Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 26.
“Home-based respite care complements care provided by day hospices, which allow end-of-life patients with stable conditions to benefit from social activities and rehabilitation while allowing caregivers to take a break. The four-day hospice centres today have adequate places to meet demand. We will monitor utilisation and expand capacity if required. Indeed, end-of-life patients and their caregivers have unique needs. The Singapore Hospice Council (SHC) has developed and shared caregiver resources with hospitals and palliative care providers so that caregivers have the information on hand to better cope at home. The SHC will also be setting up a helpdesk later this year, so that caregivers who need advice can call in to receive timely support. Apart from supporting caregivers with caregiving skills and knowledge, palliative care providers also support their emotional needs, linking them up with grief counsellors or support groups, if needed. This is part of the care coordination role which palliative care providers play. Over the years, we have enhanced financial support schemes, like the Home Caregiving Grant and the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund, to better support costs of informal caregiving. Other long-term care schemes, like CareShield Life, also provide cash payouts to eligible Singaporeans. They may also withdraw up to $200 in cash every month from their own or their spouses' MediSave accounts under the MediSave Care scheme. Through these schemes, Singaporeans with severe disability can currently benefit from payouts of up to about $1,300 a month.”
“Instead of capitation funding, the pilot between Dover Park Hospice and TTSH will trial bundled funding for palliative care services across all three community settings, for example, on a per-patient per month basis. Through a simpler funding formula, providers will be empowered to decide on the most appropriate care setting for the patient. The pilot will also trial interventions to enable earlier referrals of patients with non-cancer conditions to community palliative care and care protocols, to better support them in community. We have been working closely with Dover Park Hospice and TTSH to refine the pilot design and develop a robust evaluation and monitoring process to track effectiveness. We aim to launch the pilot in the second half of this year. If the outcomes are promising, we will consider how we can progressively mainstream it with appropriate safeguards to ensure continued quality of care. Caregivers are the most critical factor in enabling one to be cared for at home, but they often come under tremendous stress while coping with grief and loss. We have been continuously enhancing measures to support caregivers through this challenging journey. We introduced the home-based respite care pilot, as part of the Caregivers Support Action Plan in 2019, to allow caregivers of end-of-life patients to rest or tend to other matters while their loved ones are cared for by palliative-trained care staff. Since January 2023, hospitals can also refer patients to the service, so that patients and their caregivers can be supported more quickly upon discharge. This takes a significant load off caregivers who often have to arrange for home modifications and adjust to new routines while dealing with the grief of soon having to say goodbye to a loved one.”
“We are working with the AIC and providers to do this, beginning with nursing homes and home care. We agree that in the longer term, family doctors can play a role, building on relationships forged with their enrolled patients. We are also working with hospitals and palliative care providers to implement workflows that Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about, to enable more patients to undergo what we call a compassionate discharge back to home. This involves, for instance, providing appropriate training and resources, and implementing hand-over checklists to ensure continuity of care. Mr Yip asked about subsidies for professional palliative caregiving and extending MediShield Life to home hospice care. To keep palliative care affordable, the Government provides subsidies of up to 80% for palliative care, as well as home-based respite care services for caregivers of end-of-life patients. Patients can already tap on MediSave for in-patient, day hospice and home palliative care and make claims under MediShield Life for in-patient palliative care. Government-funded home medical and nursing providers whose patients are at the end-of-life stage, will soon be able to make MediSave claims for these patients, similar to home palliative care providers. In addition, palliative care providers have done well in raising significant charity dollars to complement Government funding and reduce out-of-pocket costs. We are reviewing the overall financing framework for palliative care to ensure that affordability concerns do not deter anyone who needs palliative care from receiving it. Mr Yip also asked about shifting to a capitation funding model for palliative care. The scope of care included under capitation funding for the Regional Health Systems does not include community palliative care.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng for passionately advocating to enhance end-of-life care. End-of-life may be a sensitive topic to talk about, but it is an important one that will affect all of us. The reality is that in Singapore, despite clear preferences for receiving end-of-life care and dying at home, only about one in four died at home over the past few years. So, we do need to discuss issues surrounding palliative and hospice care. The hospice movement took root in Singapore in the 1980s. Today, more than 20 institutions provide palliative care across various settings. Our community providers supported some 8,800 individuals with life-limiting conditions in 2022. This is 30% more than in 2017, just five years ago. We have come a long way since the 1980s, but much more can be done. Today, I will highlight three areas of work to enhance end-of-life care: first, improving access to palliative care; second, better supporting caregivers; and third, normalising conversations on death and dying. With an ageing population, more will need palliative care. We will invest in expanding our services and review our financing frameworks to improve access to palliative care. We have expanded capacity over the years. We will train more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in specialised palliative care, particularly in home care. We are also setting aside palliative beds in upcoming community hospital developments to cater to the growing demand. Beyond specialised services, we also want to entrench palliative care as a basic skill set for all healthcare professionals across disciplines and settings. This will require us to change the mindsets and instincts of our clinicians and equip them with the necessary skills and tools.”
“The amendments in this Bill will simplify and make family proceedings more efficient. They will also reduce acrimony in family proceedings, strengthening Therapeutic Justice in the family justice system. With the new MEP strengthening deterrence against respondents who refuse to pay, and facilitating more sustainable maintenance outcomes where respondents cannot pay, it is hoped that situations where children and vulnerable family members are left in financial neglect will be reduced. We will also continue to work closely with our partners in the legal community and social services, such as the DSSAs, to provide more avenues of support to individuals who may nevertheless find the process challenging. Where the financial needs of the families who have undergone a breakdown are met in a timely manner, this will go a long way towards helping families to heal and move on from the breakdown of the family unit, in a positive manner. Divorced parents will also be able to better focus on co-parenting in a manner which best protects their children’s interests.”
“Today, in Parliament, the Family Justice Reform Bill will introduce major changes to the maintenance enforcement process. Over the years, we have progressively refined the maintenance enforcement framework. However, we still see a relatively high number of cases against those who refuse to comply with the maintenance order. We have received feedback on the anxiety, frustration and other real-life impact on the applicant. These changes are intended to address the needs from the feedback. A new unit of Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEO) will be set up. Parties no longer need to apply to Court and go through a formal legal process to gather evidence on the assets and means of the parties involved. MEO will be authorised to obtain the information directly from the parties involved or from designated entities, such as banks, CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA, LTA and CDP. MEO will submit this information to the Court, and the Court can use this information when making a judgment. The Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) will apply to Court orders made by the Singapore Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement. As a result, this will save time as there is no need to attend multiple Court hearings, save money because there is no need to pay legal fees, and reduce hardship as there is no need to prove the asset and the ability of the parties involved for the parties. It is hoped that this latest reform will help to further strengthen the family justice system by reducing acrimony, pain and suffering of families and the children. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now conclude.”
“The Women's Charter also provides that the child should be "of an age to express an independent opinion". Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family proceedings are unique. They also often involve children, who will be worst affected by strained relationships and fractured family ties. This is why “Therapeutic Justice” has been given much attention in implementing family proceedings. We want the Court process to nudge the family towards an outcome that is beneficial to all parties. We want to equip families involved with the necessary tools and resources so that they can move on and emerge from adversity. We do not wish to see families getting entangled in acrimonious litigation. Therefore, this Bill aims to enhance the therapeutic justice elements in the family justice system. The recommendations in this Bill include: (a) Strengthening the power of judges to take a proactive approach to the cases before them. This includes allowing them to make certain orders at their own discretion to address any urgent need of the families involved; (b) Authorising the judge to prohibit the parties involved from submitting additional applications which are unnecessary and have no strong justifications, without the leave of the Court; and (c) Enabling judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination under certain circumstances, where the questioning of a vulnerable witness may be intimidating or oppressive. These new reforms will complement some enhancements to the family justice system that have been implemented by MSF and MinLaw, together with the Family Justice Court (FJC), over the years to make family proceedings less acrimonious.”
“Nonetheless, we thank Ms Soh for her suggestions and will certainly continue to study how we can improve therapeutic justice outcomes in all aspects of the divorce process. Mr Lim Biow Chuan has asked about allowing the FJR to prescribe that judges may conduct interviews with children. Mr Louis Chua has also made suggestions on training family judges to handle children in interviews with them. I mentioned in my opening speech the rationale behind this amendment, including the need for more clarity in the legislation. I also briefly mentioned that judicial interviews are not the only – nor the preferred – method of ascertaining a child's wishes, but will complement the variety of methods that can be used to hear the child's voice. I would add that family judges do receive specialised training on whether, when and how to interview a child. This training sensitises family judges to the needs of a child, the safety concerns and the potential impact the Court proceedings may have on the child. Judicial interviews of children may also be conducted in the joint presence of FJC's Court Family Specialists who are proficient in interviewing children. The Court Family Specialist is a trained professional and experienced counsellor, psychologist or social worker from the Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS), which is the social science arm of the Family Justice Courts. Mr Melvin Yong asked about the minimum age of children being interviewed. There is no minimum age in legislation. As the ability to communicate can differ across children of the same age, a different approach may be required for each child. The Courts have, however, held that judicial interviews would only be useful where the "children are mature enough to convey their views independently".”
“The Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme, which all divorcing parents with minor children must go through before filing for divorce, will equip and encourage parents to make informed decisions, including on post-divorce housing arrangements, which prioritise the well-being of their children. The Court can refer divorcing parties to HDB for housing counselling before the divorce is finalised, for them to better understand their post-divorce housing options. In deciding the division of the matrimonial flat, even when the parties have reached an agreement, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children and direct parties to seek HDB's views. The Court may consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children. Nevertheless, we thank Mr Pillai for his suggestions and we will continue to study how the process relating to the division of the matrimonial flat may be strengthened to protect the interests of children. Ms Hany Soh has asked about the docketing system for divorce proceedings on the ordinary track. She also made suggestions on how a global settlement could be facilitated. Whether a contested case is suitable for docketing to designated judges depends on the facts of the case. Generally, high conflict cases and cases involving highly contentious issues on the custody, care and control of children, are docketed. As far as possible, docketing is done in the earlier stages of proceedings to allow a single judge to take charge of the case. Presently, almost all contested cases are referred to mediation in the early stages of proceedings.”
“Apart from arranging for such witnesses to give evidence by video in a separate room in the FJC, the Court may also permit a vulnerable witness to be accompanied by a trained Court volunteer recruited by the Singapore Children's Society, under the Vulnerable Witness Support Programme. The trained volunteer will not only accompany the vulnerable witness during the Court proceedings, but will provide the witness with information about Court processes and procedures, and continue to provide the witness with emotional support after the hearing. Mr Pillai spoke about ensuring that the housing needs of divorcing parties and children are addressed when the Court decides on the division of the matrimonial flat. The parties are required to provide key information on their HDB property as part of the divorce application. In deciding the division of the matrimonial assets, the Court does consider the welfare and needs of the children. The Court may also direct parties to seek HDB's views and consider information provided by HDB on, for example, the retention of the matrimonial flat and post-divorce housing options for the divorcing parties and their children. There are also various support schemes put in place by HDB and MSF to ensure a smooth housing transition for divorcees. To equip parties with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions regarding the matrimonial property that prioritises the child’s well-being, MSF's Family Assist Portal will provide parties with information on post-divorce housing options.”
“Today, there are various physical touchpoints where such SRPs can seek help in filing a maintenance enforcement application, such as: the ServiceSG Centres at Our Tampines Hub and One Punggol, the Divorce Support Specialist Centres (DSSAs) and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations. We will work with ServiceSG and MSF to ensure that such services continue to be offered even after the new Maintenance Enforcement Process is implemented. Ms Ng's suggestion to train social service officers and social workers to help their vulnerable clients navigate the online application process and make the appropriate referrals, is a good one, which MSF will explore. We will work together with our partners and stakeholders in the legal and social service sectors to disseminate information on and raise awareness of the MEP. Mr Zhulkarnain reiterated his support for empowering judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination in prescribed circumstances. He also mentioned video conferencing facilities for young survivors to give evidence. As Mr Zhulkarnain noted – and he would be glad to know – video conferencing facilities for victims of family violence are already available at the FJC today. The Family Court may permit the giving of evidence through a live video or live television link, in family violence proceedings under the Women's Charter, where certain conditions are satisfied, including where the witness is below the age of 18. The Court will assess the relevant facts and circumstances of each case to decide if such permission should be given. This includes the suitability of the witness to give evidence via live video or live television link and the nature of the evidence that the witness will be giving.”
“Mr Gan has also asked whether maintenance payments will be prioritised over other debts. Mr Zhulkarnain has asked for clarification on how the new MEP and the bankruptcy regime will interface with each other. As Mr Zhulkarnain has correctly mentioned, the reforms in this Bill do not change the order of priorities of an insolvent debtor. The reforms also do not change how enforcement proceedings or orders ordinarily interact with the bankruptcy regime. Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Gan have also asked what can be done when respondents are declared bankrupt or respondents are struggling financially. Dr Wan Rizal raised concerns of harshness on parties genuinely unable to pay. Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned that for bankrupt respondents, applicants are unlikely to be able to recover any arrears but yet are saddled with the expenses of the children. This is where the reforms under the MEP may be helpful. The MEOs will be able to verify whether the respondent has genuine financial difficulties. This would include considering, like what Mr Gan said, whether the respondent has genuine responsibilities paying for their children and elderly parents' expenses. Where the respondent has genuine financial difficulties, the MEOs, where appropriate, may refer the parties to Social Service Offices for financial assistance or other forms of support. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there can be more practical help for vulnerable individuals and laypersons applying to enforce their maintenance orders. The new process was designed specifically to reduce the burden on parties, especially Self-represented Persons (SRPs). Nonetheless, certain litigants may still require more help than others.”
“The Bill allows for consequences to be imposed on such respondents. For example, the Court may imprison a respondent who has no good reason for failing to pay maintenance on time, even if that respondent pays up after the applicant files the enforcement application. Further, for a respondent who has not paid maintenance in a timely manner and the parties have not settled, the Court must make a Show-Payment Order for the Respondent to show proof of payment of any future maintenance payable. An imprisonment term may also be specified for the breach of the Show-Payment Order. Mr Lim also asked about situations where the respondent refuses to pay because he or she is denied access to the child. Being denied access is not grounds for non-compliance with a maintenance order. A parent has a legal duty to maintain a child, whether the child is in his or her custody or not. If the respondent is denied access to the child, he or she may take up an application for the enforcement of the access order. I will now address some of the other comments made or questions asked in relation to maintenance enforcement. Mr Zhulkarnain suggested that all maintenance orders be placed on a searchable database registry and that a recalcitrant defaulter can be placed on a blacklist with an alert to the Credit Service Bureau. The Women's Charter already provides for an Applicant who has filed for maintenance enforcement to be able to lodge a report to a designated credit bureau regarding unpaid arrears stated on the order of Court. Applicants will continue to be able to lodge such reports under the new MEP. Under the new MEP, the MEO may also assist to lodge the arrears report. This may be helpful for applicants who have challenges filing the arrears report on their own.”
“On attachment of earnings orders, Mr Ng asked whether earnings from freelance or gig economy work are earnings that may be attached. "Earnings" for the purpose of attachment of earnings orders is defined in the new section 76 of the Women's Charter to refer to wages or salary payable under a contract of service. Therefore, depending on the way the contractual relationship between the worker and the firm is structured, it may well be that, in some cases, such earnings may fall within the definition of "earnings". Attachment of earnings orders work effectively where there is a regular and stable stream of income that can be directed towards the fulfilment of periodical maintenance payments. They do not work so well where the income is unpredictable, such as for freelancers and contract workers. Including such arrangements may lead to hardship for the parties and administrative challenges for the firms who engage these workers. Hence, attachment of earnings orders will, generally, not be made in respect of income from gig work, which is unstable. Where incomes are not stable, the family's financial situation is naturally more complicated and it is not always easy to find simple solutions. The MEOs will help parties look at the overall picture and suggest arrangements that are sustainable. Ultimately, regardless of the type of work one does, the respondent must be responsible for fulfilling his or her obligations for maintenance. Even if the attachment of earnings order is not available, there are various other ways to hold them accountable. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Dennis Tan said that respondents who delay paying maintenance to frustrate the complainant should not be allowed to walk away without consequences.”
“Maintenance orders would not be varied in cases where the respondent has the means to pay the maintenance sum. In cases where the respondent has genuinely experienced a change in circumstances affecting his or her ability to pay maintenance, the MEP will help the Court make a more accurate assessment of the nature of the change and accordingly make more accurate variation orders where needed. This can be a temporary variation to deal with a temporary change in circumstances, but it leads to a more sustainable outcome for all parties. On the other hand, if we turn a blind eye to the changed circumstances, respondents will continue to miss maintenance payments time and time again, even if multiple enforcement applications are made and concluded against them. Applicants will spend time and costs on enforcement, only to end up being disappointed each time. It would be far better for such applicants to receive the appropriate financial assistance and other forms of support, or enter into a more sustainable maintenance arrangement with the respondent. The new MEP facilitates this. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about the circumstances in which a respondent would not be imprisoned, or lower maintenance amounts ordered, because of his or her medical conditions. These are decisions that are, ultimately, for the Court to make, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Where there are disputes of fact, for example, on the medical conditions of the respondent, the MEO may help to gather the relevant facts and evidence, including seeking information from third parties to verify the parties' positions. The Court may also direct the MEOs to conduct further fact-finding, if necessary.”
“The Bill gives the MEOs protection against personal liability when they exercise their powers or perform their functions or duties, provided they do so in good faith and with reasonable care. I will now address the questions and comments that Members have raised with respect to the powers of the Court hearing the maintenance enforcement application. First, on the Court's powers to vary the maintenance orders. Mr Louis Ng expressed concern that the potential for variation may disincentivise some applicants from applying for enforcement. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also asked about variation where the respondent loses his or her job or if he or she has a new family. The MEP does not change the substantive law in relation to variation of maintenance orders: the test that the respondent has to satisfy remains the same. What the MEP does is to reduce the procedural challenges that parties face in seeking variation. For example, the Court may vary a maintenance order made during matrimonial proceedings only when it is satisfied that: the order was based on any misrepresentation or mistake of fact; or where there has been any material change in circumstances. The Court will consider all relevant facts and circumstances before deciding whether there has been any change in circumstances warranting a variation of the maintenance order. New financial commitments and loss of job could be relevant considerations. However, the Courts have held that remarriage per se does not affect pre-existing obligations owed to the family from an earlier marriage. Similarly, when MEOs make recommendations to parties to facilitate an out-of-Court settlement, remarriage and loss of job are but two of the various factors that will be considered.”
“For example, if a respondent is retrenched and has challenges paying maintenance due to the sudden loss of income, the Court may suspend the maintenance order or vary the maintenance amount downwards for a short period of time and make the appropriate directions for the respondent to report back to the Court on a specified date after he or she has had time to look for a new job. The Court may also make an order requiring the respondent to undergo financial counselling with a professional counsellor who will be able to help the respondent explore various options to manage his or her daily expenses and to pay maintenance. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested that the MEOs may also assist the Court at the stage of division of matrimonial assets. We thank Mr Gan for his suggestion, which we will study. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Melvin Yong, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Hany Soh have asked about MEOs’ recruitment, training and resourcing. These are operational details that will be worked through in implementation. Suffice to say that we intend to hire and train a multidisciplinary team, with team members having or being trained and equipped with knowledge and skills in different areas. This will include the skills needed to effectively manage the parties in family proceedings. We also thank Ms Hany Soh for her suggestion on taking a coordinated approach across the entire family justice ecosystem. We will certainly keep this in mind as we develop the training programmes in a way that strengthens therapeutic justice outcomes. Mr Zhulkarnain has asked about legal protections for the MEOs.”
“Mr Dennis Tan has also asked what information may be redacted from the MEO's report. The MEO has broad powers to gather information for the Court from third parties, including information that is ordinarily private and confidential. The MEO reports this to the Court. There may be information gathered by the MEO and in the report that is unnecessary or irrelevant. This power will allow for such information to be redacted to protect the party's interests. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong also asked whether there is a standard rubric for MEOs to assess the parties’ financial position. Mr Gan Thiam Poh referred to challenges with distinguishing between those who will not pay and cannot pay cases. Both Mr Gan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan cited examples of respondents who have the ability to earn an income or better income but chose not to do so. There is no fixed formula to determine whether a respondent has the means to pay maintenance. Each case will be assessed on its facts, based on information on the parties’ assets and means. That being said, the MEOs will be trained and given guidelines on making these assessments. We will work closely with Social Service Officers from MSF to develop these guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the Court to decide whether the respondent cannot pay or refuses to pay, and the appropriate orders to make. The Court will consider the MEO’s report in coming to its decision. The FJC judges are trained to deal with a wide range of family situations and also have the powers to make orders to address the unique needs of each family. They will also be supported by counsellors and other professionals who will be able to provide therapeutic interventions.”
“The MEO will take into account the financial assistance granted, if any, as part of the overall assessment of the financial circumstances of the parties. The Court will also take into consideration information on any financial assistance granted, in deciding on the appropriate orders to be made. Mr Melvin Yong asked about whether it is an offence for a respondent to refuse financial assistance, despite an MEO's referral. The answer is no. It is open to a respondent to decide whether to accept financial assistance. I will turn to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan's queries on what the MEO’s report will set out and whether the reports will be provided to both parties. The MEO’s final report will be provided to both parties and submitted to the Court. It will contain all the information submitted to the MEO in relation to the maintenance enforcement application; matters relating to the conciliation sessions; and any other matters and information as may be prescribed. In respect of interim reports, the clause which Mr Dennis Tan referred to allows the MEO to provide an interim report to the applicant only, first, to cater for a situation where the MEO needs to inform the applicant of an impending dissipation of assets so that appropriate action can be taken. The intent is for the interim report to eventually be available to both parties in accordance with the rules. The intention is for the MEO to provide all relevant facts and evidence for the Court’s consideration. The Court may then, if it thinks fit, rely on the MEO’s report to make the appropriate orders against the respondent’s assets, without calling for further evidence. We may prescribe additional matters to be covered in the report, as we learn from the initial phases of implementation.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked about the number of conciliation sessions and the consequences for failing to attend or not participating in good faith. The Bill does not impose a limit on the number of conciliation sessions. We envisage that there will, typically, be two sessions, but the exact number will vary. It is the Court that directs the parties to attend conciliation. Failure to attend is, therefore, contempt of Court. Further, if the respondent is absent from conciliation, the Court may direct the respondent to attend another conciliation session. The Court may also proceed with the hearing of the application. If the respondent is absent for the hearing of the application, the new Family Justice Rules will allow the Court to proceed to make the appropriate orders, if certain conditions are satisfied. This should also address Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question about her resident whose application got “stuck” because the ex-husband could not be found. With respect to parties who do not participate in good faith, the parties’ conduct during conciliation will be set out in the MEO’s report to the Court. The Court may take the parties’ conduct into account in making the appropriate orders on the maintenance enforcement application. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the matter will still proceed to hearing after the MEO refers parties for financial assistance. Financial assistance is not intended to replace the parties’ financial responsibilities to their families, but acts as a safety net for our fellow Singaporeans in need. The matter will, therefore, still proceed for conciliation and hearing after the MEO makes the referral for financial assistance.”
“AGC’s advice was also sought on the matter. Mr Louis Ng asked who we intend to prescribe as the third parties from whom MEOs may seek information. In Minister Shanmugam’s opening speech, he listed them: the CDP and Government agencies, such as CPF Board, HDB, IRAS, SLA and LTA. Mr Melvin Yong asked about information on foreign assets. The Bill does not have extraterritorial effect. The MEOs and the Singapore Courts do not have powers to direct third parties in a foreign jurisdiction to provide information. Mr Louis Ng also asked about the contemplated timelines to disclose information sought. We have been engaging the banks and third parties that we intend to prescribe and we will work with them to implement the MEP, which would include response timelines. Mr Murali Pillai also raised the concern that assets may be held in the name of proxies. Mr Pillai also requested for clarification on the ambit of a “third party” under the Bill and whether a third party may be asked to disclose information relating to proxies. The third party may be any person who has relevant information. Thus, if an MEO, in the course of fact-finding, has reason to suspect that the respondent has assets that are held in the name of proxies, the MEO may seek a Court order for a third party to disclose information about the assets. It is for the Court to decide if such information is relevant to the enforcement application. There are limits to the MEOs’ powers to uncover every fact. It is, ultimately, the primary responsibility of the parties to be forthright about their true financial positions. Furnishing false information, when asked by an MEO, or to the Court, is a criminal offence.”
“Sir, I thank Members for their comments and expressions of support for the Bill. I will address the points raised in relation to the new Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) and the enhancement of Court proceedings and procedures in the FJC. I will start with the Members’ questions on the scope of the new MEP. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim hopes that the MEP will apply to the enforcement of Syariah Court orders. The MEP will, indeed, apply to orders made by the Syariah Court which, under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, may be treated as maintenance orders made by the Family Court for the purposes of enforcement. Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about past outstanding maintenance and limitation periods. The Bill does not change the existing position on limitation. Generally, an applicant needs to commence proceedings to enforce arrears within three years from the time that such arrears are due. The applicant will then be able to include those arrears in future enforcement applications if the arrears remain unpaid. If the applicant acts in a timely manner, the respondent cannot circumvent his or her obligations. On past maintenance arrears, the MEP will, when fully implemented, apply to all maintenance enforcement applications. Mr Murali Pillai has asked about MEOs being sited under the Executive. The new MEOs will gather evidence and carry out conciliation to help parties reach a sustainable solution. However, if parties do not settle, the Court will still make a final decision, possibly using information and evidence gathered by the MEO. It is, therefore, preferable for the MEOs’ evidence gathering and conciliation roles to be independent of the Court. We have discussed this with the Judiciary, which supported the proposal for the MEOs to be sited within the Executive.”
“Depending on the circumstances of the case, in certain situations, instead of incurring time and costs in enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings, it may be more sensible and in the interests of both parties, for the Court to grant a short reprieve to the judgment debtor, or to allow the judgment debtor to pay the judgment creditor by way of instalments. This is especially important in family proceedings where further litigation would put an additional strain on the fractured relationship and adversely impact children involved in the proceedings. I will not go into details on all the other amendments under the Bill, but Members are free to raise any questions that they may have on those amendments. To conclude, I would like to express our gratitude to the members of the RERF Committee for their recommendations, and the stakeholders and members of the public who have taken the time to give us feedback on the family justice system. With your feedback and suggestions, we were better able to shape the reforms in this Bill to resolve the real issues faced by families and children in family proceedings and to better protect, restore and heal families and children. Time will be required and work will need to be put in to operationalise some of the changes in this Bill, including the Maintenance Enforcement Process. We hope you will continue to give us support and feedback, to operationalise the reforms.”
“Currently, the Family Justice Act provides that a Family Court or Youth Court, respectively, may, on its own motion or upon the application of any party, order any party or any child who is the subject of proceedings, to undergo mediation or counselling, or to participate in any family support programme or activity. The Court also has powers to order a party or child to undergo other ADR processes, or to attend professional clinical or therapeutic intervention sessions. The Bill will clarify in the Family Justice Act that a Family Court or Youth Court has such powers. The Bill will also clarify in legislation the existing powers of the Court to appoint Judicial officers, officers of the FJC or any other persons, such as volunteer lawyers, to conduct mediations or other ADR processes. Amendments will also be made to provide that a Family Court or Youth Court may make the appropriate and necessary orders where a person fails to comply with the Court's orders to attend mediation or other ADR process, such as an order staying proceedings until the orders are complied with. Second, the Bill will adopt section 43 of the State Courts Act which applies to a District Court, by expressly providing that the Family Court may order that a judgment sum be paid in a lump sum or by instalments, and may order that a judgment be suspended or stayed if the judgment debtor is unable to pay the sum. The amendments will align the position under the Family Justice Act with that in section 43 of the State Courts Act.”
“In some cases, the Court may assess that it would be more appropriate to appoint a Child Representative, who is a trained professional appointed by the Court to represent the voice of a child and present an objective assessment of care arrangements which are in the child's best interest, or other professional, to hear from the child. Moving on to the next bucket of reforms, the Bill will amend various pieces of legislation to modernise and simplify nomenclature for family proceedings. For example, "Plaintiff" will be replaced by "Applicant", "Defendant" will be replaced by "Respondent" and "Writ for divorce" will be replaced by "originating application for divorce". This will be in line with the amendments made to Court terminology in civil Court proceedings under the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021 and the Rules of Court 2021. In the new Family Justice Rules to be introduced, the simplified terminology will also be adopted. These changes will make it easier for Court users and members of the public to understand family proceedings. This will amplify the existing efforts by the Government and Judiciary to enhance access to justice, especially for persons who cannot afford legal representation, by simplifying Court processes. The last bucket of reforms relates to various miscellaneous and technical amendments to clarify, enhance and streamline processes in the FJC. I will elaborate on two of these amendments. First, on mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes or "ADR processes" for short.”
“The RERF Committee, in its report, discussed the benefits of judges conducting interviews with children and noted that, in Singapore, there have been cases where judges have conducted interviews with children to reach outcomes that serve the interests of the child. An example of such a case is AZB v AZC [2016] SGHCF 1. In that case, the High Court Judge interviewed three children between the ages of 11 and 13 in a dispute between their parents on care and control and access arrangements. The Judge noted that there were indications that the children wished to speak with her. The children were mature enough to express their views on matters that impacted their lives. In deciding that it would be in the children's welfare to increase the access time with their mother, the Judge relied on, among other things, the Judge's conversations with the children which corroborated the finding that the children enjoyed access time with their mother. The Committee mentioned that there has been research highlighting children's wishes to be more involved in the decisions that may affect their lives profoundly and their dissatisfaction with the indirect processes that are available to them. The Committee recommended, therefore, that it should be made clear that the judge-led approach allows for a judge to interview a child. It should be noted that each case is unique, with different considerations applying to each family and each child. It is not in every case that a judicial interview of children is suitable.”
“The RERF Committee considered the approaches in England and Australia on prohibiting cross-examination in family violence cases and recommended that the Courts should be empowered to restrict cross-examination in specified circumstances. The new section 11C, therefore, provides that the Court may only make the orders restricting cross-examination in circumstances to be prescribed in the FJR, for example, in circumstances where the questioning of a vulnerable witness is or is likely to be unduly intimidating and oppressive. The Court's powers under the new section 11C will complement its existing powers under the Evidence Act to, among others, forbid any question which appears to the Court to be intended to insult or annoy or appears to be needlessly offensive. The third key provision in the Bill provides that the FJR may set out the modes by which the wishes of a child may be determined by the Court. The intention is for the prescribed modes to expressly include interviews conducted by a judge with a child, in addition to the variety of other methods which may be used to hear a child's voice, such as through the Child Representatives or an assessment by a mental health professional. In the context of matrimonial proceedings under the Women's Charter, section 125 of the Women's Charter provides that in deciding in whose custody a child should be placed, the paramount consideration shall be the welfare of the child. Section 125 also specifically requires the Court to have regard to: (a) the wishes of the parents; and (b) the wishes of a child where he or she is of an age to express an independent opinion. However, section 125 does not provide for the modes by which the child's wishes may be determined.”
“The Court's power to make an order of a substantive nature under section 11B may only be exercised if: every person likely to be affected by the order is first given an opportunity to be heard concerning the order; and the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to make the order. The second key provision is the new section 11C of the Family Justice Act, which will empower FJC to, on its own motion, or upon the application of any party, make the following orders: an order that cross-examination of a witness be restricted in scope or duration and an order that cross-examination be conducted in any manner prescribed by the FJR. At present, rule 101A of the FJR already allows the Court to limit the scope and duration of cross-examination, or to disallow direct cross-examination in two situations: (a) a family violence trial in proceedings under Part 7 of the Women's Charter; (b) an application under section 67(1) of the Women's Charter to vary, suspend or revoke a protection order or an expedited order. The direct cross-examination of a victim of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victim to significant re-traumatisation. Subjecting the victims to the usual cross-examination may also affect their ability to give clear and cogent evidence in support of their case. After what has happened between them, victims may also find it challenging to effectively cross-examine their alleged perpetrator. That being said, cross-examination is fundamental in testing and challenging the evidence of a witness and to accurately determine the facts on which the Court decides the matter. A balance, therefore, has to be struck.”
“The RERF Committee had recommended that there be greater clarity and guidance to family judges on how the judge-led approach is to be applied. This Bill will, therefore, clarify and strengthen the judge-led approach through three key provisions. First, providing that judges may make orders of a substantive nature on their own motion. Second, empowering judges to impose restrictions on cross-examination in circumstances prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Third, providing that the Family Justice Rules (FJR) may set out the modes by which a child's wishes may be determined by the Court and this may include judicial interviews. I will explain each provision in turn. For the first key provision, the RERF Committee recommended that the Court be expressly empowered to make substantive orders on its own motion. The new section 11B of the Family Justice Act will implement the Committee's recommendation. Family proceedings often involve litigants-in-person or self-represented parties. They may not be aware of the variety of orders or directions available, or which ones are needed to address their particular issues, or which may be made to safeguard the interests and well-being of their children. In such situations, the new section 11B allows the Court to make the necessary orders to deal with the issues effectively, even if neither party has asked for the order specifically. For instance, the Court may, in the course of conducting a case conference, make interim access orders to ensure that the child continues to have contact time with a parent until the matter can be resolved through mediation or determined in a formal hearing. The Court may do so even if none of the parties makes an application for an interim access order. The rules of natural justice will be preserved.”
“In the case of the protection order obtained by Ms C, the mother's applications to revoke the protection order were dismissed. Ms C conveyed that each of the applications filed has taken a huge emotional toll on her family. With each application filed by her mother, they ended up having to take time off work to spend time on Court proceedings and be subject to the mental stress of facing the mother for an extended period of time. Applying the new section 11A to Ms C's situation, the Court will be empowered to make an order prohibiting the mother from filing any further applications to revoke the protection orders in favour of Ms C, her father and her sibling without the Court's permission, if the Court is satisfied that the filing of any application to revoke the protection orders will be without merit, having regard to the mother's conduct in past proceedings, including the mother's series of unmeritorious applications to revoke the protection orders in the past. With greater judicial control over the filing of unnecessary applications, we hope that circumstances where parties like Ms C and her family live in fear of having to be dragged back into proceedings by estranged family members involuntarily will be reduced. Instead, families will be given the space to heal and move on, without having to return to Court repeatedly. The new powers in section 11A will also help to enhance the efficiency of family proceedings by giving FJC the powers to weed out unmeritorious applications which unnecessarily protract proceedings. Minister Shanmugam had earlier explained that the judge-led approach was introduced in 2014 to allow FJC to proactively manage the manner in which cases are run in family proceedings.”
“Section 11A provides that where (a) the filing of any interlocutory application or supporting document, or (b) any interlocutory application or supporting document which has been filed, will, or is likely to: impede the just, expeditious or economical resolution or disposal of the matter; or have an adverse effect on the child's welfare, the FJC may make, among other things, the following orders: (a) an order prohibiting the filing of the interlocutory application or any other interlocutory application, or any document in support of such applications, without the permission of the Court; and (b) an order that any interlocutory application or any supporting document which has been filed be treated as dismissed or expunged on a specified date, unless the party complies with one or more conditions imposed by the Court by that date. Section 11A will promote a more efficient resolution of family proceedings and also reduce the acrimony and stresses which may be inflicted on the parties' relationship through the filing of unnecessary applications and documents. I would like to share the story of Ms C, who has written to us on her family's experiences. Ms C's father and mother are divorced. Ms C has a younger sibling. As the mother exhibited physical and emotionally abusive behaviour, the Court granted protection orders against the mother after the divorce, in favour of the father and the two children. After the protection orders were granted, over a period of three years, the mother filed close to 15 applications in Court against Ms C, her father and her sibling. This includes more than five applications to revoke the protection orders granted in favour of Ms C, her father and her sibling.”
“Section 11A provides that where (a) the filing of any variation application or supporting document, or (b) any variation application or supporting document which has been filed by a party, will or is likely to be without merit, having regard to the applicant's past conduct in previous proceedings or has an adverse effect on the welfare of a child, FJC may make, among other things, the following orders: (a) an order prohibiting the filing of the variation application or other variation application, or any document in support of such applications, without the permission of the Court; and (b) an order that any variation application or any supporting document which has been filed be treated as dismissed or expunged on a specified date, unless the party complies with one or more conditions imposed by the Court by that date. The second part of section 11A deals with applications in proceedings which are pending before FJC. I shall call an application which falls into this category an "interlocutory application".”
“There are cases where parties who are caught up in the heat of the litigation resort to taking out unnecessary and unmeritorious applications in Court to vex the other party or to paint the other party in a bad light. Such applications may also be made repeatedly. For example, one party may make repeated applications against the other party for discovery of documents which have little relevance or evidential value to the issue at hand. Not only are such applications a waste of the parties' time and the Court's resources, but such conduct can harm the relationship of the parties and their family. The RERF Committee acknowledged that not every case involving the filing of multiple applications is necessarily an abuse of process, and, in any event, the ability to strike out or dismiss an application on the ground of abuse of process should be exercised with caution. To ensure that unmeritorious applications which detract from important issues are weeded out at an early stage, the Committee recommended that, in appropriate circumstances, the permission of the Court must be sought before a further application can be filed. The new section 11A of the Family Justice Act will implement the Committee's recommendation. There are two parts to the new section 11A. The first part of section 11A deals with certain applications by a party in relation to an order already made in previous proceedings, for example, an application to vary, suspend or set aside a previous order. For ease of explaining the first part of section 11A, I shall call an application which falls into this category a "variation application".”
“For example, MSF announced in 2022 that the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme will be extended from only parents who disagree on divorce and ancillary matters, to all parents with minor children on the Simplified Track. This will help more parents to focus on making informed decisions that prioritise the well-being of their children in the divorce process. The Women's Charter was amended in 2022 to empower the Court to make orders to grant the access parent additional access to the child to make up for the access denied; for the care and control parent to compensate the access parent for expenses incurred as a result of the breach of the child access order; and both parties and the child, or any of them, to attend counselling, mediation, therapeutic or educational programmes. This Bill implements the remaining recommendations of the RERF Committee that require legislative changes. I will now turn to the key reforms in this Bill which enhance proceedings and procedure in the FJC. The amendments which I will be speaking about can be grouped into four buckets: one, promoting efficiency in Court proceedings; two, enhancing and clarifying the judge-led approach; three, simplifying Court terminology; and four, other miscellaneous and technical amendments to clarify, enhance and streamline FJC processes. In its report, the RERF Committee observed that the filing of unnecessary applications in family proceedings prolongs proceedings, promotes acrimony and strains judicial resources. This is a particularly pertinent issue in family proceedings, which are emotionally charged. Such strong emotions can hinder rational thinking and cloud judgement.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we have come a long way in bringing this vision of the family justice system informed by the principles of Therapeutic Justice to life, but the task of ensuring that our family justice system meets the needs of families is a continuing one. This Bill represents another step forward in this journey. Minister Shanmugam has touched upon one key area of reform in the Bill – the new Maintenance Enforcement Process. I will now turn to the other key area of reform this Bill seeks to effect – the enhancement of Court proceedings and procedure in the Family Justice Courts (FJC). The changes we are making in this area support the ideals outlined earlier in Minister Shanmugam's speech. The amendments will: strengthen protection for children and other vulnerable parties, including victims of family violence; make family proceedings simpler and more efficient, thereby enhancing access to justice for all Court users of the FJC; strengthen Therapeutic Justice elements in FJC proceedings, by giving the Courts the power to manage proceedings in a manner which reduces acrimony and ensures a fair outcome without undue delay, complexity and cost. Some of the reforms under this area arise out of the recommendations of the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System, or the RERF Committee for short. The RERF Committee, which consisted of representatives from MSF, MinLaw and FJC, was formed in 2017 and released its recommendations in September 2019. Its recommendations were aimed at, amongst others, further strengthening the Therapeutic Justice elements in the family justice system. The Government then consulted the public and stakeholders on the RERF Committee's recommendations and has since then been working to implement the recommendations.”
“My apologies. I believe we had made some announcements and indication of the next phase of the efforts of the Work Group. We will inform the public and give updates on this in due course.”
“At this juncture, our public healthcare clusters have policies in place to handle abuse cases. The staff are trained to assess and de-escalate potential conflicts and manage abusive situations and, in the event of an incident, they know how to activate protocols to escalate when patients or caregivers turn abusive. Signs are displayed at the premises to prominently remind visitors to treat healthcare staff with respect and, where necessary, security officers' or Police intervention would be sought. So, at the moment, there are some measures that the hospitals have put in place, including issuing a warning, disengaging by refusing unreasonable requests or discharging abusive patients who are clinically assessed. These are all things that are available to them at this juncture. But generally, the hospitals do not do this. They still treat the patients. Hence, there is actually a need to come up with this framework, and this is the framework we are working on to provide something that is standardised for all the public healthcare institutions to apply, where there is a commonsensical approach to deal with such situations of extreme cases where there is a need to actually deny service to them. But at this juncture, there are already efforts in place to de-escalate, to give warnings, to make sure that it does not come to that situation. We are working on this framework and, hopefully, when this comes out, it will be a better situation for all.”
“Mr Speaker, in accordance with the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment of Healthcare Workers, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will work with public healthcare clusters to develop the details of the standardised zero-tolerance policy. This will be completed in the second half of 2023 and will include guidelines to help institutions protect staff from abuse and harassment while fulfilling the duty of care for patients in need. In particular, as explained during the announcement of the policy on 17 March this year, for patients who require urgent care, care will be delivered regardless. Likewise, patients will only be discharged when clinically assessed to be ready to do so. The suggestion that hospitals may prematurely discharge patients due to the zero tolerance against abuse policy creates a false dilemma. The great majority of patients are respectful and appreciative to healthcare workers. As for the very small minority who are abusive, they typically do not require urgent care and may not even be patients. It is also not difficult to identify such behaviour and actions, which the common man or woman will find unacceptable. As for the rare instances where a patient requiring urgent care is abusive, we will manage them sensitively and, as was also previously explained, care will be delivered as needed. Ultimately, the zero-tolerance policy against abuse is about drawing a line between right and wrong, and being fair to healthcare workers and the great majority of patients.”
“I hope as more employers become more conscious of their roles and take real steps to create a healthy workplace culture, we will see a more dedicated workforce that is energised and committed to ride the wave of challenges that will come. Mr Speaker, Singapore is a constant work in progress. Our society has matured, where, in general, our basic needs have been met. We now need to nurture the soul of our society. The President’s Address to this House on the direction of the Government in the second half of our term has come at an important juncture of our history, as we are maturing as a nation, as we transit to living with COVID-19 and as we seek to navigate the challenges in this troubled world. We face an important challenge of rallying everyone to a common vision. I hope people are encouraged by the passion shown by Members of this House and respond to the call to step up and walk this journey together. I stand in support of this Motion.”
“On the other hand, I have had conversations with some young people who shared why they feel uninspired or are just doing the bare minimum at work because they feel they are just numbers. One of them shared about how a recent mass lay-off and the way the company treated the staff made her not want to give so much of herself in her new workplace for fear of being burnt again. Another person, whose company also had a mass lay-off, but was not laid off himself, also had similar sentiments. Work has become transactional for them. I have also heard about those who would very much like to upskill but are not given the time and opportunity to do so. This is a source of much frustration. The relationship between the employer and employee is a two-way street. I would assert that there is a lot more that employers can do in taking the responsibility to create a positive and thriving work environment. I urge employers to take more effort in doing so, as there are clear benefits that arise from investing in goodwill with your employees. Have frank conversations about expectations, respect needs and aspirations of your staff, explore creative solutions and arrangements that can be a win-win for your team. We have learnt some lessons during the pandemic, for example, on the value and feasibility of flexible work arrangements (FWAs). I urge more employers to press on and make FWAs a permanent feature of the workplace. Doing so may require adjustments to be made to your businesses and HR practices, possibly also to the way work is configured so that the load can be effectively and flexibly shared. However, I believe this can result in improved productivity.”
“We do not always need to have new programmes but maybe we could collaborate on an existing programme so that we can strengthen that programme, if it is effective. We should also move towards long-term programmes which can truly help the families or youth that are targeted, to change their lives. For example, instead of giving food donations once a year, could we see how we could continue to connect with the family or be a mentor to the young child in the family. Because consistent efforts, when done in a rigorous manner, may be more effective. I hope we can continue to improve our efforts in helping families who face challenging circumstances. (In English): The other area we should look at is in building a culture of collective responsibility and a sense of community in all aspects of our lives. I would like to focus on the workplace. The workplace is where we spend a large part of our lives. What we do at work has an impact on the organisation we work for as well as the larger community and the economy. The work and work culture also have an impact on our well-being. We want workers to feel excited about their roles, take ownership in what they do. This can only happen if they feel valued and treated with respect, where their strengths are nurtured and where they can thrive. There was a Lianhe Zaobao article by Mr Liu Jiakeng which commented on the “I’m just an employee” attitude. He recounted his personal experience with a shared car-renting service. In summary, he was concerned with the rather robotic responses he received which reflected a lack of initiative and a lack of a sense of responsibility. He feels it is troubling if many young people have this attitude.”
“The volunteers today need to be skilled because they have higher order roles. They do not just arrange tables and chairs but are expected to engage families or individuals with challenges or give guidance on existing Government resources. These engagements require a certain skillset. I note that often training is provided before the volunteers are brought on board a certain programme but it is imperative, that we take a strategic approach in growing the volunteer pool, maintaining the interest, tapping on existing volunteer groups, rationalising the competing needs in various sectors for volunteers and having a sustainable volunteer development path. We would also want our volunteers to grow, take ownership, develop strategies, leverage on technology and think about better ways of doing things. I therefore think it is important to make an investment in capability building. Mr Speaker, in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] M3 is the Malay-Muslim community's effort to uplift lives, in particular, of those from low-income families. Volunteers form the backbone of all the M3 efforts that we have carried out. On this occasion, I would like to thank all who have contributed to this noble cause. A lot have been done with the past three to four years, but a lot more has to be worked on. In particular, I feel we need to think of our community's strategy as we discuss collective responsibility. I know many of us care about the wellbeing of our community and have our own ideas on how to carry out certain programmes. This is something to be proud of. But I would like to call on volunteers to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of the effort carried out. What is the need of your target group and what can be done to make more impactful changes?”
“While the Government can help provide structures for key areas, there will never be enough resources to go around and we need stakeholders to step up to fill in the gaps. President Halimah spoke about the strengthening of collective responsibility. Indeed, as a society, we need to internalise the important role we play individually and collectively to build the society we want to see. In the course of my work serving in Bukit Batok East, I have seen residents, people in the community doing just that. One of my residents, became a temporary caregiver to her neighbour who fell ill and became immobile. She would bathe her, feed her and care for her daily till she regained strength. She did that completely out of goodwill and her compassion is inspiring. I am also inspired and grateful to a group of business owners, elderly gentlemen who have consistently donated to my food pack programmes. They hardly speak English and I can barely string a sentence in Mandarin but we would meet every once in a while for an update on the programme and I would make a request for continued support for donations. I am grateful to my volunteer Mr Desmond Sim for always coordinating this and also always donating towards the cause. As we call for more stakeholders to play a role, I would like to propose that some attention be given to build two areas – capability and culture. I am referring to building the capability and skills of volunteers and nurturing a healthy culture of social responsibility and sense of community in all aspects of our lives. I will focus on the workplace as an example. More and more now, we will be relying on volunteers to help execute national programmes, for example for the ComLink efforts, or in mentoring programmes, or for M3.”
“And therefore, as many in this House have espoused, we must ensure access to opportunities for social mobility are available to all. I am heartened by the different efforts by the Government over the years to build the architecture of opportunity. One effort is in developing early childhood education. The findings in the Growing Up In Singapore Towards Healthy Outcomes, GUSTO study, had been informative. We know that early childhood experiences can impact the child's trajectory in life. So, we start early. We make early childhood education affordable and support parents who need help. One of my favourite programmes is KidSTART. It is an upstream programme supporting pregnant mothers and children from low-income families aged zero to six. I am very glad the programme has been scaled up to benefit more children. Another area I am particularly excited about is in mentoring. We all know the virtues of mentoring – in particular, to help open world views, exposing young people to new sectors they would otherwise not know exist. Through the National Youth Council and the YouthCorp, there have been many programmes supporting youth development. There are also now specific efforts in the mentoring space. In 2021, the Mentoring Alliance for Action was set up to develop common resources and share best practices on mentoring to raise the standards of mentoring in the youth sector and help young people achieve their full potential. A year later, an independent office, Mentoring SG was set up to continue building on this effort. In the Malay/Muslim space, I oversee the youth mentoring and empowerment efforts in M3, aimed at making mentoring programmes available and accessible to our young people.”
“We learn and imbibe furiously lessons from the developments and advancements in other countries, but we always acknowledge and adjust to our local context, often cautious and calibrated so as not to dismantle all that we have built. We should continue to take this approach as we discuss the refresh of our social compact. In the book "What We Owe Each Other", Minouche Shafik said and I quote, "The way a society is structured has profound consequences for the lives of those living in it and the architecture of opportunity they face. It determines not just their material conditions but also their well-being, relationships and life prospects." Minoushe explains that the structure of society is determined by institutions such as its political and legal systems, the economy, the way in which family and community life are organised. She believes the social contract – the norms and rules the society has agreed to, is the most important determinant of the kinds of lives we lead. The impact of the structure of society on an individual's development and well-being cannot be underestimated. I am a woman, from a minority community, born to parents who were not highly educated and who had modest income. In some other part of the world, my circumstances would have set me back and denied me of many opportunities – education, opportunities at work, a chance to speak in Parliament. Honestly, often, I find that because I am from a minority community and a woman, I am given many opportunities as there are institutions, establishments and people who seek to embrace diversity and support those who do not start with much. I am not oblivious to the fact that some may not have the same experience as me.”
“There is something sacred about the Parliamentary process. And in Singapore, in this House, we take great effort to honour this process and preserve the sanctity of Parliament. This House is often a place of disagreement, but we strive to debate with decorum. We all seek attention so that the views of our constituents and the people we serve are heard, but we have to do so tastefully and without theatrics. And beyond just talking about issues, we have to take action. In particular, the Government has to translate the debate, to the policies and execute them, to address issues and make lives better for Singaporeans. Whilst there may be a general understanding by the public that Parliament is an important place where issues of significance are debated and laws of the land are made, there may not be full appreciation of the rigour and decorum that members have to abide by and the work it takes to bring forth meaningful debates. The words uttered in this house are not merely our thoughts alone but represent the voices of the Singapore community we serve. All Members of this House have a responsibility to seek out feedback, listen, discern, prepare and convey the views constructively. For many of us, this entails hours of block visits, going through residents' appeals, dialogues, meetings and research. Parliament is not the only channel for us to raise issues and nudge for change, but it is certainly a significant platform. I have seen what transpires in other Parliaments and I am glad we do things differently here. I believe in the Singapore way of doing things. An approach that is substantive, data-driven, pragmatic, forward-looking and constructive.”
“In respect of that, the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides operational guidelines to the MediFund committees and the MediFund-approved institutions to facilitate their management of MediFund, so that there is some sort of consistency in the decision-making. But actually, the MediFund committees have full discretion over the assessment of the applications. In such situations, what they will do is assess the families' means and ability to pay for the patient's medical bills holistically. They will take into account the different income as well as other Government grants and support provided to the family. So, it is a holistic approach and I believe that is something that will be done on a case-by-case basis.”
“There are no stipulations that a patient cannot qualify for MediFund if any family member is already receiving MediFund support.”
“I thank the Member for the questions. The MediSave limit is usually sized to cover the 10% co-insurance of MediShield Life for treatments and the CDL. The current limit is actually more than enough to cover the 10%, so we will not be reviewing this at this juncture. But if the subsidised patient faces financial difficulty – some affordability challenges – after the subsidies, after insurance and after tapping on MediSave, he or she can still apply for financial assistance. In respect of the question on MediShield Life, we have just done a review of the latest data available and we have raised the services limit quite substantially from $1,200 to $3,600. This would cover nine out of 10 subsidised bills in the Public Healthcare Institutions. On top of that, patients with Integrated Shield Plans or riders would actually have higher coverage, more than the $3,600 limit that is set. We will continue to monitor this and we will continue to monitor the impact and review data and, if necessary, we will adjust our policies accordingly.”
“To reiterate, the Cancer Drug List (CDL) conferred negotiating leverage to the Ministry of Health (MOH), to lower the prices of commonly used and effective cancer drugs. Since its implementation, we have brought down CDL drug prices by an average of 30% and over 60% for some drugs. Today, the CDL covers about 90% of Health Science Authority (HSA)-approved cancer drug treatments in Singapore. We will work with pharmaceutical companies to expand the CDL. For the remaining 10%, many continue to be able to tap on their insurance rider policies, which can cover drugs beyond the CDL. We also advise that patients and their families discuss the suitability of more cost-effective alternatives on the CDL with their doctors. If both are not possible and the patient is seeing a private doctor, the patient can consider transferring to subsidised care under public hospitals, where we will also explore the possibility of using additional MediSave and availing other forms of financial assistance. We are committed to ensuring that no one will be denied of appropriate care due to an inability to pay.”