Kenneth Poon
Singapore
“Thank you, Chairman. Let me just get to the point. Future care planning extends beyond employment and financial planning, and it includes residential arrangements, community access and the maintenance of social relationships.”
“And third, how the voices of PwDs themselves are meaningfully incorporated into decisions about their future arrangements, support structures and participation in community life? Sir, the issue before us is not simply provision of services.”
“When our investments enable individuals to remain embedded in shared institutions across life stages, they strengthen not only individual outcomes but our collective capacity to act in times of uncertainty and change.”
“In particular, it will be helpful to understand the circumstances under which such a larger Council would be required and how these flexibilities are intended to support effective representation, expertise and governance of a more complex sector.”
The complete record
Every one of 16 lines we hold for Kenneth Poon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“Thank you, Chairman. Let me just get to the point. Future care planning extends beyond employment and financial planning, and it includes residential arrangements, community access and the maintenance of social relationships. So, I would like to ask if the Ministry has or intends to help develop a playbook or have a coach or peer support system to guide family members involved in this future care planning process?”
“And third, how the voices of PwDs themselves are meaningfully incorporated into decisions about their future arrangements, support structures and participation in community life? Sir, the issue before us is not simply provision of services. It is an assurance that our citizens with disabilities will continue to live lives of dignity, stability and participation even when parental care is no longer available.”
“15 pm Second, while caregivers are living longer, the gap between lifespan and health span means that many parents anticipate a period where they may still be alive, yet no longer physically or cognitively able to provide the sustained care. Third, families are smaller. This means fewer siblings and extended kin available to assume long-term caregiving responsibilities. Taken together, these trends suggest that families of PwDs can no longer, as in the past, rely primarily on informal family support. Future support therefore needs to be anticipated, structured and supported. Sir, during the Budget debate, I introduced four questions as a lens for considering how initiatives strengthen Singapore's social foundations. I would like to apply them to the present context of what happens to PwDs when parental caregiving is no longer available. I think it is important to acknowledge that Singapore has made important progress in adult disability services through successive Enabling Masterplans, and I acknowledge the recent establishment of the Multi-Agency Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities chaired by Minister of State Goh Pei Ming. Adult disability support often extends across several decades. So, this raises for us a broader systems consideration. Do we have a consistent anticipatory framework for planning the continuity of care and participation of PwDs? In particular, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issues raised also earlier by my hon colleagues Ms Denise Phua and Ms Kuah Boon Theng. First, whether structured family care pathways are initiated well before caregivers are unable to provide support? Second, on how siblings and other potential caregivers are systematically engaged in transition planning.”
“Mr Chairman, I declare my interests in this area as the past president of Rainbow Centre Singapore, a social service agency serving persons with disabilities, and as a researcher examining the life course of persons with neurodevelopmental disabilities. In a study I conducted about two decades ago, examining the futures of persons with autism in Singapore, what must have been the most difficult question I asked parents was – and that was raised just earlier – what are the plans for your child when you are no longer able to care for him or her? Most parents shared their worries and concerns. Some parents described plans, often involving siblings or relatives. For others, the response was silence and many conversations were accompanied by tears. In a related work, parents of persons with disabilities consistently ranked outcomes linked to safety, stability and personal satisfaction as their top priorities for their child. Yet many remained uncertain about how those outcomes will be attained. There is now greater urgency for three reasons. First, persons with disabilities are living significantly longer due to advances in medical care. For example, a local report by the Community Health Outreach for Wellness in 2024 indicates that individuals with Down syndrome now have a life expectancy of about 60 years. Second, while caregivers are living longer, the gap between lifespan and healthspan means that many parents anticipate a period where they may still be alive, yet no longer physically or cognitively able to provide the sustained care. 7.”
“We understand from research that adolescents who report a stronger sense of belonging to their national or community context may demonstrate higher levels of well-being, social trust and resilience during key life transitions. Conversely, where opportunities for participation in shared institutions or community life are limited, young people may report greater uncertainty in identity formation, which may, in turn, be associated with lower perceived well-being. Opportunities to participate in civic or community settings then may serve not only social purposes but also contribute to psychosocial outcomes that support long-term well-being. Identity formation does not arise solely from instruction or programme participation, but through opportunities for shared responsibility, meaningful participation and voice. 3.45 pm Sir, during the Budget debate, I introduced four questions as a lens for considering how initiatives can strengthen Singapore's social foundations. One of them pertain to the extent to which our citizens have a meaningful voice in shaping how they are supported. In relating them to our youths, I would like to ask the Minister if the Government can share how opportunities for youth participation in community or civic initiatives are being structured to support the development of belonging and shared responsibility and how such opportunities may contribute to young people's sense of connection, contribution and participation in a shared national community. I look forward to the Minister's response on this matter. Designing Belonging for Every Youth”
“Mr Chairman, I welcome the Ministry's continued investments in youth engagement platforms, traineeships and pathways into employment. Coupled with the strong academic attainment of our youths as evidenced in our performance on international benchmarks, these initiatives will undoubtedly help prepare our young people for economic participation amid the demands of an increasingly competitive global environment. I would like to propose today that preparing our youths for the future must also include preparing them to develop a shared sense of national identity. This is particularly important in a digital age where their values, aspirations and sense of belonging are shaped by global influences. National surveys, such as the Health Promotion Board's Students' Health Survey and the National Youth Council's National Youth Survey, have highlighted concerns related to stress, mental well-being and life pressures among young people. Complementing these findings, national mental health studies indicate that a significant proportion of youth report symptoms of anxiety, depression or psychological distress. Studies, such as the 2020 UNICEF Digital Lives of Children in ASEAN and the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Digital Society Survey, highlight that young people today are highly connected digitally and increasingly exposed to a wide range of information, perspectives and social influences through online environments. More than a century ago, sociologist Émile Durkheim observed that when the social groups individuals belong to weaken, people become increasingly reliant on themselves alone. His insight remains relevant today, as young people navigate identity formation in a rapidly changing social and digital environment.”
“When such support is not consistently available, the students' ability to participate in classroom instruction and progress within the national curriculum may become affected. This may impact, in the short term, engagement, learning and social interaction of such students. But it may also affect motivation and identity over time as well as potentially longer-term consequences on employability and participation within society. 8.00 pm Access to such supports may depend on availability, cost and coordination across settings, which can be within hospitals, social service agencies or private providers. In such circumstances, the responsibility for sustaining access to learning may shift from institutional arrangements within schools to the capacity of individual families to coordinate supports across educational, healthcare and social service settings. I had highlighted during my earlier Budget speech about the contribution of meaningful participation and having a voice in decision-making within a cohesive society. I would hence like to ask the Minister if the Government could share how classroom instruction is adapted for students who need supports that may not be consistently available within mainstream schools and how students with SEN and their families are involved in shaping the type of supports they receive in mainstream schools. Sir, the question I seek to raise today is not whether we should invest in such provision of support for students with SEN. I believe we already have. It is about how continuity of meaningful participation in mainstream schools is sustained for students with SEN with support needs that are not consistently available within the school environment. I look forward to the Minister's clarification on this matter.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to state my interest in this matter as a psychologist, special educator and also an academic with practice experience and research interest in the needs of students with SEN. It was reported in the 2024 Disability Trends Report that there were, as of 2023, about 36,000 students with SEN in Singapore schools. Of these, about 80% or close to 29,000 attend mainstream schools, which represents a rise from the 27,000 in 2022. I would like to focus, today, on this group of students. Like the hon Member Ms Denise Phua, I would like to applaud the Ministry's significant investments, over the past decade, in differentiated provision of support across the education system. This has enabled more students with SEN to access educational pathways suited to their profiles of needs. Mainstream schools now provide students with SEN access to the national curriculum as well as with support in the form of teachers trained in SEN, SEN Officers, and from the multi-tiered system of support. Within this context, students with SEN not only benefit from the challenge from access to the national curriculum but they also have the opportunity to learn alongside their peers. Students with SEN thrive in mainstream environments when necessary supports are in place. However, there are some students with SEN who are able to engage with aspects of the national curriculum, but whose consistent participation in classroom instruction depends on supports that are not always available within the school environment. These may take the form of additional services targeting areas like learning, executive functions social skills, as well as emotional and behavioral regulation.”
“When our investments enable individuals to remain embedded in shared institutions across life stages, they strengthen not only individual outcomes but our collective capacity to act in times of uncertainty and change. In that sense, the effectiveness of this Budget lies not only in terms of the opportunities it creates but in the extent to which it enables Singaporeans to participate, contribute and remain connected over time. This way, it lays the foundation for a "we first" society grounded in shared responsibility and common purpose. And for these reasons, I support the Budget.”
“In this regard, we may wish to consider how our resourcing for programmes in early childhood connects families across domains of daily life. Strengthening linkages between preschools and services that support families may enable caregivers, not only to access programmes, but to sustain the support of their child or children's development within the home and community environments in which the children spend most of their time. On youth development, this Budget makes important investments in traineeships, skills development and employment pathways. From a developmental perspective, youth transitions are not only about access to opportunity but about participation in the institutions and communities they will inherit. Platforms, such as Youth Panels, may therefore be understood not only as consultative mechanisms but as opportunities for co-production that can strengthen engagement, persistence and alignment between institutions and the developmental needs of young persons. Finally, on strengthening families. Recent enhancements in parental leave, housing support and healthcare initiatives are significant steps towards reducing financial strain and enabling family stability. Families often serve as primary coordinators across education, employment, healthcare and community systems, particularly during transitions, such as school-to-work or caregiving. Policies that empower families, not only as recipients of services, but as partners in navigating institutional supports can help sustain participation and reduce discontinuities between transitions. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Budget helps to shape the conditions under which Singaporeans remain connected to one another across schools, workplaces, families and neighbourhoods.”
“Taken together, these questions invite us to consider how policy investments can influence participation trajectories over life stages and particularly at transition points. So, I will consider this across four areas: firstly, persons with disabilities and their caregivers; secondly, vulnerable young children; thirdly, youth development and fourthly, families navigating complex needs. First, people with disabilities. I welcome the continued support in this Budget for persons with disabilities and their caregivers, including the top-up to the Long-Term Care Support Fund and the planned expansion of Day Activity Centre (DAC) capacity. For many families, one of the most significant transitions occurs when their child exits the formal education system at about 18 years of age. This transition often entails a loss of structured routines, peer networks and community participation, while families navigate a new landscape of adult services. As the capacity of DACs expands, it may be helpful to consider how transition pathways connect individuals across education, employment and community life. Anchoring transition supports within community-based employment partnerships, shared-use facilities or neighbourhood organisations can help ensure that the specialised supports continue to scaffold participation in everyday institutional life over time. Next, vulnerable young children. The Budget continues to strengthen affordability and access to the preschool sector, and these are important steps at ensuring no child is left behind. At the same time, developmental vulnerability is often closely intertwined with family stressors, such as housing instability or caregiver fatigue.”
“The question, therefore, is not whether specialised supports are needed, but how they connect individuals back into common settings over time. Second, do our institutional arrangements connect people across life domains or do they channel them into separate tracks? Life course research suggests that systems which bridge education, employment, healthcare and family life are more often able to sustain continuity in developmental pathways. In contrast, fragmented or categorised service structures may inadvertently introduce discontinuities that may constrain participation or mobility across transitions. Third, how is responsibility distributed across society? Many policies provide valuable programmes, but the coordination of care, the navigation of services and the sustaining of participation are often undertaken by families or professionals. An approach that places disproportionate reliance on a single individual increases the likelihood of cumulative strain and, over time, heightens the risk of stress and burn-out. Correspondingly, it is important to consider whether those involved are adequately supported. Finally, are communities enabled to act as responsible partners with a meaningful voice in shaping the institutions in which they participate in or are they positioned mainly as beneficiaries? Evidence from co-production and community development suggests that outcomes are strengthened when families and communities are engaged, not only as recipients of services but as partners in institutional design and delivery, thereby supporting sustained engagement and reducing risks of disengagement over time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the measures announced in this year’s Budget. Important steps have been taken to support Singaporeans through ongoing global uncertainties while continuing to invest in our long-term economic resilience and social well-being. I support this Budget and its emphasis on strengthening opportunities, supporting families and enabling Singaporeans at different life stages to progress with confidence. My remarks today are, therefore, offered in the spirit of constructive support. As we consider the spirit of a “we first” society, it may be useful to examine not only what support is provided but how policy initiatives shape the capacity of Singaporeans to participate meaningfully in shared institutions, such as schools, workplaces and community networks across the life course. Research in human development suggests that positive long-term outcomes are influenced not only by access to programmes, but by the extent to which individuals remain embedded in common social institutions through key transitions in life, such as entry into post-secondary education and employment. From this perspective, I would like to offer four questions that may serve as a lens for considering how initiatives within this Budget strengthen Singapore’s social foundations over time. First, does the initiative enable participation in common social life or does it primarily deliver services within specialised settings? While specialised supports are often necessary for competence-building and protection, their long-term effectiveness depends on whether they ultimately scaffold participation in everyday life.”
“In particular, it will be helpful to understand the circumstances under which such a larger Council would be required and how these flexibilities are intended to support effective representation, expertise and governance of a more complex sector. This clarification notwithstanding, it is my view that the NCSS (Amendment) Bill better reflects the reality of what NCSS is responsible for – by strengthening the Council and aligning its governance with these expanded responsibilities. The Bill enhances NCSS' capacity to provide stable and capable stewardship of a complex and evolving social service system, and very importantly, in the interest of individuals and families that benefit from it.”
“It also leads sector-wide efforts in organisational development and digital transformation, so that agencies can continue to deliver services effectively and at scale. Initiatives, such as the Sun Ray scheme, have also strengthened workforce pipelines by bringing much needed experienced professionals from diverse backgrounds into the sector, whilst campaigns to support volunteerism and philanthropy help sustain community participation. These amendments recognise and formalise this expanded role. Second, the governance of NCSS through its Council, which is what the board is termed after proposed amendments. As NCSS takes on an increased role in charting sectoral priorities, building workforce pipelines and in fostering long-term partnerships, effective stewardship requires both expertise as well as continuity. While solutions may appear clear on the surface, the stewardship of such a complex ecosystem requires broad expertise and deep insight into the sector's many constituents and service users. The changes in who and how the Council is appointed, strengthens the Council so that it can work hand-in-glove with the NCSS management in setting strategic directions, exercising oversight and providing the stability needed to see these efforts through in the longer term. Third, the proposed size of the NCSS Council. Section 5, sub-section 1 provides for the number of Council members to range from 15 to 27. That is compared with a previous upper limit of 23. Given the increasing complexity of responsibilities within NCSS, I would appreciate some clarification on the rationale for providing this wider range.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the NCSS (Amendment) Bill. Before I continue, I wish to declare interest in this matter, as I currently serve on the NCSS Board of Council and on the board of one of the SSAs. Over the past two decades, I have served in various capacities, as a volunteer, committee or board member, of several SSAs. From that vantage point, I have seen the sector, as Minister said, change in a fundamental way. The social service sector today is no longer simply a collection of charities and societies, but rather, a complex set of interdependent systems across social service provision, workforce development and cross-agency collaboration. As the quality of social service provision improves, coordination becomes even more essential, and this happens amidst a tight labour market, which places increasing strain on sector-wide talent pipelines. At the same time, COVID-19 and rapid technological advances have reshaped how services are delivered and how different generations of users engage with support. These changes reflected, for example, in the NCSS' Quality of Life studies, have real consequences for individuals, for families and caregivers who rely on the social service system. I would like to comment on two aspects of the Bill and seek clarifications on one of the provisions. First, the expanded role of NCSS as a sector developer. As Minister outlined earlier, NCSS today does more than convening or funding agencies. It identifies gaps in the system, such as the recent focus on behavioural addictions and it mobilises capacity, funding and partnerships to address them.”