Masagos Zulkifli B M M
Singapore
“Coordination between Early Intervention (EI) centres, families and preschools is important for the continuity of support for children with developmental needs.”
“The Taxi Subsidy Scheme supports persons with disabilities (PwDs) who are unable to take public transport, by providing means-tested subsidies to offset the cost of taxi travel to school, work and employment-related training supported by SG Enable.”
“The Skills and Salary Guidelines published by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) guides social service agencies (SSAs) to pay their employees fair and competitive remuneration and maintain the sector's attractiveness. The Guidelines are adjusted so that salaries remain competitive with comparable roles in competing markets.”
“Staff turnover rates vary across social service agencies (SSAs). An individual's decision to leave an organisation is influenced by a myriad of factors, of which pay is only one.”
“Beyond the requirement of a structured daily programme, community-based SCFA administrators have the flexibility to offer programmes and additional enrichment activities that meet the needs of their students. MSF does not track staff salaries and turnover of SCCs in general nor those that administer SCFA.”
“Male preschool educators comprised about 1% of the early childhood workforce in each of the last five years. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has not issued guidelines pertaining to the rules set by preschool centres specific to the conduct of male preschool educators.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,489 lines we hold for Masagos Zulkifli B M M, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 50.
“Officers from the Child Protective Service use an evidence-based Structured Decision-Making framework and consultations with an independent panel of professionals to guide their decision-making. In some cases, birth families may be unable or unwilling to resolve safety concerns, despite extensive and prolonged assistance from professionals. In such cases, rather than leaving the child in long-term state care, adoption is a permanency option which would give the child more stability, certainty and a better outcome in life. Hence, it is only at the point where reunification seems unlikely that we look at facilitating the adoption of that child and cease efforts at reunification. Generally, for children below three years of age, working with birth parents for a period of 12 months provides MSF with a good indication of the likelihood that the child can be reunified. For children above three years of age, a longer duration of about 24 months is taken. Should unhappy birth parents harass prospective adopters, our existing laws on protection against harassment will accord them protection. I will now move on to Members' queries relating to adoption agencies. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Denise Phua spoke about the accreditation of adoption agencies. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested developing a registry of agencies. Our approach is to focus on the criminalisation of undesirable adoption practices. We will keep a close watch on the impact of the Bill on adoption agencies' practices and we are prepared to consider further measures in the future, if necessary. Mr Melvin Yong queried about the number of cases where children identified for adoption were offered to prospective adopters willing to pay the most. MSF does not have the data.”
“We also looked at other jurisdictions' laws on dispensation, examined the adoption applications that MSF has seen over the years and consulted professionals involved in contested adoption cases to determine the threshold. Hence, the grounds are based on actual cases where it has been tested and shown clearly that the child is unlikely to be reunified safely with his or her birth family and adoption would be in the child's welfare. Ultimately, it is the Court that will decide whether to dispense with consent, taking into account the case-specific facts and GIA's recommendations. To Mr Melvin Yong's query, our intent is to build upon prevailing case law to give more guidance on when dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare. Specific to children in state care, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how MSF decides when to pursue adoption for such children instead of fostering or other care options. Mr Mark Chay asked if there would be opportunities for birth parents to reconcile with their children. When a child is removed from his or her parents due to care or protection concerns, they are placed in foster care or in children's homes to provide the care and safety that their homes of origin are not able to provide. Once the child's immediate safety has been assured, MSF works with the child's birth family to resolve the problematic circumstances, so that the child can return home as soon as possible. This entails collaborating with them on safety plans and trying to address safety concerns. We also share with them the plans that we will put in place for the child's welfare should they not be able to resolve these safety concerns.”
“If we conduct the pre-adoption suitability assessments rigorously and guide adoptive parents well in their adoption journey, it should suffice to offer support services to those who may need them. That said, under the Bill, even after proceedings have concluded, the Court can order parties to undergo support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders can be made till the adopted child turns 21, as needed. Ms Ng Ling Ling also asked if we will introduce support services for adopted children whose adoptive parents decide to undergo divorce and the criteria that the Court may use in determining custody matters for such children. The Women's Charter provides guidance to the Courts in determining custody matters. If adoptive parents, unfortunately, have to contemplate divorce, these same principles apply. The support services that are given to all divorcing couples with children are also available and extended to adopted children. Several Members of Parliament, such as Mr Gan Thiam Poh, expressed that dispensation with a birth parent's consent to adoption should only be allowed under very strict conditions. Mr Louis Ng also asked for more information on how the grounds for such dispensation are determined. Let me start by assuring Members that MSF acknowledges the sanctity of parental rights and that a child's birth parents should be primarily responsible for caring for him or her. Our intent is for a birth parent's consent to adoption to be dispensed with only when he or she is unable to provide consent or is, unreasonably, withholding such consent and adoption would be in the child's welfare. We have calibrated the grounds for dispensation by balancing these two considerations.”
“MSF can also connect them with Family Service Centres (FSCs) for support on issues common to families, such as parent-child conflict or marital stress. Mr Don Wee suggested providing funding for support groups. Today, some SSAs organise formal support group sessions covering various topics, including addressing prospective adopters' concerns on disclosure, on a cost-recovery basis. The SSAs also organise group outings for adoptive families to be introduced to and interact with one another. Through such sessions, online forums and word-of-mouth, adoptive parents and their adopted children have also formed their own informal support networks. Mr Louis Ng asked how we will continue to ensure applicants' suitability after an order is made. Mr Don Wee and Ms Joan Pereira asked whether post-adoption reviews will be mandated at specific milestones. An adoption order is made after extensive and in-depth investigations are conducted to ensure that the child is placed with suitable adoptive parents. Hence, after an adoption order is made, MSF's general position is to treat the adoptive family as any other family. The Government, therefore, does not interfere in the family unless we have cause for concern. MSF also received mixed feedback on such post-adoption reviews during our stakeholder consultations, with some commenting that such reviews are invasive for adoptive parents when similar requirements are not imposed on birth parents. We note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim shared similar views on this issue. Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested that MSF consider providing support services to adopted children up to 21 years old, on a needs basis. We agree with her.”
“We also work with the adopted child to prepare him or her for possible scenarios. Sometimes, the birth parents may have passed away or they may be unwilling to establish contact with the child for their own reasons. Many Members, such as Mr Christopher de Souza, spoke up on supporting prospective adopters and adoptive families through their journey. Let me outline some key ways in which MSF provides such support. First, the Pre-adoption Briefing provides prospective adopters with an overview of what they can expect during the adoption process. ASA then builds on this as assessors interact closely with prospective adopters to address their concerns or queries. Similarly, once the adoption application is made, GIA will continue to work with prospective adopters. This includes referring them to relevant support services. While ASA and GIA investigations are primarily suitability assessments, they also serve as useful opportunities for prospective adopters to gauge their readiness to undergo the adoption journey. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the matters covered in the Pre-Adoption Briefing would be adequate to prepare prospective adopters. He also asked about the support measures that are available in cases where there may be compatibility issues between the adoptive parents and the adopted child. As I shared earlier, the Pre-Adoption Briefing is part of the process of preparation to adopt. It should not be seen in silo. Beyond the mandatory briefings and assessments, prospective adopters and adoptive parents can also tap on formal and informal support groups to support them during their adoption journey – as mentioned by Mr Dennis Tan.”
“Broad guidelines for disclosure would include broaching disclosure as a process, rather than as a one-off event, being sensitive to the child's emotions and needs in understanding his or her birth history and assuring the child that he or she is loved. While there is no universally appropriate age for disclosure, the professionals recommend introducing and normalising the concept of adoption as early as possible. Beyond the Disclosure Briefing, if at any time prospective adopters or adoptive parents require more assistance with disclosure, they can approach MSF or any authorised adoption agency. We will direct them to relevant support services or support groups, which I will elaborate on subsequently. Ms Joan Pereira also asked how adopted children who wish to find out more about their birth family can do so and whether MSF will establish an adoption register. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh said, disclosure is very sensitive for the different parties involved: the child, the adoptive parents and the birth parents. This also came out very clearly in the consultation process. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will further study steps we could take towards greater disclosure, such as the setting up of an adoption register. All adoptive parents would, generally, be aware of the identities of their adopted child's birth parents, as a copy of the child's original birth certificate must be submitted to the Courts as part of the adoption application. Hence, adoptive parents can be the first port of call if their adopted children wish to contact their birth parents. Some adopted individuals also approach MSF and we assist as far as possible. Where we are able to contact the birth parents, we will explore whether they would be open to being contacted by the adopted child.”
“However, GIA, authorised adoption agencies or the Court may require the child to be assessed if they are of the view that such assessments may be useful to understand or document the child's needs. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that potential adopters should undergo comprehensive medical examinations, as they tend to be older. Today, MSF already requires all prospective adopters to undergo health examinations and submit medical reports. As the adoption process takes time, we also check if the reports are updated. Under the Bill, GIA and the authorised adoption agencies will be empowered to direct prospective adopters to provide any pertinent information or undergo assessments, including psychological or psychiatric assessments, to better assess their physical and mental fitness. I will now address Mr Christopher de Souza's suggestion on matching prospective adopters with women with unplanned pregnancies who wish to place their child for adoption. Today, pregnant women and prospective adopters can approach adoption agencies to indicate that they wish to place their child for adoption and to be matched with a child to adopt, respectively. Where such women have approached MSF for assistance, we also link them up with the SSAs which can do the matching. Going forward, MSF is also considering developing a registry to match children in state care with prospective adopters. I will now move to the issue of disclosing to a child that he or she is adopted. Ms Joan Pereira asked how we will support adoptive parents with disclosure and what guidelines would be given.”
“Today, part of the suitability assessment includes interviewing household members, such as other children of prospective adopters, to learn their views. We will continue to do so. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about the cost of ASAs. Ms Ng Ling Ling further asked about the cost of raising the child after adoption is formalised. Adopting and raising a child are a life-long commitment and responsibility. Assessors will look at the prospective adopters' mental, emotional and financial preparedness to adopt. ASAs are conducted by social service agencies (SSAs) which charge fees to cover their costs in conducting the assessments. Fees are charged on a cost-recovery basis. Waivers are not granted for ASA fees. Adoption is, ultimately, about the welfare of the child. If the prospective adopters are not able to cope well with caring for the child in financial, emotional or other terms, that is something that should be of concern to us. Ms Denise Phua asked how the child's voice would be sought. As the child's welfare must be a key priority behind every adoption, MSF has already been seeking the child's views and wishes, in relation to his or her proposed adoption today. We will continue to do so. Next, I will address Members' queries on medical and mental health assessments for children and prospective adopters. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if medical and mental health assessments are mandatory for children identified for adoption before proceedings are finalised. Mr Mark Chay also asked if the child's medical, mental and emotional status is evaluated. The answer is no.”
“We have legislated and will also prescribe factors that assessors must consider in determining suitability. Relevant factors include the ability to provide a safe and suitable home environment for the child and marital stability. MSF will provide more information to assist prospective adopters and other key stakeholders when transiting to the new processes. This would include authorised adoption agencies that they can approach for assistance during their adoption journey. The adoption process can be shortened if prospective adopters provide all necessary information to assessors in a timely manner. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked about streamlining GIA's investigations by relying on ASA findings. Such findings by authorised adoption agencies will be taken into account by GIA in assessing the case. At the same time, some Members have also proposed for more types of checks or assessments to be carried out. Hence, the issue is about striking the right balance and not to rush through the adoption process. In cases where the applicants have been caring for the child for a prolonged period and do not present any concerns based on preliminary investigations, authorised adoption agencies may issue a simplified ASA. For example, this could be in a case where an applicant is adopting his step-child with his wife and both of them are able to provide a safe and stable home for the child. Mr Yip Hon Weng commented that the relationship between a child identified for adoption and the rest of the family should be considered as part of the assessment. This is to ascertain if the family is prepared and understands the implications of adoption. We agree.”
“HSR done today is a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of the applicants and the living environment that they would provide the child if the adoption were to be granted. ASA will continue to cover all key aspects covered by HSR. It will continue to be rigorous and assessed by qualified and trained professionals. The four social service agencies that perform HSR today will be authorised to conduct ASAs. The key difference is that ASA will be mandatory for all applicants, even if they are related to the child. In such cases, the child is likely to already be living with the prospective adopters at the point of assessment. Thus, in such cases, the information required will be tailored to the specific child. Assessors will consider the actual dynamics of the relationship between the prospective adopters and the child and their understanding of the child's needs. On character referees, MSF already requires prospective adopters to provide them today. In fact, we also interview their household members, as well as those close family members and friends who may meet the child. We agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that periodic affirmations and declarations by prospective adopters on their circumstances would be useful. Today, the Court-appointed GIA checks in regularly with applicants on their circumstances. This ensures that assessments are up to date. Consistent with placing the onus on prospective adopters to notify MSF and authorised adoption agencies of material changes in their circumstances, MSF will require them to provide such declarations along the adoption process. Mr Louis Ng asked about the prerequisites to obtain a favourable ASA, guidelines on the new processes and the circumstances under which a simplified ASA may be issued.”
“Today, holistic assessments of the suitability of the applicants' household includes consideration of the other household members' background. I will now move on to Mr Seah Kian Peng's comment relating to public policies. He asked what happens if a single applicant applies to adopt and, subsequently, marries someone of the same gender overseas. The scenario is hypothetical. Even if it were to happen, we should not pronounce on how a Court will, ultimately, decide on the case. It suffices to say that the Court has ruled that public policies are relevant and will be considered in any specific application and that the Government has made clear our public policy on this. As I have mentioned in my opening speech, the Government does not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. Singapore's public policy continues to be one which encourages parenthood within marriage. We also do not support the formation of same-sex family units through institutions and processes like adoption. These public policies will continue to guide suitability assessments. This Bill also clarifies the duty of the applicant to provide accurate information and to update the information provided if circumstances change. I will now address Members' queries on suitability assessments. Some, like Mr Dennis Tan, have asked how ASA differs from the pre-adoption assessment known as the Home Study Report (HSR) today, in particular, whether more information will be required from prospective adopters. In this regard, Mr Seah Kian Peng suggested requiring prospective adopters to provide character referees and periodic declarations of their circumstances.”
“To address Ms Ng Ling Ling's query on how we will determine the types of serious offences to be prescribed, our guiding principle will be the bearing that the offence has on applicants' character and fitness and their ability to safely care for a child. Such offences would include sexual abuse and violence offences and offences under the Children and Young Persons Act. We will also reference established frameworks that list serious offences. Depending on the types of cases that surface over time, we may review this list. For offences not in the prescribed list, the applicants' criminal record will still be taken into account as part of the Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA) by authorised adoption agencies, the Guardian-in-Adoption's (GIA) recommendations and when the Court considers the specific application. The overriding consideration is, again, whether the child's welfare is protected. I would also like to inform Mr Yip Hon Weng that there is no fixed time-bar before an ex-offender can become eligible to adopt. GIA will look at each case holistically and balance various considerations. This includes the applicant's relationship with the child, the availability of alternate caregivers for the child if an adoption order is not granted and how long the applicant has remained crime-free. The longer the person has remained crime-free, the more favourably it would present his or her application. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether the provision covers offences committed abroad and offences committed by applicants' immediate family members. The suitability assessments are holistic. While we will only prescribe offences under Singapore law, offences of a similar nature committed overseas will be considered in assessing their suitability.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, and I note all of them have expressed support for this Bill. I am glad that we share the same view that, ultimately, the child's welfare must be our starting point and is at the heart of adoption. We have heard many views and suggestions on ways we can strengthen our current adoption framework and processes. Let me respond. First of all, the Bill covers the entire adoption process and proceedings in Singapore, regardless of a child's nationality. This is in reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng's query on whether the Bill applies to foreign children identified for adoption. Several Members spoke about the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for prospective adopters. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked whether residency requirements should be further tightened to disallow joint applications where both applicants are Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). PRs form an integral part of Singapore society. A good number have committed to making Singapore their home and taking up permanent residency is one step on their journey towards citizenship. As I shared in my opening speech, the number of children in Singapore available for adoption is limited. Hence, we would prioritise adopters with a stronger nexus to Singapore, who must qualify for the physical residency criteria, too. However, we may not wish to take this principle too far, such as to disqualify applicants based on their degree of connection to Singapore alone. Some Members asked about the scope of the provision to bar applicants who have committed serious crimes from adopting. I recognise their concerns. Let me address them.”
“It reminds us how providing every child with a strong, safe and stable family environment also gives them a good start in life, as well as enables them to flourish and to fulfil their potential. While most children will be blessed to grow up happy and safe in the family they were born into, this Bill will enable adopted children to experience the comfort, care and love of a family, described in the words of 10-year-old Zephaniah, as their "forever" Mummies, "forever" Daddies and "forever" brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Under clause 72, individuals who report, whether voluntarily or under a legal obligation, will be protected from legal liability for reporting. Their identity will also be protected during Court proceedings. In addition, under clause 73, key parties performing statutory functions, such as GIA and staff in authorised adoption agencies, will be protected from personal liability if they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. As the majority of applications in Singapore involve inter-country adoptions, the proposed offences will have extraterritorial effect under clause 50. This means that if an offence is committed by a person outside Singapore, the person may be dealt with as if the offence was committed within Singapore. The penalties for first-time offenders of an offence in the Bill range from a fine of up to $5,000 or $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term up to 12 months or three years. The penalties are higher for repeat offenders and offences targeted at commercial adoption agencies. To enforce these new offences, clauses 61 to 63 provide GIA and authorised officers with powers of enforcement while clauses 64 and 65 clarify that it would be an offence to obstruct enforcement or provide false or misleading information to officers performing enforcement functions, such as an officer authorised by GIA. To conclude, it is timely to bring this Bill before the House as we have designated 2022 to be the Year of Celebrating SG Families. At the start of my speech, I shared about how families are the bedrock of our society. This Bill reaffirms the enduring role that families play in our society and towards the nurturing of resilient individuals.”
“Such practices are wrong and harmful. Under clause 56, such practices will amount to obtaining consent improperly and will be an offence. Fourth, clause 57 will regulate the circumstances where children can be placed with prospective adopters. Generally, this will only be allowed if the prospective adopter has already obtained an ASA. If the child is a foreigner, the prospective adopter must also have in-principle approval for a Dependant's Pass for the child. Prospective adopters will be guilty of an offence if they fail to comply. Adoption agencies, any relevant person of the child and people who assist them will also be guilty of an offence if they place a child with such prospective adopters. However, there are some children who live with prospective adopters before they commence the adoption process, such as children whose foster parents intend to adopt them or children living with their relatives who are seeking to adopt them. The Bill, thus, specifies that the offence will not apply in such cases for practical reasons as removing the child temporarily from the prospective adopters during the adoption application process would not be in the child's welfare. Nonetheless, if ASA turns out to be unfavourable due to care or protection concerns, MSF will step in to arrange for alternative care arrangements. Lastly, the Bill makes clear that protecting children and strengthening the adoption sector are a shared responsibility. Under clause 60, it will be an offence for key parties involved in adoption proceedings or in the adoption sector to fail to report suspected offences under the Bill to GIA or an officer authorised by GIA.”
“Second, we will impose new requirements relating to adoption-related payments. Today, applicants must apply to the Court for sanctioning of payments they have received in consideration of an adoption and payments that they have made to birth parents. Our intent is that payments exchanged in the adoption process should be made to benefit and promote a child's welfare and not to exploit or entice a relevant person into giving up his or her child, or for improper financial gain. Clause 53 extends the sanctioning requirement to payments made by applicants to people beyond birth parents. If payments made or received by the applicants are not declared to the Court and sanctioned, they cannot be enforced. Under clause 54, every adoption agency must publish a list of every payment to be made to, or through the agency for adoption-related matters. This will increase transparency and allow prospective adopters to make better-informed decisions. It will be an offence if an adoption agency fails to do so without reasonable excuse. We will also regulate categories of payments under clause 55 to guard against improper financial gains. Making or receiving any adoption-related payment outside of the permitted categories will be an offence. Examples of permitted payments include legal fees and payments to defray the costs of caring for a child. Third, we will penalise the use of fraud, duress, undue influence or other improper means to obtain consent to adoption. MSF has encountered applications where the birth parent alleged that he or she was tricked into signing the consent document. Some birth mothers interviewed by MSF have shared that they were forced by adoption agencies into signing the consent document without having sufficient time to consider the implications.”
“Like today, birth parents can choose to contest an adoption application and, if there is such contestation, the Court will make the final decision. Finally, the third thrust is to establish a sound regulatory system for the adoption process. While there is currently, no specific regulatory framework that governs adoption, all parties in the adoption sector must comply with Singapore laws. These include laws against child trafficking. Many stakeholders in the adoption sector do try their best to act responsibly, with the child's welfare in mind. Nevertheless, MSF has received feedback that some commercial adoption agencies engage in undesirable practices. These include advertising children for adoption in a way that other businesses advertise goods for sale, fraudulently obtaining a birth parent's consent to the child's adoption and not being transparent about their fees. While MSF has worked with SSAs to educate prospective adopters on dubious practices and also issued stern warnings to entities which engage in undesirable practices, stronger action is needed. MSF, therefore, intends to introduce offences and regulatory measures, as follows. First, we will restrict the sharing of identifiable information of children identified for adoption. Clause 48 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children who were, or are, the subject of adoption proceedings, including after the protected person turns 21 years old. Clause 51 prohibits the unauthorised publication or broadcast of identifiable information of children when advertising, promoting or providing adoption services, to prevent children from being commodified. In addition to financial penalties, the Court can order offenders to remove the publication or broadcast.”
“About two years after being placed in foster care, MSF arranged for Esther to spend two days weekly with her birth mother. However, Esther experienced nightmares and refused to eat or go to school. Esther's birth mother was also unable to care for her independently and could not cope well when stressed. This raised concerns over her ability to provide safe care. Upon his release from prison, Esther's birth father also could not commit to meeting her to nurture a healthy parent-child relationship. As a result, this left Esther with poor emotional attachments to her birth parents. Despite this, Esther's birth father objected to her adoption, even though he lacked the commitment to care for her, as a father ought to have. Our proposed amendments to clarify the grounds under which the Court can dispense with consent to adoption are intended to help children like Esther move out of the state care system earlier, be adopted and have the chance to grow up in a safe, loving and stable family. I would like to emphasise that our intent is not to make it easier to take children away from their parents. We will not consider adoption for children in state care if they can be safely reunified with their birth family. It is only when we have exhausted efforts to reunify the child and determined that adoption is the best alternative that we will seek the consent of the birth parents for the child's adoption. Should the birth parents refuse and MSF's Child Protective Service conclude that any further delay would harm the child's welfare, we will source for suitable applicants to adopt the child. Such applicants may then file an application in Court, requesting the Court to consider dispensing with the birth parents' consent.”
“While the current ACA lists some grounds for dispensation of consent, stakeholders have shared that these are insufficient. Over the last few years, there have been about 1,000 children in state care at any point in time. Of this group, adoption would have been the best permanency option for about one in 20 children in state care, or about 50 children. Even then, only 10 applications to adopt them were made each year, on average. Of this already small number, about 40%, or four applications annually, were contested by the child's relevant person, typically a birth parent. Such contestation, which can be protracted and costly, deters prospective adopters from applying to adopt them. Most importantly, the child's welfare is adversely impacted because he or she can neither be safely reunified with his or her birth parents or kin, nor be placed in a new, permanent family. To address this, clauses 36 to 41 provide guidance on a wider range of circumstances where dispensation of consent would be in the child's welfare. In calibrating these grounds, MSF had studied overseas jurisdictions and past cases we have managed and consulted widely. This amendment will help children like Esther, not her real name. Esther's birth mother alleged that she was abused by Esther's birth father and that he had placed Esther in physical danger while under the influence of drugs. As Esther's birth parents were unable to provide a safe and stable home, she was placed in foster care shortly after she was born. Her birth father was also, subsequently, jailed for drug-related offences. Despite extensive efforts by MSF's Child Protective Service to work with her birth parents to reunify Esther with them, concerns remained.”
“Sixth, in the event of an unsuccessful adoption application, clause 43 allows the Court to order any person who has the child to transfer the child to a suitable person recommended by GIA, where this is required to ensure the child's safety. Non-compliance will be an offence punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment. I have spoken at length about the various provisions and measures we have introduced to ensure that we can find a good home for every child, because we have the child's welfare at heart. This sums up our first thrust. Next, I will talk about our second key thrust. This is to strike a balance between the interest of the birth parents and the child. First of all, let me state that MSF acknowledges and upholds the sanctity of parents' rights over their child. Adoption is not a decision to be taken lightly. Hence, clause 25 states that an adoption order cannot be made unless all key parties who may be affected by it are notified first. Such key parties include a child's birth parents and someone who has actual custody of the child. They are referred to as a "relevant person" in the Bill. The consent of a child's relevant person should be obtained in the ordinary order of things. We will retain the existing requirement that an adoption order cannot be made, unless every relevant person of a child has consented to the child's adoption. We have made clear how to obtain informed consent, such as having two witnesses when signed consent is obtained. However, in some cases, a child's birth parents may be missing or may unreasonably object to the adoption, even though the refusal harms the child's welfare. In such instances, the Bill will allow the Court to proceed with the adoption process, even without the birth parents' consent.”
“For example, GIA can recommend that an adoption order should not be made, if pertinent information is not provided. Second, under clause 59, it will be an offence to provide false or misleading information to GIA or an authorised adoption agency during the adoption process. This is also to ensure the accuracy of assessments and that an adoption order is not made or refused due to false information. Third, as the adoption process takes time, clauses 22 and 30 put the onus on prospective adopters to notify GIA and authorised adoption agencies of any material changes in their circumstances, for example, applicants who decide to separate midway through the proceedings. The applicants' duty to notify will commence when they apply for an ASA and will last until the Court decides on their application. Failure to comply can result in the Court drawing an adverse inference against the applicant. Fourth, under clause 32, the Court will be able to empower applicants, who are in the midst of adoption proceedings, to make non-routine decisions for the child's care, where needed. These are decisions that a person can be expected to make ordinarily in caring for a child, such as allowing a wisdom tooth extraction or minor surgery after a fall. If organisations require a Court order for applicants to decide on a non-routine decision, applicants may then choose to rely on this provision. Fifth, clause 35 empowers the Court to require that applicants, a child's relevant persons and/or the child attend support services, such as mediation or counselling. Such orders may be made even after adoption proceedings have concluded.”
“Where prospective adopters are related to the child, such as step-parents, and do not present any concerns, they may undergo a simplified ASA process. All applicants must also reside in Singapore for at least a year. This ensures that they are settled here and their family and support systems are stable. Applicants may appeal to GIA against an authorised adoption agency's decision on ASA, to ensure that their views are heard. Next, for the sake of the child's welfare, we encourage timely applications for adoption. Clause 33 allows the Court to strike out applications that are made a long time after a child has started living with the applicants. This is to deter prospective adopters from delaying their application filing. This provision will not apply in specified circumstances where the child is already likely to be living with the prospective adopters. For example, if the child is a biological, or related child. I will now describe the new powers to obtain information for required assessments and to grant Court orders to ensure the child's welfare and safety. We propose six key levers. First, to ensure assessors have all salient information necessary to make an accurate assessment. Clauses 15, 19 and 29 empower GIA and authorised adoption agencies to vary or revoke an ASA in specified circumstances or direct prospective adopters and any relevant person of a child to undergo assessments or to provide pertinent information. In principle, this preserves the integrity of ASA and avoids some situations that MSF encounters today, for instance, prospective adopters failing or refusing to provide information on their financial stability or mental health, and even providing false information. The Bill also states consequences for non-compliance.”
“During one of our engagement sessions, I, myself, heard the candid views of adopted children who shared with me about their adoption journey and the importance of disclosure to them. They were very brave. Ten-year-old Zephaniah Lim was one of them, who emailed us after the session. I would like to share with the House an excerpt. He said, and I quote, that, "Forever Daddies and Mummies must tell their children about their Tummy Mummies and that they came out from their stomachs. Because the children need to know where they came from." Zephaniah's moving words represent the voice of many adopted children. And, as a House, we ought to support their voices. Nevertheless, we recognise that some birth and adoptive parents may have concerns regarding disclosure. I fully understand this. We are, therefore, taking an incremental approach towards disclosure. As a first step, we will mandate disclosure briefings, but not the disclosure itself. MSF will study practices overseas and consult key stakeholders on further steps that we could take towards greater disclosure, for example, the setting up of an adoption register. Third, they must undergo an Adoption Suitability Assessment (ASA). Today, only applicants adopting a foreign unrelated child or a child in state care need to undergo a pre-adoption assessment. We have not required this in other cases. This is because the child is likely related to the applicants and already living with them before their adoption decision. Nonetheless, we have received feedback that ASA would be useful to prepare and provide early support to all applicants. Thus, we will now require all applicants to obtain a favourable ASA before they can adopt.”
“In this regard, I would like to reiterate the Government's statements in Parliament in January and October 2019 that, as a matter of public policy, we do not encourage planned and deliberate single parenthood as a lifestyle choice. To be clear, we do not support the use of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) or surrogacy to conceive and then adopt a child. Second, our public policy encourages parenthood within marriage. In the case of a man and a woman married in accordance with Singapore's marriage law, they may be medically unable to conceive children and surrogacy is their only option. If so, it would be possible for them to adopt their child who is conceived through surrogacy, if the arrangement is carried out in a jurisdiction where surrogacy is not illegal or unlawful. The Government has also stated that it is a matter of public policy that we do not support the formation of same-sex family units, which the High Court had affirmed in December 2018 in UKM v Attorney-General. We reiterated in January 2019 that we do not support the formation of same-sex families through processes, such as adoption. These public policies will be taken into consideration when determining suitability to adopt. We will also introduce more safeguards into the adoption process. Clause 11 lists three prerequisites before prospective adopters can apply to Court. First, they must attend a Pre-adoption Briefing. This enables them to better understand the adoption process, eligibility criteria and unique needs of an adopted child. Second, they must attend a Disclosure Briefing. This equips prospective adopters with the knowledge and skills to disclose the child's adoptive status at a suitable time, with the child's welfare in mind. MSF strongly encourages such disclosure.”
“Third, clause 5 establishes the default position that applicants convicted of serious crimes cannot adopt. This improves on the current arrangement, which relies on the Court-appointed GIA to object on a case-by-case basis. The list of serious crimes will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation and will include offences, such as sexual abuse, violence and drug consumption offences. Exceptions may be made in special circumstances, for example, if an applicant had committed the offence when he or she was a teenager and has since remained crime-free and assessed to have a low risk of re-offending, the GIA may provide a favourable assessment and the Court may decide to grant the adoption order. But, let me emphasise that, ultimately, it remains for the Court to be satisfied that there is no risk of harm to the child, before granting an adoption order. This is not a trivial matter and would be considered carefully and dutifully, both by the GIA and the Court. Lastly, in the course of addressing queries from prospective adopters, MSF explains to them the criteria used. Clause 7 provides factors that the Court, GIA and authorised adoption agencies must consider when assessing suitability. This includes factors that we will prescribe in subsidiary legislation, for example, the strength of applicants' marriage, parenting capacity and existence of support networks. Additionally, clause 7 also requires Court judgments on adoption to be considered in assessing suitability of prospective adopters. In particular, the High Court has, in the past, held that relevant public policies can be taken into account in adoption applications.”
“This means ensuring they are adopted by families who can provide good home environments for them. In this regard, we will provide greater clarity on and tighten the eligibility criteria for adoption. First, we will prioritise applicants with a stronger nexus to Singapore. This is given the small number of children identified for adoption and the challenges in accurately assessing prospective adopters based overseas. Today, the Act requires the applicant to be resident in Singapore. Clause 4 specifies that the applicant for adoption under Singapore jurisdiction must be habitually resident in Singapore. In determining this, the Court will consider how long the applicants have been living in the country, where they work and the base of their social and economic ties. For joint applications, at least one applicant must be a Singapore Citizen (SC) or both applicants must be Permanent Residents (PRs), while a sole applicant should be an SC or a PR. The Bill allows the Court to recognise exceptional cases where adoption would be in the child's welfare, for example, if a Singaporean couple living overseas wishes to adopt their orphaned niece living in Singapore. Second, we will provide more guidance on who can adopt jointly, given the differing marriage laws across jurisdictions. The Bill specifies that applicants married under Singapore law can do so. For couples who married overseas, only those who would be regarded as lawfully married, if their marriage had taken place in Singapore, can adopt jointly. This means that only a man and a woman, married to each other, can apply together. This is because Singapore's marriage law only allows a man and a woman to marry each other.”
“While the groups were diverse, I was heartened to hear they all shared a common view and, that is, that the child's welfare should be at the heart of our considerations. Overall, we had received feedback and suggestions from over 200 respondents, many of which were taken on board. We also carefully studied international developments and best practices on adoption, learning what would be useful and relevant for our social and cultural context. This Bill is the culmination of their suggestions and aspirations. Before I go into the key provisions, allow me to clarify upfront the three main groups of people mentioned in the Bill. First, the Guardian-in-Adoption (GIA). This is a public officer responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children identified for adoption and granted powers through the Bill to carry out various statutory functions. Second, adoption agencies. These refer to persons in the business of arranging for interested prospective adopters to adopt. Today, there are CAAs and some SSAs that provide such services. Third, authorised adoption agencies. MSF intends to authorise some fostering agencies and SSAs that handle adoption-related work to have specified statutory functions and powers, such as to perform Adoption Suitability Assessments. Allow me to elaborate on the key provisions of the Bill, which are grouped into three key thrusts: first, finding a good home for every child; second, balancing the interests of birth parents and the child; and third, putting in place a sound regulatory system for the adoption process. First, finding a good home for every child. The first thrust is finding a good home for every child identified for adoption. As I said earlier, the key focus of adoption is the child's welfare, rather than about supporting parenthood.”
“MSF appoints these SSAs to conduct pre-adoption briefings and assessments. Currently, all adoption agencies are not directly regulated, although they must comply with Singapore laws, including laws against child trafficking. ACA was last substantively amended in 1985. Since then, the adoption landscape has evolved significantly and seen several key developments. First, adoption applications have become increasingly complex. MSF is seeing more adoption applications involving children with high needs and prospective adopters with concerning issues. Second, some vulnerable children in state care, who would benefit from adoption, face obstacles in the adoption process, primarily due to objections from their birth parents. Third, the CAAs have become more prominent in the adoption sector. With a limited number of local children available for adoption, prospective adopters have sought their services to source for foreign children. Over time, MSF has received feedback about such CAAs engaging in undesirable practices that are financially-motivated, with little to no regard for the interests of the child, prospective adopters and birth parents. While MSF has administratively addressed such undesirable practices, legislative levers are needed for greater deterrence because this cannot be tolerated in our society. Therefore, this Bill will repeal and re-enact ACA, with enhanced provisions to govern the adoption sector, practices and processes in Singapore, and to better safeguard the child's welfare. In formulating the Bill, MSF had consulted extensively. This included key stakeholders, like our adopted children, adoptive parents, adoption agencies, agencies supporting women with unplanned pregnancies, religious leaders, lawyers and the Courts.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." First and foremost, our starting point is that every child deserves to grow up in a loving family and a caring community. We want our children to thrive under the care of trusted adults. This is part of our Social Compact in Singapore, where families form the bedrock of our society. They are our first line of support. The Government will preserve strong families because they are our foundation that nurtures and builds resilient individuals, together with the support of a caring community. However, we note that, in some instances, a child's birth parents may be either unable or unwilling to care for him or her. This is when the Government must facilitate alternative and needed care arrangements. Where reunification with their birth parents is unlikely, adoption into a strong and stable family is an important enabler – providing the children with a better chance of having a good start in life and achieving better outcomes. Today, adoption in Singapore is governed by the Adoption of Children Act 1939 (ACA). In the past decade, the number of adoption applications has averaged about 400 annually, with a dip in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic and cross-border restrictions. Over 90% of applications were granted by the Courts. Adoption agencies have also been playing an increasingly bigger role in the adoption sector. Domestically, there are about 10 to 15 commercial adoption agencies – I will call them CAAs. They provide various services for prospective adopters. For example, arranging pre-adoption assessments and matching them with children identified for adoption. There are also four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) which provide similar services.”
“By end June 2022, eligible ComCare families with children attending Government or Government-aided schools and MSF-registered Student Care Centres (SCCs) or Special Student Care Centres (SSCCs) will automatically qualify for MOE FAS and MSF SCFA. Families need not submit separate applications, and maximum SCFA subsidies will be provided for eligible children for a duration of 12 months. In addition, Singaporeans in need will be able to apply for and renew their ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance online via the enhanced SupportGoWhere (SGW) portal by end-June 2022. The portal will tap on Myinfo to auto-populate relevant personal information, for greater convenience. Applicants can also submit supporting documents directly through the portal, instead of physical documents at the SSOs. We will progressively expand the number of ComCare scheme bundles, and onboard more financial support schemes onto the SGW portal, to provide greater 3C support for those in need.”
“Over the past few years, MSF has been working with Government agencies to progressively reduce the administrative burden for Singaporeans in need applying for ComCare. We leverage backend data-sharing arrangements, simplified referrals and streamlined application processes to deliver more comprehensive, convenient and coordinated (3C) support. For example, if ComCare applicants provide their consent, the Social Service Offices (SSOs) will be able to pull relevant data backend from agencies, such as Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB), HDB and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). This minimises the submission of physical documents and reduces the need for repeated means-testing. Since 2018, ComCare applicants have been able to access 101 adjacent financial assistance schemes more easily, upon approval of their ComCare assistance. For example, eligible ComCare clients automatically qualify for MediFund assistance and the Higher Education Community Bursary for full-time ITE and Polytechnic students. There is no need to submit additional application forms and supporting documents, nor undergo repeated means-testing. For the remaining schemes, clients can submit their ComCare assistance letter in lieu of multiple supporting documents. As announced at MSF's Committee of Supply Debate 2022, we will be offering scheme bundles to further strengthen support for ComCare families, starting with a bundle for school-going children that covers Ministry of Education Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE FAS) and MSF Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA).”
“MSF appoints the Social Work Accreditation and Advisory Board (SWAAB) to uphold standards of professional conduct and code of ethics of the social work profession. A complaint may be lodged to SWAAB against an accredited social worker for breaching the Code of Professional Ethics. SWAAB received a total of 22 complaints from 2017 to 2021, five of which were against unaccredited Social Workers. Of the 22 complaints, the most common ones were on practice concerns and service quality, and these were referred to the Social Worker’s employer to address the issues raised by the complainant. MSF will continue to uphold the standards of professional conduct and code of ethics of the social work profession in the sector through SWAAB.”
“New social workers joining the social service sector can also tap on the Singapore Association of Social Workers’ mentoring programme where they will be matched with an experienced social worker to receive support and guidance. Furthermore, in-sector social workers can apply for the Sabbatical Leave Scheme supported by NCSS and the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund (VCF). The Sabbatical Leave Scheme provides seasoned social service professionals, including social workers, with paid leave and a Professional Advancement Sponsorship, to recharge themselves and develop their professional competencies. MSF and NCSS will continue to raise awareness on the existing schemes available to support social workers. We will also work with our tripartite partners in the social service sector to address feedback from our social workers, through the Social Service SkillsFuture Tripartite Taskforce. Comprising SSAs, Institutes of Higher Learning, professional bodies and Government agencies, the task force will be extended for an additional term until April 2025 to consult and continue co-creating initiatives to strengthen the system of support for sector professionals, including social workers.”
“MSF recognises that the nature of work in the social service sector can take its toll on social workers, affecting their mental and emotional well-being. This is particularly so with the higher workload and uncertainty brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. As Singapore moves towards living with COVID-19 and Safe Management Measures are eased, the demand for social services is likely to normalise and the stress levels of social workers, gradually, eased to a more normal level. MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) have been engaging Social Service Agencies (SSAs) on an ongoing basis to raise awareness of the importance of organisational support for their employees’ mental well-being and to develop a culture of self-care. We have also worked closely with social work leaders on balancing staff well-being with maintaining service delivery standards. Given the impact of the pandemic, these efforts have been ramped up in the past two years. In addition to the National Care Hotline which provides emotional and psychological support to those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, NCSS launched the Caring for Social Service Professionals Scheme in May 2021 to support SSAs in promoting staff well-being. The scheme provides co-funding of up to 90% (capped at $2,000 per SSA) for SSAs to offer professional counselling services to their staff. To date, 63 SSAs, which employ over 12,000 professionals, are on board the scheme. Social service professionals can access self-care and coping strategies, through subsidised courses offered by the Social Service Institute (SSI) under NCSS.”
“As families, as a society and as a nation, we become stronger when our women are given the opportunity to flourish and realise their full potential. (In English): To conclude, the White Paper is just the start of a decade of work. There will be many more conversations and action plans to come. It is a decade-long plan of action and commitment by MSF, the Government and key partners, which we will carry to fruition. We will build a culture of respect and partnership between men and women and across all spheres of society. This is what will take us forward in the next bound. I would like to extend our sincere invitation to all Members, including those from the Opposition, to come join us in our endeavour to advance Singapore women's development towards a fairer and more inclusive society. [Applause.]”
“At the closing session of the Conversations, the Prime Minister had announced that the Government had taken on board a proposal from the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) and will dedicate a public garden to honour, celebrate and recognise the contributions of Singapore women. I am pleased to announce that we have identified Dhoby Ghaut Green, which is located in the heart of the city, for the garden. The Government will work with community partners and the wider public to design and develop the garden. [Applause.] The Prime Minister will also launch a travelling "Celebrating Singapore Women" exhibition on 22 April. The roving exhibition will celebrate our journey on women's development. It also aims to build awareness and ownership of the action plans amongst Singaporeans from various walks of life. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In Singapore, we believe in equal partnership between men and women, with respect as its cornerstone. We honour and respect our women because it is the right and moral thing to do. This is an integral part of our cultural values, because we have been nurtured from young to honour, love and respect the most important woman of our lives – our mothers. Muslims draw lessons from our religion. Just as we honour our mothers, we are also taught to cherish and honour our wives, sisters and daughters. As men, we can and should step up to do more to support our Singapore women. For instance, we can play an active role in caregiving for our children and elderly. We should also support our women as they pursue their aspirations at the workplace and in society.”
“Richard left his job 22 years ago to care for his father who had cancer. Things became challenging when his father then developed dementia. His father would sometimes get violent with him and people around him. Fortunately, Richard received support from his neighbour and benefited from caregiver support programmes by the Caregivers Alliance Limited. Now, Richard gives back and volunteers with them to help other caregivers find strength and solve the issues that they are facing. Richard's story is significant. Firstly, I am encouraged that we are seeing more men like Richard playing a bigger role in caregiving. Like I said earlier, men must play their part in shaping societal norms towards a more equal partnership between men and women. Secondly, Richard's story shows us the power of community support where caregivers benefit from one another's experiences and supporting one another through practical and socio-emotional support. Minister of State Low Yen Ling will speak more about this. I would also like to add that even as our society progresses, there are still persons who experience violence. Let me state categorically that all forms of violence cannot and will not be condoned by our society. Protecting women from violence and harm requires partnership across all spheres of society between men and women. Minister Shanmugam and Minister of State Sun Xueling will elaborate more on this. Finally, it is timely and apt to consider a meaningful way to reflect the enduring importance of Singapore women's development in our society.”
“This would be more effective than setting mandatory quotas, which does not address root causes of the issue that have to do with culture and tradition. Over the years, we have also greatly increased support for our caregivers. In Singapore, strong families form the bedrock of our society. They are a key pillar of strength and our first line of support, providing unconditional love and support, through the ups and downs of life, such as that of our caregivers. Their role is irreplaceable but there will be those who need more support, beyond that from one another. We recognise their contributions to our families and society, and we will support them. Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam will elaborate, including the enhanced Home Caregiving Grant that would better help with caregiving costs. Through the enhanced Silver Support Scheme and the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, we have also boosted the retirement incomes of Singaporeans, including caregivers, who may not have a chance to earn higher incomes during their working years. We have also made major moves to make quality preschools more accessible and affordable to families to enable working parents, especially mothers, to pursue their career aspirations with peace of mind. By around 2025, eight in 10 Singaporean children can have a place in a Government-supported preschool. These are just some of the many Government-led initiatives to support caregivers and their families. But the Government cannot do this alone. The community has an important role to play, too. Caregivers can benefit from strong community support, especially fellow caregivers who share similar experiences and can offer practical and socio-emotional support. Allow me to share Richard's story, which is also featured in the White Paper.”
“From the Ramayana, the Indians cherish Rama who was banished for 14 years to live in the forest by his mother Kaikeyi to make way for his half-brother, Baratha, to become the King. And he dutifully left the city in obedience to his mother. Malay/Muslims take lessons from Islam. When the Prophet was asked who a person should honour the most, or give the best treatment to, he replied, "his mother". And when asked again, "then who?", he said again, “his mother”, and again the third time, "his mother". Only at the fourth time did the Prophet say, "his father". In honouring our mothers, it shows we are also taught to cherish and honour our wives, sisters and daughters. It is why we honour our Singapore women. As families, as a society and as a nation, we are stronger when our women, every woman, can flourish and realise their aspirations and their potential. Thus, we must be part of the solution. And we will build upon this as a society – in workplaces, at home and in our community. At workplaces, our women contribute to a diversity of values, perspectives and capabilities. Having more women in leadership roles helps to catalyse robust governance and better stewardship of organisations. I am glad that women’s participation on Singapore boards is almost 20% in Top 100 listed companies and reaching 30% in Statutory Boards and Top 100 IPCs today. MSF will continue taking a multi-stakeholder approach that empowers stakeholders to collectively address underlying root causes. For instance, the Council for Board Diversity raises public awareness of the importance of women on boards and works with corporates to develop a pipeline of board-ready women.”
“I echo what Bryan Tan, who leads the Centre for Fathering, wrote in a recent commentary that says, and I quote, "Fathers are not 'substitute mothers'" and that "marriage is an equal partnership", unquote. Allow me to share Saiful’s story. We have cited it in our White Paper, but I thought it is worth reiterating. Seven years ago, Saiful left his job in the creative industry to be a stay-home dad and the need arose because they had a young child in the family. While Saiful’s wife continues to work, she is always there supporting him. Her presence enables him to overcome the challenges that he faces. Saiful’s story is inspiring for two reasons. First of all, not only did he challenge the traditional gender expectations and norms; second, it shows us that when men and women partner together, we become better as one. We honour and respect our women because it is the right and moral thing to do, and this is not something new or just a feature of modern society. Respecting our fellow women is a natural evolution from our values, because we have been nurtured to honour, love and respect the most important woman of our lives – our mothers. We can identify this in an Asian society like ours, culturally or religiously. The Chinese know the devotion of Mencius’ Mother, how she single-handedly raised Mencius after her husband passed away, and Mencius’ deep honour and respect that he carried for his mother. One account described the great length and extent that he went to bury his mother and to mourn for her when she passed away. When asked, he said that "the devotion that one owes one’s mother should be expressed fittingly at all times, and certainly through her funeral and mourning rites".”
“Because only then can we progress further, to truly empower both men and women to pursue their aspirations freely and fully. This requires collective commitment – individuals and families, people, private and public sectors, all segments of society, to step up and walk the talk. In this respect, I believe that we, men, can make a difference for our women and, in the process, for ourselves. Thus, my appeal to all men. We can step up, we can do more and we should. Be role models, not only in words, but also in deeds. Because we must believe in equal partnership between men and women, with respect as its cornerstone. I want to state very clearly that this is not a zero-sum game. From time to time, such beliefs or misperceptions come up, whenever we talk about advancing women’s progress. This is simply not our way. Our approach is not about asserting the rights of one over another. As men, we have a big part to play to encourage equal partnership. In our homes, as fathers, it is our responsibility to teach our sons what it means to respect all women, starting from a young age; instil in them the right values and be role models ourselves through our actions, for them to grow to be gentlemen. Our children are social learners of the world, watching our every attitude, word and action. They model after us and assimilate perceived social roles. More tangibly, we can play a much bigger role in sharing the weight of caregiving. We need to pitch in more. Some have, and many more can. Because, in a partnership, we can build on one another’s strengths and be better together, for our children and generations to come.”
“Developing countries had problems providing access to education for their girls, and developed countries complained how their girls were still stereotyped to be educated for roles like teaching and nursing, and few were in STEM. When I shared that, in Singapore, less than 1% of our children did not complete 10 years of education, and that our girls were free to choose their own education pathways, including STEM, the room fell silent – I think in disbelief – that we have achieved both of these. But we should now move from quantitative achievements to one where the quality of development is our focus, which is why we launched the year-long nationwide Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development. We pressed ahead, even amid the pandemic, and organised 160 Conversations. Nearly 6,000 participants, representing wide segments of society, responded to the call and joined us, sharing with us their hopes and aspirations of our women. I was also glad to see many men participating in the Conversations – some of whom are in the Gallery today – because, in the next lap, we can only achieve this goal if we work together, men and women, in a whole-of-society approach. One of whom said, and I quote, “Men and women both play a part in shaping the society. If we all start to do the right things, the future generation will not have to go through what we went through. We should start now while we still can.” This is one of the big conclusions of the Conversations: the collective responsibility that we, as a society, including we, men, must play, if we want to advance our women’s progress. We must begin with challenging mindsets. This means forging new societal norms – one that is based on respect and partnership.”
“Mr Speaker, it is with great honour that I speak in support of the Motion to advance the progress of Singapore women. Since Independence, Singapore women have made tremendous progress. Minister Josephine Teo shared about the many remarkable Singaporean women who have laid the foundations of our society. Allow me to share about one woman who has made a great impact on social work development. Across the island, MSF provides a key line of social support in our local communities, enabling families to bounce back – achieving stability, self-reliance and social mobility. This is through a network of 48 Family Service Centres (FSCs). This all started with Ms Thung Syn Neo. She was a pioneering social worker, a giant in the profession. Syn Neo spearheaded the formation of the very first FSC in 1978 in the then-Ministry of Social Affairs. We owe Syn Neo our gratitude for laying the foundations of our FSCs, which have uplifted and strengthened thousands of Singaporean families to this day. Mr Speaker, the tremendous progress made by our women that we see today did not occur by chance. This was the outcome of the Government’s intentional efforts to steward the progress of Singapore women, decade after decade, because we believe in a fairer and more inclusive society, where men and women are equal, valued members of our society. My Ministry and the many Ministers that came before me, have been at the forefront of this endeavour. We have led the charge, legislatively, and through our policies and programmes; nudging at times, and earth shaking at times. I was proud to share how far we have come at the G20 Ministerial Conference on Women’s Empowerment in Italy last year.”
“This is a carefully considered move, taking into consideration the high vaccination coverage among educators and children aged five and above, and feedback from educators and parents to better support our students' learning needs while mitigating the risk of spread of COVID-19. We will consider whether to extend this arrangement to more settings at a later stage.”
“We recognise that the perception and articulation of speech sounds are important aspects of early language development. While there is limited literature on the effects of mask wearing on language learning and development, studies suggest that mask wearing has a greater impact at the pre-Primary and lower Primary levels, where young children are deprived of language cues from the movement of the preschool educator's lips and facial expression. To limit the spread of COVID-19 in our preschools and keep children and staff safe, all preschool staff are required to wear masks within the preschool. To support young children's learning and development, preschools have the flexibility to use face masks with a transparent feature that allows the wearer's mouth to be visible. Such face masks are available on the market. In 2021, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) received donations of over 7,000 reusable masks with transparent windows and distributed these to staff and children in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and KidSTART to help children with developmental needs as well as children from low-income families. In line with the national transition towards COVID-19 resiliency, MOE and ECDA will gradually ease mask-wearing requirements in schools, preschools and Early Intervention centres to better support children's learning and development needs. For a start, from 29 March 2022, selected teachers and students with additional or developmental needs have the flexibility to remove their masks during language and literacy lessons. The mask-off provision is also offered to Government-funded Early Intervention centres running EIPIC.”
“If a client is ineligible for ComCare assistance, SSOs may assist the family in other ways. For instance, SSO may consider the client for other Government or community assistance schemes or refer the client to other Government agencies or community partners for support in areas like caregiving, medical or employment assistance.”
“Social Service Offices (SSOs) administer ComCare, which provides assistance to low-income households for their basic living expenses. ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) is for households that require help to tide over temporary financial difficulty. ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) is for those who are permanently unable to work and have little or no means of income and family support. MSF tracks the rejection rate of ComCare applications in general and not specifically for renewal requests. The yearly rejection rate for LTA applications has increased slightly from 2% in 2020 to 3% in 2021, while that for SMTA has increased slightly from 30% in 2020 to 34% in 2021. While rejection rates have increased slightly, we are serving more individuals. In 2021, we provided ComCare SMTA and LTA assistance to about 86,300 individuals, compared to about 82,600 individuals in 2020, an increase of 4.5%. The top three reasons for unsuccessful ComCare applications in 2020 and 2021 were: (a) applicants being assessed to have a stable source of income or financial support that was sufficient to meet their basic living expenses; (b) applicants withdrawing their applications for reasons such as to apply for other assistance schemes, for example, the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, or after learning that they would be ineligible; and (c) applicants not submitting supporting documents despite multiple requests by SSO. In the past 24 months, in addition to ComCare, MSF also assisted individuals who required temporary financial support due to COVID-19, through the Temporary Relief Fund (TRF), COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG). These schemes have supported about 480,000 individuals as of end 2021.”
“These measures will provide low-income households with more time and better support to stabilise their circumstances. We will review these measures to calibrate the level of support in line with the evolving global and domestic economic situation. The community continues to play an important role in partnering the Government to help those in need. If anyone encounters a neighbour, friend or family member who needs support, I urge them to call the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000, or refer them to the nearest SSO or Family Service Centre for assistance.”
“ComCare provides assistance to low-income households for their basic living expenses. The income eligibility criterion for ComCare is not a hard threshold to qualify for assistance. Our Social Service Offices (SSOs) assess applicants’ needs and do exercise flexibility when providing financial assistance. ComCare Short-to-Medium Term (SMTA) assistance quantum is customised to the needs of different age groups and archetypes. MSF reviews the ComCare assistance quantum every two to three years, taking into account household expenditure data for daily living expenses, including projected inflation. We also consult domain experts in areas, such as nutrition and transport, and obtain views from community stakeholders, such as social workers and low-income families. The next review is already underway and we expect to complete this by the middle of this year. In the meantime, we are taking other proactive steps to ensure adequate financial assistance for low-income households, in view of recent costs of living concerns. The Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Trade and Industry will be making a joint Ministerial Statement on inflation and business costs. They will reiterate the support measures announced at the recent Budget, and share the immediate steps that the Government will take to help Singaporeans cope with inflationary pressures. MSF has been monitoring the impact of inflation on low-income households and individuals and will be implementing measures to provide more financial support for ComCare recipients who require it, and administrative flexibilities to provide greater stability for eligible beneficiaries. MSF will announce the details of these measures after the joint Ministerial Statement.”