, back to some of the questions that Mr Singh has brought up on the operation of the next tranche of the $150 million worth of CDC vouchers. This third tranche is intended, of course, to help the residents and the heartland businesses as well. But it is also intended by Deputy Prime Minister Heng and MOF to thank everyone for their support during the COVID-19 period and also to celebrate hawker culture. The tranche is now more than seven times the initial two exercises – due to one key reason. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and his team had listened and decided that the vouchers would be extended to every Singaporean household, regardless of public or private dwelling. The CDCs are still working on the processes, cost and timeframe of the scheme.”
“Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I stand in support of the Budget. The hon Member of Parliament Mr Pritam Singh asked about the CDC Vouchers Scheme and the role of CDCs and Mayors. I am one of the Mayors and representing the Mayors now. Let me start with the CDC Vouchers Scheme. The CDC Vouchers Scheme was conceived for two purposes. One, to help Singapore households defray the cost of living and, two, to support local businesses, especially those in the heartlands. Supporting two target groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic – residents and heartland businesses. The first tranche of $20 million was rolled out last year to lower and middle income households, to much success. With that good support, the CDCs recently rolled out another $20 million of CDC Vouchers – what we called Tranche 2 – in January this year. More than 7,000 merchants have participated in the scheme and there was good feedback. The scheme went beyond the "neighbourhood mom-and-pop shops" that were suggested by the Workers’ Party’s Mr Png Eng Huat. In fact, the range of shops covered the smaller supermarkets, coffee shops, wet and dry market stalls, confectionaries, bakeries, medicine shops, hair salons and so on. So, Mr Singh should have found out that NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Siong and Giant were not included, right from the start. The function of the CDCs in the Vouchers Scheme is clear. From scratch, the teams organised the resources, communicated the scheme and got as many merchants as possible to sign up and to make full use of this well-intended help scheme. Unlike what Mr Singh mentioned, local bodies like the grassroots Consultative Citizens’ Committees (CCCs) do not always have market and shop representatives sitting in their committees.”
“I have actually gone to the exhibition at HDB and studied the Community Care Apartment model. I am very impressed and very excited as well. My supplementary question is related to Member Ng Ling Ling's question. I think it is such an excellent model and it should be scaled. I am asking if the Minister would consider working with the disability organisations to pilot this model. Because the current options for residential living for persons with disability is not a continuum – you either stay at home with your own parents who are also ageing themselves, or you go to a residential home which is a very costly model. There is also merit to develop a continuum of living models so that folks can afford and benefit from different tiers of service packages. I think it just make sense for persons with disability who are younger than 65 years to be given that option; so that the principle of more self reliance and joint responsibility can be manifested in the new options. I hope that the Minister will not wait until the pilot is over, but to try this model with persons with disability who will be able to live more independently – do a pilot of the pilot.”
“I urge this House and the rest of Singapore to support this call to ensure that all PwDs can fully participate in our society and they can all lead dignified and meaningful lives in our society. [Applause.]”
“Eric Chen, in a recent letter to the Forum, urged Singapore to empower PwDs to stand as equals. He cited, "Many of us understand inclusion as a dependent relationship where abled people are responsible for supporting people who are disabled and to integrate them into mainstream." Eric then said that, "PwDs are seen as being unable to contribute meaningfully to determine their own future; and plans are undertaken by abled people on their behalf". He asked for Government to form – and these are his words – to form an "alliance with service providers, including employers, care-givers and disabled people" so that disabled people too can form part of the inclusion blueprint. Not every PwD will make a good leader. But that goes for the rest of us. We should therefore develop as many leaders as we can identify in the disability community. And we must listen and include the voice of PwDs and their proxies in policy-making and implementation. In conclusion, Sir, I urge this House to treat PwDs as equal members of our society and to help work towards their full participation in the life of Singapore society. To do this, I summarise five changes need to happen. One, society's view of PwDs has to change. Two, gaps in provisions need to be addressed. Three, performance and progress must be no secret – they need to be reported and readily available. Four, the structure for policy-making and services need to drive collaboration and spirit of SG Together. And five, the voice of PwDs need to be included. Sir, Singapore has embarked on an amazing journey in the last 15 years to uplift the disability community. Some of us are born with disabilities and some of us will become disabled with age.”