Halimah Yacob
Singapore
“Thank you. I think that is certainly a very good idea and that is what we want to do and wish to do, to have the integration of the facilities. As the Member said, it is to encourage inter-generational bonding and support. In fact, we have already started one in Mr Seah Kian Peng's constituency.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification, and for his information, I have written twice to LTA. The answers have been negative. My question is, what is the alternative because the purpose of the overhead pedestrian bridge is for people to cross over but the elderly has difficulty crossing over?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really happy to hear about the immense investment in helping households cope with the rising cost of energy. There will continue to be households that, despite these assistance measures, will face difficulty in paying for their electricity bills.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister: if the problem in Japan is not resolved within the next few months, what measures will be in place to assist sectors that are affected, notably, sectors like electronics?”
“Madam, I have two concise clarifications. My first concise clarification is to ask the Minister about the very low unemployment rate. Given this very low unemployment rate, does MOM have strategies in place to help people who want to find jobs, not just those who are already displaced but those who are currently employed?”
“Madam, on behalf of the House, I would like to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive and detailed responses given. This year, the Ministry of Manpower did not have the highest number of cuts. That honour went to the Ministry of National Development.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,190 lines we hold for Halimah Yacob, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 24.
“The Minister is quite right in saying that there is a terrible confusion over the three different kinds of situations – the doctor-assisted death, euthanasia as well as AMD. Now that there is this confusion, I think this will stand in the way of people taking up AMD. What strategies and steps is MOH going to embark on in order to help resolve this confusion and push the agenda forward? Secondly, I would like to ask what other assistance can also be provided to caregivers? The Minister outlined three areas where attention will be given but there is not much said about how to assist caregivers to take care of those who are terminally ill.”
“Palliative care services and support for palliative care services are found in hospices. Could the Ministry of Health look into how to provide subsidies and more resources for palliative care in non-hospice setting? For the non-inpatient, ie, outpatient services for palliative care services, how are patients supported in accessing such care?”
“I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would like to ask the Minister why are there only six of the AMDs being put into effect out of 10,000 and why did the 16 revoke the AMDs that they made. And finally, could the Minister also look into how to step up publicity and outreach efforts so that there is a better understanding of the AMD? In particular, perhaps instead of the MOH fronting it, maybe MOH can facilitate those who have signed up the AMD to share the experiences as to why they are doing so, so that it appears to come from the people sector rather than the Government pushing it.”
“Finally, the feedback also is that the Government tends to look at the marriage and parenthood issue in a very piecemeal manner. It fails to understand that people are struggling not only to raise children but also to take care of sick, elderly parents as well. Giving childcare leave alone will not be sufficient inducement for those struggling to take care of the elderly sick. Would the Government consider introducing family care leave, which is already found in quite a number of countries? Sir, in conclusion, I agree with the Minister that these measures proposed under CDCA is not the solution. For women to have more babies, it will require the support of the Government, employers and society. Through these measures, the Government has shown its support for marriage and procreation. Employers could help by creating a supportive environment for the female employees who are pregnant or have young children. Supportive husbands who extend a helping hand at home certainly help to reduce the dual pressures that mothers faced at home and at work. The Japanese example, Sir, is insightful. They have similar provisions, providing generously to women but their fertility rate has not gone up because other factors are at work to discourage parenthood. I think we should look at such examples and examine as to what are the other factors that we need to look at in order to ensure that these marriage and procreation measures will truly be effective in achieving its goals. On this note, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“So, in this way, TAFEP through the TAFEC Centre hopes that we could do our part in contributing towards an environment where there is less discrimination against women who are pregnant or who have family responsibilities. Let me just touch on a couple of points, Sir. First, I would like to say I have a particular concern for women who are employed on contract work. It is very easy for companies to avoid payment of the maternity benefits by structuring the employment contracts as short-term contracts. In this way, they do not have to pay maternity benefits as the women's service is disrupted and they will not be able to qualify for the eligibility period. Could the Minister clarify what measures will be taken to prevent employers from resorting to such tactics to avoid payment of the enhanced maternity benefits? Has MCYS or MOM received complaints from women on such practice and how were they dealt with? Second, employers, particularly smaller ones, with greater cashflow problems have complained that reimbursement by MCYS only after an employee has consumed all her maternity leave, including leave that is taken flexibly, is too rigid as it could mean that, in some cases, they would get paid only after one year. Could MCYS consider reimbursing employers at shorter intervals, which is important for smaller companies? Third, there is some feedback from non-working mothers that they have not benefited much from the Marriage and Parenthood Package. They lamented that while they have heeded the Government's call to have more babies, they have not benefited as much as the working mothers. They feel that their loss is greater because they have to give up their jobs. Would the Government consider some benefits for these non-working mothers as well?”
“Our work is done through the Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment. Over 800 employers have now pledged support for fair employment and the Centre has made individualised visits to over 100 employers to assist them in the adoption of fair employment practices. Issues relating to discrimination are not straightforward and the Centre organises sharing sessions where the advocates in each pledging company can learn about the progressive practices of other employers. The Centre also runs popular recruitment and selection workshops to help employers and there is already a waiting list for this training. We are building momentum and last month, all the members of the Singapore Staffing Association also pledged their support agreeing not only to hire on merit for their organisations but also to promote fair employment practices to their clients. The Centre has also worked with SPH to persuade media advertising agencies on how to position a job advertisement that is not discriminatory. So, even as TAFEP enables employers and makes it easier to be fair, we are also making it more difficult for them to be unfair. By the end of this month, to further promote the adoption of fair employment practices, there will be a media campaign to challenge mindsets on what one looks for when one hires. At the end of the day, hiring on merit means looking objectively at whether the person can do the job and not the colour of one's skin or the wrinkles on the face or the number of children one has or is going to have. In February next year, we will also launch Singapore's first national conference on fair employment, which will bring together leading international experts to help in the practical promotion of fair employment practices in Singapore.”
“If you are an employer, you want a good job fit and people who will stay. Our workforce is changing and getting more diverse. Employers need to respond. Talent has choices. No employer thinks that they discriminate. Almost everyone thinks that they are fair and objective. But if you do not challenge your thinking and review your assumptions about job candidates, you may find that you are biased, whether in the job application form or in the interview process. It is not just going to hinder your ability to identify the best candidate but will also impact on what the candidates think of your organisation and what they are going to tell their friends about you as well. At the same time, employees too have a responsibility to their jobs. Employees should uphold a high standard of performance and should not expect employers to compromise these standards because of pregnancy or family responsibilities. They should also be flexible and work closely with their employers to help in the smooth transition and hand over duties to other employees who are covering for them during their leave period. Where possible, employees should be flexible in taking the last eight weeks of the maternity benefit, such as stretching leave over a longer period, taking half-day leave or work on a shortened work week. This would help to minimise disruptions to the company's operations. Employees also need to understand that only a thriving business will be able to generate and sustain good jobs and provide effective work-life balance. Sir, as the Co-Chair of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP), we have been doing a lot of work to address this issue of discrimination against pregnant women or those with family responsibilities.”
“Women who are in their second trimester can now seek redress if they are dismissed without just cause, and women need only to work for 90 days to be eligible for the paid maternity benefits. But, unfortunately, Sir, there is also a flip side to these changes. I have received feedback from our women leaders, who are concerned that married and pregnant women will be discriminated against, as some management had actually confided in them that they are now reluctant to employ women. On the other hand, I have also received feedback from employers, particularly the smaller ones, who are concerned about how to fill the vacancies when women employees take this extended leave. So, the real challenge, Sir, is how to implement the enhanced leave measures in a manner which is fair, sustainable and meet the needs of both employees and employers. There obviously cannot be one solution that fits everyone. There is also a need for greater consultation and discussion between the company and the female employees. This basically depends on the level of trust and confidence that exists in the company. Sir, I urge employers to see the long-term objectives of the enhanced benefits. Employers will have to face and respond to the challenge for more flexibility to address the needs of different segments of the workforce. In this way, they can retain talent, build a vibrant and motivated workforce and continue to grow their business. Employers should hire, reward, promote and retain employees based on their merit and contributions and not treat them unfairly because of their pregnancy or family responsibilities. Employers should realise that discrimination does not make good business sense. Even in a downturn, they need to find the right talent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The measures contained in this Bill to promote marriage and parenthood are generous and pro-family. I hope that they will indeed give the much needed boost to our fertility rate. I have received very positive reactions to these measures. The NTUC had discussions and workshops with a few hundred people, including the NTUC women's committee members, unionists and workers, and generally all were supportive of the enhanced leave and other benefits. These measures are really quite a quantum leap. From 1968 to 2004, our maternity benefits were only eight weeks and unions were even prohibited from asking for more than this even if employers were willing to give. Then in 2004, our maternity benefits were increased to 12 weeks and now to 16 weeks. Within a matter of four years, our paid maternity benefits have doubled. However, the enhanced maternity leave would be quite meaningless if protection of these benefits is weak or ineffective. Hence, way back in 2006, the NTUC had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Manpower asking for greater protection for pregnant women against arbitrary dismissals and unfair treatment. In particular, we were unhappy that pregnant women who were retrenched would not get any maternity benefits although the retrenchment was due to no fault of theirs. We were also concerned that only women who were six months' pregnant would be protected from dismissals without just cause. We had also asked for the Government to reduce the eligibility period for entitlement to paid maternity benefits. I am indeed very glad, Sir, that this Amendment Bill has incorporated these changes. Under the amendments, pregnant women retrenched in their third trimester will be paid maternity benefits.”
“MONEYLENDERS BILL "to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Moneylenders Act (Chapter 188 of the 1985 Revised Edition) for the regulation of moneylending and for matters connected therewith, and to make consequential amendments to the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter 65A of the 2000 Revised Edition) and the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Employment Act (Chapter 91 of the 1996 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Children Development Co-savings Act (Chapter 38A of the 2002 Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PROPERTY TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Property Tax Act (Chapter 254 of the 2005 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Sir, when the US Senate approved the bailout package of US$700 billion, it also imposed certain conditions and one of it is that the senior leaders of the bank should not be paid excessively. Is there no consideration of such a condition imposed in our bailout package as well? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a bailout (Laughter). In case the Member has not listened to the statement, this is a deposit insurance, a guarantee on deposits that we extended because we want to protect the banks in the financial system, and because we want to protect the financial system that is so critical to our economy and to all Singaporeans, and the preservation of our growth and our jobs. BILLS INTRODUCED INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 3 of the 1999 Revised Edition), the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition), the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Chapter 61 of the 1994 Revised Edition), the Co-operative Societies Act (Chapter 62 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (Act 22 of 2008)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Three supplementary questions, Sir. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister under section 27 of the Financial Advisers Act, it is required that financial institutions, if they want to sell investment products to investors, they will have to look into the risk profile of the investors. Would the Minister agree that selling investment products, which are very risky to retirees using their life savings, is not an act that has taken into account the risk profile of the retiree? How does the MAS ensure compliance with section 27 of the Act by financial institutions? My second question is this: the Minister had said that MAS would be investigating those instances of mis-selling. When will these investigations be completed? My third question: the Minister had also said that MAS will be reviewing the rules with regard to sale of high-risk investment products to retail investors. When will the review of these rules be completed and, in the meantime, what happens? Are financial institutions allowed to continue to proceed to sell these high-risk investment products to retail investors?”
“Sir, two follow-up questions. I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the weakening economic condition and the slowdown in growth, whether the Government would be considering restoring some of the public construction projects that it had earlier on announced that it would be delaying. Second question: could the Minister also give us an update on the inflation situation – what is the expected inflation rate for this year? And in view of the weakening job situation as well, what is the expected inflation next year?”
“At the same time, clarity as to the definition of financial service is important as the fine for violating the registration provision is quite punitive. Fourth, could the Minister of State clarify whether it is possible to exempt existing credit co-operatives from the requirement of section 39(3A) which imposes an additional criterion for individuals to qualify for membership in a credit society? Members of credit co-operatives must now belong to a field of membership consisting of a pre-existing common bond of association or community of interest. The concern of credit co-ops is that if this requirement is adhered to stringently they will suffer a membership decline. Is there any flexibility to exempt existing credit co-operatives or to give them longer time to comply with this requirement? Finally, could the Minister of State also clarify how the Ministry would be working with the co-operatives to assist them to comply with the new requirements, especially the smaller co-operatives with few or no full time staff? Many are already struggling to comply with the existing law and the requirements would add additional compliance obligations on them. What assistance would be rendered to them to enable them to comply with the new law? On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. 5.02 pm”
“Second, could the Minister of State update this House on the number of new co-operatives that have been established over the last five years and what resources have been allocated and initiatives put in place to promote the development of new co-operatives? Although co-operatives have existed since 1925, there are now only 87 co-operatives, a relatively small number compared to the potential for this sector to grow. Is the Ministry satisfied with this number? How many more new co-operatives does it expect to see established over the next few years? Third, could the Minister of State clarify on the meaning of "financial services" under section 16B(1), something which Mr Seah Kian Peng has also already touched upon. This provision prohibits credit societies from entering into partnerships, joint ventures or other arrangements with any person to provide any financial service other than the financial service or services which it is registered to provide. Does the restriction apply to all types of financial services, such as taking deposits, giving personal loans or hire purchase? Or does it refer to specific products, such as fixed deposits, housing loans, car loans or study loans? If the process of seeking approval is too onerous, it might stifle positive initiatives from co-operatives and prevent them from providing timely products or services that cater to the needs of their members. Could the Minister of State also clarify whether there will be guidelines issued to inform co-operatives on the criteria that will be used to approve such applications? This would ensure greater transparency and would ensure that credit co-operatives are better able to comply with the requirements.”
“Sir, although co-operatives are fundamentally social enterprises with a strong mission to advance the interests of its members, to survive and sustain its operations, every co-operative has to operate on the basis of modern business principles. One key requirement of good modern business practices is good corporate governance. Hence, the key thrust of these amendments, which is to help co-operatives raise the level of their accountability and governance, as well as to set a more risk-focused co-operative regulatory regime, particularly for the credit co-operatives, is a move in the right direction. It is necessary to maintain a right balance. If the law is too stringent, then it would kill the initiative for credit co-operatives which are essentially akin to the poor man's bank, saving many workers from the clutches of loan sharks, as the banks or financial companies are not interested in the small borrowers. But, if it is too liberal, then it may run the risk of exposing small depositors in these credit co-operatives to unwarranted losses. Sir, there are a number of clarifications that I wish to seek from the Minister of State over this Bill. First, could the Minister of State clarify whether there are measures in place to assist and address the needs of the smaller, less established co-operatives to grow and develop so that they can be more effective in taking care of their members' needs? There is a great disparity today in terms of the growth and development of co-operatives in Singapore and smaller co-operatives could benefit from a sustained programme that they can rely on for expertise, skills, marketing or any other form of help. Due to their small size, they may not be able to have access to such capabilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The last major amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act were done in 1980. Since then, there have been many new developments that have an impact on co-operatives. These amendments are, therefore, not only timely but also necessary. The first co-operative was registered in Singapore in 1925. Singapore has one of the more successful examples of co-operation in the world today. Indeed, with 1.7 million individual members, their impact and significance on the lives of ordinary Singaporeans cannot be under-estimated. The NTUC co-operatives became part of this movement in the early 70s, soon after the milestone 1969 Modernisation Seminar was held. Union leaders then decided to form co-operatives as a way of advancing our workers' welfare, particularly for our low-income workers. Since then, the NTUC co-operatives have helped in a major way to advance the agenda of co-operation in Singapore. The reach of the NTUC co-operatives today has gone far beyond that of its members, as evidenced by recent events. NTUC FairPrice, one of NTUC's co-operatives, plays an active role in helping Singaporeans deal with inflation. As we move ahead, co-operatives will continue to play a major role in helping people to improve their lives. It provides a vehicle for people to collectively combine their individual resources to benefit from economies of scale. But to do so, co-operatives cannot remain static but have to progress and expand its role to meet the needs of its members and to benefit from our economic growth.”
“Finally, Madam, could I also join the others in asking the Minister what steps will be taken to educate the public on the contents of this Act, eg, their rights to appoint the Lasting Powers of Attorney or to get appointments of the deputies. This is not a simple Act to understand but it benefits members of the public considerably. 6.34 pm”
“Member of Parliament, Mr Sin Boon Ann, in asking the Minister whether he could clarify why the Bill prohibits an undischarged bankrupt from being appointed as a donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney in relation to a person’s property and affairs but allows someone who has been convicted of fraud, theft, misappropriation or criminal breach of trust to be appointed as a donee of a person’s property and affairs. If the prohibition on undischarged bankrupts holding office as donees is because of the fear that they might be tempted to abuse their position by dipping into the coffers of the person lacking mental capacity, would not that same concern apply to those who have criminal convictions for theft, fraud, CBT or misappropriation? In fact, people can be made bankrupts for so many reasons and some of it may not even be due to their lack of integrity, as in the case of someone who stood as a guarantor for a friend who subsequently disappeared leaving him saddled with the debt, or someone whose business failed despite his best efforts and who lost a considerable amount of his own savings. Are these people who became undischarged bankrupts more reprehensible than or even as reprehensible as someone who has been repeatedly convicted and jailed for theft or other crimes related to property? If bankrupts are excluded, could the Minister clarify why these other convicted criminals are not similarly excluded? Likewise, could the Minister clarify why sexual offenders are not excluded, an important consideration, in my view, particularly if the person who lacks capacity is a woman?”
“Ensuring that whatever is done is in the best interests of a person is a key element of this Bill to prevent abuse, exploitation and decisions adverse to the person lacking in capacity. Section 6 elaborates what must be taken into account in order to determine what is in the best interests of the person. However, this definition is not too clear. A patient’s interest is reduced to the subjective "wishes and feelings" of the patient. No mention is made of the need to take into account interests in relation to the life and health of the patient. While these are not the only aspects of a person’s welfare, life and health are certainly important aspects that should have been stipulated in the law. Secondly, could the Minister clarify whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect the interests of the person who lacks capacity, particularly in relation to the extensive powers given to those appointed under the Lasting Powers of Attorney? The Bill gives significant powers to proxy decision makers and grants them legal status in the context of healthcare. There are, however, risks in giving such powers to those not medically qualified who are not like doctors held accountable for medical negligence, and who may even have a conflict of interest such as a financial expectation on the patient’s death. As presently drafted, the Bill gives proxy decision makers power without too much accountability. At the very least, there needs to be a prescribed duty of care and accountability in law for decisions taken by the donee in a Lasting Power of Attorney. The donee should be required to give due weight to a patient’s health interests, and not simply to the patient’s desire expressed at some earlier time. Thirdly, I join the hon.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. This Bill provides a statutory framework to protect vulnerable people, caregivers and professionals. It makes it clear who can take decisions in which situations and how they should go about this. The current law is restrictive as it lacks sufficient safeguards to protect those who lack the mental capacity to provide for their needs. The ambit of the current law, which covers only mentally disordered persons who are of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself or his affairs, excludes those who may be mentally sound but are incapacitated for a variety of reasons such as old age or sickness. The Bill provides a wider coverage. It provides all persons who lack capacity because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain. What is more important also is, unlike the old Act, the Bill covers functional incapacity as it talks about a person who lacks capacity in relation to a matter "if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to that matter". This is in contrast to the old Act which talks about a person "being incapable of managing himself or his affairs" which suggests that the Act could kick in only if there is general incapacity, that is, the person is incapable of totally handling himself in all regards. So, this Bill is certainly an improvement. However, there are a couple of points in this Bill for which I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister, particularly to ensure that there is adequate protection for the person who is mentally incapacitated. First, could the Minister clarify whether the existing definition of what constitutes the best interests of a person lacking in capacity is sufficient to protect his interest?”
“For a start, we should start an education campaign to raise awareness and stamp out prejudice and narrow mindedness. I think we owe it to our mentally disordered Singaporeans. I support the Bill, Sir. 3.30 pm”
“In the labour market, one big problem faced by mentally disordered people is the difficulty of getting a job as employers are not willing to employ them. Could they be provided with stronger support and more assistance? Sir, could the Minister also review the current situation where mentally disordered persons are excluded from MediShield coverage causing them hardship as their illness requires long-term treatment, particularly long-term hospitalisation? Sir, could the Minister give an update to this House on the progress made by the Inter-Ministerial Committee which was appointed last year with the task of rolling out a roadmap to tackle mental illness? What are the measurables and how have the lives of mentally disordered persons improved? Could the Minister also enlighten this House as to how much of the $88 million that has been set aside to implement this mental roadmap is allocated to funding the various VWOs that are running shelters and programmes for the mentally disordered as they are under-funded and under-resourced? Sir, in conclusion, this new Bill is but one of the measures that will help to provide for the better care and treatment of mentally disordered persons. However, nothing contained in this Bill can overcome the prejudice, stigma and discrimination that mentally disordered persons face everyday of their lives. It is this stigma that often prevents individuals from seeking treatment early when the chances of recovery are better. It is this stigma that prevents them from landing a job, renting a room or integrating with the rest of society. It is this stigma that often makes them feel like lesser human beings and affects their recovery. To remove this stigma and prejudice requires more than the law. It requires the effort of everyone.”
“Are police officers trained to handle people with mental disorders and how do they assess that a mentally disordered person is indeed dangerous to himself or others? Under section 8(4), the fine for a caregiver to produce a mentally disordered person for inspection by a police officer has been increased four times, from $1,000 to $4,000. Could the Minister explain the rationale for this four-fold increase in fines which would cause tremendous hardship to the caregivers, most of whom are already struggling to provide for their mentally disordered family members? So the question is: would increasing the fine help to address the problem or are we only trying to deal with the symptoms? Sir, could the Minister enlighten this House on what measures will be taken to increase the number of psychiatrists to put this Bill into effect? There are about 115 psychiatrists in Singapore, giving a psychiatrist-to-population ratio of about 2.6 per 100,000, which is low compared to other developed countries like the USA, which has a ratio of 13.7 per 100,000, the UK (11 per 100,000), and Australia (14 per 100,000). There is also a shortage across the whole range of mental health professionals: psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists, psychiatric case managers, medical social workers and occupational therapists? Can I ask the Minister what measures are being taken to recruit and train more of these staff as well? Sir, could the Ministry of Health also focus more on early intervention programmes as early treatment certainly makes a difference? The Early Psychosis Intervention Programme (EPIP) is a good start but more can be done, particularly in schools and at the workplace.”
“Compulsory community supervision and treatment are not only more humane but also provide a more holistic approach in the treatment of the mentally disordered as it complements the other treatment methods and provides the much needed community support for those released from institutional care. Could I, therefore, ask the Minister to study the feasibility of introducing compulsory community supervision and treatment? Sir, under section 5, visitors are now required to inspect a psychiatric institution only once in three months and not once a month as is required under the existing Act. Could the Minister explain how less number of visits would benefit the mentally disordered patients and ensure better protection for them? Also, under the new section 5, the visitors need not inspect every part of the psychiatric institution and see and examine every patient as is required under the existing law. Instead, under the Bill, visitors need to visit only any part of the psychiatric institution or see and examine any patients. Could the Minister clarify how this can be considered as an improvement since visitors are now needed to visit perhaps only a few patients and only some parts of the psychiatric institution? Sir, under section 7, a police officer is authorised to apprehend any mentally disordered person who “is believed to be dangerous” to himself or to others. Could the Minister clarify what constitutes dangerous behaviour? Could the Minister also clarify what procedures and protocols are in place for the Police to ensure that there are proper safeguards so that the Police can play a constructive and helpful role with respect to people with mental disorders during arrest?”
“How are the rights of a mentally disordered person protected from arbitrary exercise of power now that the powers of detention have been increased? Would the Minister consider establishing a Mental Health Review Tribunal, akin to the UK situation, to provide recourse to persons detained under this Act if they are unhappy with their long detention period? Sir, as an alternative to the involuntary detention and treatment of mentally disordered persons, could the Minister consider compulsory community supervision or treatment orders which are already commonly found in many developed countries? Such orders decrease hospitalisation and total hospital days when they are accompanied by intensive community-based treatment, which requires substantial commitment of manpower and financial resources, and I admit that. But these are less restrictive and would generally include outpatient treatment, day hospital treatment, partial hospitalisation programmes and home-based treatment. New Zealand, for example, has revised its mental health legislation to accord with the least restrictive principle. Under the New Zealand Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, when a court has ruled that the certification criteria (for involuntary treatment) have been met, “the court shall make a community treatment order unless the court considers that the patient cannot be treated adequately as an outpatient, in which case the court shall make an inpatient order”. The new Bill, Sir, does not provide for supervised community treatments at all as it focuses primarily on institutionalised care which is not the best alternative as prolonged detention infringes on personal liberty whilst not necessarily ensuring the desired outcomes in the treatment of the mentally disordered.”
“Sir, under section 10, a mentally disordered person can be involuntarily admitted into hospital for treatment or even if he admits himself voluntarily, the hospital is given the power to detain him longer. Section 10(5) provides that the hospital can detain him for an extended period of six months, which has been reduced from 12 months – I agree with the Minister – but section 13(3) provides for the mentally disordered person to be detained for up to 12 months if ordered by the Magistrate and this could be further extended. Involuntary detention in a psychiatric institution for a prolonged period has come under scrutiny in many jurisdictions as it restricts a person’s rights and there is also potential for abuse. The WHO recommended that where involuntary treatment is necessary, the patients and their families and/or personal representatives must have a right to appeal to a review body, tribunal and or court against the imposition of involuntary treatment. The UK is one example which followed the WHO's advice as it provides for a Mental Health Review Tribunal to review the appeals of a person detained in a psychiatric institution under the UK Mental Health Act. The Tribunal has the power to order the discharge of any patient who is involuntarily admitted if it feels that there is no need to do so. Could the Minister explain what recourse does a mentally disordered person have under this Bill to ask for earlier release from involuntary detention in a psychiatric institution? Has the balance in the new Bill been tilted too much in favour of protecting the public but which may in fact affect the rights of those with mental disorders?”
“Sir, let me share with this House the Australian example. In 2006, the Australian federal government allocated A$1.8 billion for the expansion of mental services over a period of five years. With this budget, the Australian government will fund 900 personal helpers and mentors to support those with serious mental illness live at home after their discharge from hospital. Carers will help those in need cope with everyday problems such as taking medicines and arranging accommodation. The funding will also expand support for accommodation provided to those with long-term mental illness. There is also funding for respite services for up to 15,000 families who care for relatives with severe mental illness or intellectual disability, with priority given to the elderly. So, Sir, the Australian example shows that they have adopted a much more community based, holistic approach towards treatment and care of mentally disordered persons. Now, Sir, I would now like to seek some clarifications from the Minister on matters related to the Bill. Under section 2, mental disorder will now cover not only mental illness but also "any other disorder or disability of the mind". This is very wide as it would also cover mental retardation (also known as mental handicap and intellectual disability) and personality disorders. In most countries, these categories are usually separated. Could the Minister clarify whether it is in the best interest of a person suffering from mental retardation or autism, for instance, to be subject to the same regulatory regime as a mentally ill person and be detained for a prolonged period in a psychiatric institution?”
“Another gap, Sir, in the treatment and care of mentally disordered people is after a person is discharged from hospital. He gets very little support from the community because there are just not enough step-down care facilities and services. Home care services and support for families taking care of mentally disordered family members at home are also limited. There are not enough community-based programmes to help in the continued rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. The few that exist run by VWOs like the Singapore Association of Mental Health (SAMH), the Hougang Care Centre and the Silver Ribbon, are under funded and under resourced. They need more funding support especially as some of them run residential programmes and the cost of living has gone up. We all know that lack of support to help people with serious mental disorders after their discharge from hospitals often leads to relapses. With every relapse and re-admission into hospital, there is a terrible cost to the Government and society as most mentally disordered people cannot afford private rates. Sir, the need for accommodation is another pressing issue for those who are mentally disordered. Three-quarters of the 1,600 patients in IMH have been there for at least three months. About 300 have been there for 10 years or more. Even VWOs are finding it hard to cope with the demand. In the Simei Care Centre, which was set up in 2005 to provide short-term rehabilitative care to the mentally ill, a number of their patients have stayed on for at least three years. At the Sunlove Home, 70 of the 207 patients have been abandoned by their families. I hope that the Ministry could re-examine the basis of its current funding to some of these shelters for the mentally disordered which is inadequate.”
“While the Bill makes it an offence for caregivers to ill-treat or neglect persons who are mentally disordered, it ignores the fact that the mentally disordered persons are at times the perpetrators of harassment and violence against their caregivers. With the rising cost of medical care, it is certainly not cheap for caregivers to provide for the medical needs of mentally disordered family members when medical care is often needed over a long term period. Caregivers too have a life of their own. They need to work and have other family members to take care of. Often, when there is a mentally disordered family member, caregivers face financial, mental and emotional burnouts. I have a young man, Sir, in my constituency who suffers from severe mental illness. He lives in a 3-room flat with his mother who works as a cleaner to support him. They are on financial assistance as the young man is unable to work due to the side effects from the medication that he is taking, sometimes a problem particularly with the older, cheaper variety that is commonly prescribed. His mother worries about who will take care of him when she is no longer around. I have another family with a son in his 30s also suffering from severe mental illness. Once he jumped down from a four-storey building and on another occasion he slided down the rubbish chute, on both occasions after hearing voices. He miraculously survived both episodes. His elderly parents now do not leave home without him. I wonder whether they could be charged for neglect under this Bill as on one of the occasions when the incident occurred, he was left alone at home when one parent was working and the other went to do some errands.”
“So, Sir, I was hoping to see a different approach being taken in our legislation in the treatment and care of mentally disordered persons. But I find that the Bill has fundamentally kept the same approach which can be summed up as one that is based on institutional care and is rules based. Quite a large portion of the Bill dealt with giving powers to the Police to arrest mentally disordered persons and powers to the Magistrate and the psychiatric institution to admit or further detain a mentally disordered person for treatment. The Bill also now seeks to increase the fine for family members who fail to provide for the proper care and control of a mentally disordered person. I am also concerned that while this Bill has strengthened the provisions to protect the public interest through a longer period of detention of a mentally disordered person, there is very little mentioned about protecting the rights of the mentally disordered persons. While I understand the need to protect the public, there is also a need to protect the rights of the mentally disordered persons from unnecessary and prolonged detention that will deprive him of his freedom. I note that there is greater clarity now under section 22 on punishments for those who ill treat a patient in a psychiatric institution but more can be done. While the Bill, Sir, wants caregivers to assume greater legal responsibility for the care and maintenance of mentally disordered persons, there is little support for caregivers in the community to perform their role. Caregivers need greater support as they often suffer as much as if not more than the mentally disordered person whom they are taking care of.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified mental illness as a major health issue that will drain the coffers of many countries. In Singapore, too, we see a steady increase in the number of people suffering from mental illness. In 2006 alone, IMH treated close to 33,000 patients for mental illness in its outpatient clinics. A rapidly ageing population has added to the complexity as there are now more dementia cases. It is, therefore, in our interest to ensure that we have a proper legislation in place before the situation worsens. I, therefore, welcome this new Bill. It is indeed timely for us to review the existing law to ensure that it is up to date and relevant. The Mental Disorders and Treatment Act that this Bill seeks to replace was passed in 1952 and seriously needs updating. According to the WHO, "progressive legislation can be an effective tool to promote access to mental health care as well as to promote and protect the rights of persons with mental disorders". However, according to the WHO, "in some countries where legislation has not been updated for many years, mental health legislation has resulted in the violation, rather than the promotion, of human rights of persons with mental disorders. This is because much of the mental health legislation initially drafted was aimed at safeguarding members of the public from "dangerous" patients and isolating them from the public, rather than promoting the rights of persons with mental disorders as people and citizens. Other legislation permitted long-term custodial care of persons with mental disorders who posed no danger to society but were unable to care for themselves, and this too resulted in a violation of human rights".”
“Supplementary questions, Sir, for the Minister. Firstly, in view of the increased cost faced by hospitals and to ensure that hospitals can remain affordable, will the Government consider increasing the grants to hospitals? And, secondly, how many patients have asked for payment by instalments?”
“In fact, I think all the four MPs are more than able to take care of their needs, whether it is on town council matters, whether it is on housing matters, or whether it is on other matters. So, I think as far as the Jurong GRC residents are concerned, the level of service to them is completely not affected and, at the end of the day, I must say that should be the core of parliamentary democracy. When we talk about parliamentary democracy, what should be the main consideration is not whether or not we have a by-election but the main consideration should be: are we able to take care and provide for the needs of the people? We are all elected to serve the people and that should be the main and primary consideration. Sir, for that reason, I oppose the motion.”
“We cross culture, we cross religion, because we respect our residents' culture and different religions, and that is what the whole concept of the GRC is all about – that we are able to support each other. I think that is also the essence of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. So I disagree very much with the idea that we should dismantle the GRC concept which gives a different kind of messaging that is counter-productive and not helpful to the minorities. In fact, I think the presence of the GRC constantly reminds us of the need to take into consideration the needs of the minority communities. It also prevents us from having to go back to our very basic instincts of depending on race, religion and language in order to garner support for our own position to win votes in an election. Sir, for all those reasons, I do not agree with this motion. I oppose the motion. Let me also cite to Members the small conversation I had with some of the grassroots leaders in Bukit Batok. I have been speaking with a few groups of them. Some of them are the RC leaders in the RCs that I am taking care of and I ask each group: is having a by-election a priority or a main concern for you and the residents that you interact with? The answer that they gave is that a by-election is not the main concern and priority as far as they are concerned. Their primary concern is that the interest and welfare of the residents should be taken care of, and their interest and welfare is well taken of. There were some suggestions that perhaps because there are so many residents and only four MPs, some of their interest and welfare will be overlooked. I do not think that is a depiction of the reality.”
“The thing that struck me was that this Rwandan man did not belong to a different race, they all belonged to one race but they happened to belong to different tribes and that became the big point of contention and that became the element for persecution against members of his tribal group. So even talking to him was a very painful exercise, he was not able to recount everything but he said that he was very happy to get out of Rwanda. So, that brings me to the reality. The reality is that issues of race, language and religion continue to dog us and if we go about undermining, weakening and attacking the GRC concept, I am afraid that we may potentially unleash all these forces that we may not even be able to see what would be the consequences. The GRC concept is meant to prevent deep cleavages and polarisations in our society, which could disadvantage minority communities in political representation. But it is quite a different point to argue that a minority, once elected, would now have a strong veto power that can at any time cause a by-election in the GRC. Sir, it does not mean that if there were no minority representation in a GRC, there would be no minority representation in Parliament. The minority communities will continue to have their interest well taken care of as there are other minority MPs in the House. At the same time, in a GRC, the MPs attend each other's functions and activities. I attend the temple functions, the seventh lunar month functions, of which there were plenty these last few days and nights, and the other MPs in the GRC also attend the mosque functions. They help to raise funds for the mosque and they attend all the other Muslim functions.”
“On the other hand, the Malays or Indians or members of other minority communities can stand on their own in the GRC. This is like handing a veto to the minority candidates." What Prof. Thio's motion is proposing will result in exactly that outcome – handing the veto power to a minority candidate, which is not the intention of Parliament, neither is it desirable as it will breed a lot of resentment against the minority candidates. The GRC is a team concept which is meant to address the problem of a multi-racial society where race, language or religion can become major dividing lines and can be capitalised for political mileage to support or to vote against a particular candidate. As I sat listening to the debate and the various speeches made, I feel that we may have to anchor ourselves in reality. We are living in a world where issues of race, language and religion continue to have a bearing and an impact, and we are not living in a utopia. This is the reality of the world today and the reality did not strike me as much as when I spoke to one person in the ILO. As part of my work in the ILO, I come across a lot of refugees – some are refugees from political persecution (based on their own description and admission), some are refugees because of persecution based on race, and, some, persecution based on religion. But the most poignant one that I remember was a man from Rwanda. He fled from Rwanda because of persecution. He belonged to the Tutsis race and he was being persecuted.”
“Thio also wants the law changed so that when a minority candidate vacates his seat for whatever reasons, then all the other MPs should vacate their seats too and a by-election held to elect a new team. If we accept this proposal, Sir, it will undermine and weaken the GRC concept. Let me explain why. Prof. Thio's proposal would mean that minority candidates would wield considerable power and has great sway over the fate of the GRC. If, for whatever reason, the minority candidate resigns, then all the other MPs in the GRC would have to resign too. This would put the minority candidate in exactly the same position that the 1988 amendment wanted to avoid, ie, allowing one MP to hold the entire team to ransom. This is clearly not the intent or purpose of the GRC concept and is counter productive for minority candidates as there would be a lot of resentment at giving them so much power to undermine the whole GRC. Sir, if we can recall, in 1988 when the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended, a Select Committee was set up to receive representations from the members of the public. The Malay and Indian representors strongly supported the GRC concept. The Chinese representors also supported the GRC concept but had some reservations. Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister made this observation at the time when he moved the motion to amend in the Third Reading in Parliament, and this is what he said – "The GRC proposal which requires some MPs to stand as a team, effectively distributes power between leaders of the various communities. In fact, it favours the minorities. Chinese representors pointed out that Chinese candidates cannot stand in a GRC on their own.”
“We do not believe for one moment, Sir, that when one or more MPs vacate their seats, voters have no representative. I think this is also the crux of the argument raised by Dr Loo, Prof. Thio and Ms Sylvia Lim. The voters in Jurong GRC had voted us as a team, team Jurong GRC, and not as specific individuals. We were elected to serve the needs of all the residents. Even if one or more members of the team are not around, the remaining members of the team continue to represent all the voters and residents of the GRC. It is baseless to suggest that since the mandate was given to a team to act as representatives of the residents in Parliament, the absence of one or more would mean that the rest of us have lost our electoral mandate and have to resign. For ease of administration, each MP takes care of one area within the GRC but, at the strategic level, planning on major policy issues is done as a GRC to ensure that there is consistency of service to all residents. At the operational level, too, MPs in the GRC attend each other's functions and cover for each other during periods of absence. So, the GRC is not just a collection of constituencies that continue to operate as single constituencies, but it is a team concept where a team of MPs takes care of all the needs of the residents. This is the mandate given to us – to serve all the residents in the whole GRC and as a team and the sad loss of one of our members does not diminish the fact that we are acting as a team serving all the residents of Jurong GRC. Let me now touch on another point raised by Prof. Thio and I think, in some respects, also mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim. Prof.”
“Since then, the four of us have attended more than 15 activities at Bukit Batok and handled five meet-the-people sessions. Last Thursday, Sir, I went on a house visit in Bukit Batok, which was followed by a supper meeting with some residents at the RC Centre. I must say that I was really touched by the warm reception that I received from the residents in Bukit Batok. They raised the usual local or municipal issues but none raised any concern or discomfort at the existing arrangement that we had worked out. To me, the response of the grassroots leaders and the residents whom I had met is a great assurance. It is a clear indication of the trust that they have in us. They gave us a strong mandate at the last GE, and they knew that we would honour and respect that mandate even after the demise of one MP. Above all, they are confident that their interest and welfare will be taken care of. In fact, Sir, I must share with this House that all the residents that I had met, all the grassroots leaders that we had interactions with, none had raised the issue of needing a by-election in order to provide for the needs and to take care of the interest of the residents. Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we debate this motion, I urge this House not to lose sight of this very important element. At the end of the day, parliamentary democracy is not just a process, slogans, words and empty promises. It is about serving people. It is about improving people's lives. It is about achieving outcomes. The people in Jurong GRC gave us their strong support, they trust us, they have confidence in us and we intend to keep that trust and to do all that is within our power to live up to that expectation.”
“We promised to serve our residents wholeheartedly, to serve them well and never to let them down. Although we are down by one MP, we will keep this promise, even if it means that each one of us has to shoulder heavier responsibilities. What is of paramount importance to us are our residents’ welfare and their interests. In this, we are indeed most fortunate that we have the strong support and backing of the grassroots leaders from Bukit Batok. They are experienced leaders with a strong network among the residents. They understand that we are doing our best to help our residents and have strongly supported us. On the question raised by the three MPs as to whether or not we are able to take care of the residents' needs now that we have one seat vacant in Jurong GRC, I want to assure this House that we had wasted no time in addressing our residents' needs. Immediately after Dr Ong's demise, we met all the grassroots leaders of Bukit Batok, a few hundred of them. We explained to them how we intend to take care of Bukit Batok and we also wanted to hear their concerns and views. We suggested to them that we would divide among us the responsibility of acting as advisors to the CCC and CCMC and 10 RCs. This arrangement will continue for a period of six months before we review it. We would also take turns to run the weekly meet-the-people sessions. Between us, all the work in Bukit Batok would be effectively covered. The grassroots leaders gave their strong support. Those who spoke expressed their confidence in our leadership and they were happy that they have four MPs to take care of them. They promised to work closely with us and to give us their strong support.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion that we are debating today proposed by Prof. Thio Li-ann is not new. This House had debated this issue exhaustively in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Kiang vacated his seat in the Jalan Besar GRC. Even the suggestion of a three-month time limit for the calling of a by-election is not new. MP Chiam See Tong first mooted it in the 1999 debate. Sir, as I sat listening to the speeches of the various MPs who spoke before me, in particular, Prof. Thio, Dr Loo and Ms Sylvia Lim, I would like to say that there are basically two areas which they had raised. With regard to the general principles and issues, I think my colleague Mr Hri Kumar has already touched on them. But these are two other issues which they mentioned. The first point that the three of them raised is whether the interests and welfare of the residents will be taken care of if a Member in the GRC vacates his seat. The second issue which they raised is whether or not the GRC is necessary. In one particular speech, it was even questioned whether it is constitutional, and also the issue whether or not the minority MPs are able to stand on their own and they do not need the crutch or the assistance of a GRC. Sir, I will come to those two points that have been raised by the three speakers that I have mentioned in the course of my speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, the late Dr Ong Chit Chung served as an MP in Bukit Batok for 20 years. His death was sudden and came as a great shock to all of us. Because of his demise, our GRC now has one MP less. From a five-member GRC, we are now down to a four-member GRC. But when we were elected at the last GE, we made a promise and a commitment to all the residents of Jurong GRC.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a mechanism in the Ministry of Manpower to monitor the situation when there are a lot of requests for foreign workers in a particular sector or company, to determine whether they have indeed made efforts to try and encourage more Singaporeans to go into that sector, including providing them with the skills to do the job, and whether they are amenable to employing older workers and women who want to go back to work. While we may be seeing a lot of employment generally, we also need to ensure that these two groups are not affected. So is there a mechanism in the Ministry of Manpower to monitor that?”
“So, while we create new jobs, the strategy to manage unemployment is to ensure that Singaporeans who have been displaced by retrenchments or economic restructuring will be able to find new jobs quickly. And the way to that is to give them training, give them skills, give them capability and enhance their mobility and employability.”
“Two supplementary questions, Sir. The Minister said that 143,000 jobs were created in the first half of this year. I would like to ask the Minister how many of these jobs have gone to Singaporeans and how many have gone to foreigners. My second supplementary question, Sir, is this: in view of the slower economic growth and the projected higher unemployment rate, would the Ministry consider reviewing the current quotas on foreign workers, which have been liberalised over the last few years? Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, with regard to the employment statistics between Singaporeans and foreigner employees, this data is collected over a year and this data will be available on an annual basis. The next set of data will be available early next year. With regard to the second question on whether we will review the foreign quota, as I mentioned yesterday, we monitor the employment landscape very carefully but we have to take into account the availability and the presence of foreign workers creates flexibility for our employment market. In fact, it is this flexibility that has allowed us to continue to create new jobs, and many of these new jobs do go to Singaporeans. So, it is important for us to continue to ensure sufficient flexibility in the labour market. At the same time, we also want to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to find good jobs and will continue to be able to upgrade themselves. To do this, it is more important for us to focus on giving them skills, providing them with training, so that we can enhance their mobility. I think as we create new jobs, if Singaporeans do not have the skills for these jobs, I think unemployment rate will go up.”
“Sir, just a follow-up question to the Minister. Since this disease is being transmitted by travellers, are there any plans on the part of the Ministry of Health to issue a travel advisory to Singaporeans so as to avoid contracting this disease?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he does not as an inherent conflict – the fact that the ethics committee of the hospital is appointed by the hospital to approve the organ transfers and the operation is also done by the hospital itself? Is there not an inherent conflict in that arrangement? Could the Minister also share what is the practice in other countries, whether the same practice is adopted or a different practice is adopted to preserve the inherent integrity in the system?”
“Sir, the Minister said that, according to the psychologists who did the study, the stress level is manageable. But according to the feedback I get from the officers, the stress is actually very stressful. So I would like to ask the Minister's comment on that. My second question is whether there is a headcount freeze in the civil service. Is that headcount freeze applicable to officers in the ICA such that it affects the staffing requirement as to how many staff can be employed in ICA? My next question is this: The Minister mentioned that the pull factor seems to be a very strong factor for the high resignation rate in the ICA. Will the Ministry be considering reviewing the terms and conditions of the ICA officers to make it more attractive, since their job scope, according to the Minister's description just now, seems to have expanded considerably compared to the past?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a follow-up question of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. On the WIS scheme, would the Ministry review the scheme so as to exclude the overtime and bonus from the computation of $1,500 salary ceiling? Because including overtime and bonus is actually penalising workers who work hard and it, of course, is a disincentive for low-income and older workers.”