Seah Kian Peng
Singapore
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost?”
“Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.”
“Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters.”
“Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases.”
“Second, we propose to put in place new processes to prevent the misuse of the MPA by parents who have abandoned, abused or neglected their children and did not fulfil their parental duties. In so doing, we also protect and spare their children from unnecessary distress.”
“The way we feed ourselves will not be the same. The way we live and the way we work will also be different – telemedicine, work from home, online learning and the need for insurance. But there are other things which will remain the same – resilience, unity, and a single-minded commitment to our joint future.”
The complete record
Every one of 752 lines we hold for Seah Kian Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost? Secondly, the Senior Minister of State alluded to the fact that there will be more regular adjustments to the postal rates. I can understand that. Could the Senior Minister of State give an indication of the quantum we are looking at, in terms of the adjustment? Finally, for my third supplementary question, I know that SingPost employs a number of Singaporeans in the postal services. As we go about doing this restructuring, I hope we pay a lot of attention to making sure that the jobs are preserved and we do all our best to keep as many of them in their current employment or in new jobs.”
“Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters. This is, of course, not just for the sake of the parent, but it will help the child to grow and to walk an honourable path in the community, being generous to others, instead of in isolation or individualism. This is the hallmark of a truly great society, one which we can all be proud of as we also continue to refresh and to strengthen our social compact. With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you. [Applause.] 6.45 pm”
“That is very much still the core of the Act today, but time and experience have revealed how often this practical problem cannot be resolved in isolation from other issues in the family relationship. The power to make non-monetary directions is new, but it is one that will be given to a Tribunal that has a long history and experience with adjudicating maintenance cases and well-developed institutional practices. It is a Tribunal that knows how to use this legislative tool to make families better off. With regards to Ms Yeo Wan Ling's query if non-monetary directions could in some sense be introduced at the conciliation stage, the answer is, of course. As noted by Ms Yeo herself, the Commissioner is not able to issue orders to the parties as this lies with the Tribunal. However, the Commissioner can and does refer the parties for counselling and other social services, with their consent. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The Maintenance of Parents Act is an Act that is enacted for the small category of needy and neglected parents, but in its effect, it touches everyone one way or another because we are the children of parents and many of us are parents ourselves. As mentioned by Ms Carrie Tan, many today do not wish to burden their children and will not come to them for help. Yet, where possible, it is better for the parent to teach their child from young to have a caring heart for the family and by extension, for the wider community. To this end, I am in full agreement with the Members who have raised the key focal area of education, like Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng. As Mr Yip mentioned, this issue is not addressed by this Bill or the MPA.”
“It can also consist of oral or written recollection of the abuse incidents from the viewpoint of the child. As I had mentioned before, one in three cases at the Tribunal involve such accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect. The majority were dismissed. But the fact remains that where there are no official records, the abuse would be unknown to the Tribunal until it is surfaced by the child. In such instances, the child would have to be involved in the hearing. And our proposed process to deal with the claim without involving the child will not apply. So, we cannot do away with this requirement of official records. But as society becomes more aware of family violence and more willing to report it, this may benefit more people. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the statistics on the number of instances the law has been unfairly used against the children. About one in three cases at the Tribunal involve accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect. The majority were dismissed. Ms Janet Ang asked about the number of cases that have come under the Act since it was first passed. There have been around 2,500 cases under the MPA since 1996. She also asked about the number of cases that will come under the new amendment and whether these would be dismissed if the amendments were in force. We do expect that a sizable proportion of cases will not have official records of abuse, neglect or abandonment but many of them would likely be dismissed subsequently by the Tribunal when it hears the parties. But for the few that do, it certainly makes a big difference for them. Some of the amendments are of the kind that also arise from experience. The Act, when it was first passed, was to solve the practical problem of maintenance for needy elderly parents.”
“The Commissioner will only act as a last resort, when the attempts of the welfare homes and social workers to reach out to children do not succeed, or when they cannot be located or contacted. It is in such cases that the Commissioner's powers of identifying and locating the children for the purposes of conciliation are helpful, and the Commissioner can then call them in to hear their side of the story. Indeed, if the concern is on conciliatory efforts, there is no better place for this than in the Commissioner's office, given its long history and good track record in terms of resolution rates. The amendments to prevent the misuse of the Act are certainly timely. Many of those who responded to our public consultation paper felt that it was about time this issue was looked into, to help what one respondent described as the "broken children trapped within an adult body". Their only qualm was that it would not be enough, since only those with official records of abandonment, abuse or neglect will benefit from this amendment. This is echoed by Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng in the House today. I want to assure Members that both the Commissioner and Tribunal are mindful of unreported cases and they will adopt a trauma-informed approach in sensitively supporting them through the whole process. Where appropriate and with consent, they are also assisted by referrals to help services and counselling so that they can find healing. From my own observation of Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal will hear all parties and consider all circumstances of the case, including the form and extent of abuse or neglect, to determine whether it will be just and equitable for the child to maintain the parent. Evidence that can be furnished to the Tribunal is not limited to official records.”
“I would like to assure the Members that if the Commissioner has any reason – any reason – to believe that there was abandonment, abuse or neglect on the part of the parent, he will not conduct conciliation. This does indeed mean that for a good many destitute parents, this amendment will not apply to them. Like the MPA as a whole, it is only for those few cases where it is the children, holding on to the mindset that they owe nothing to those who have tirelessly brought them up and blatantly abandon their parent. But cases where the parent had cared for the child and later become destitute due to financial mismanagement, they are different. The parent may have made financial mistakes in the past, but if there was genuine care for the child, then my view is that the child should provide at least some support and there should not be total abandonment of his or her parent. This amendment will not compel the child to give any particular sum of money. It only allows the Commissioner to call the child in so that a discussion can take place. I think that is reasonable and appropriate. Through such discussion, it could even lead to an improvement in ties between child and parent – and that is something that I hope will, in some cases, happen. Ms Janet Ang also asked if cases can be initiated by social workers. The MPA does allow applications to be made on the parent's behalf by persons who have the parent's authorisation. This is for cases where the parent is unable to make his own application due to an infirmity. Ms Ang also asked if we would consider conciliatory efforts by social service agencies, before the Commissioner reaches out to the children of destitute parents. This is indeed what our workgroup has recommended.”
“And if leave is granted and a maintenance order is eventually made, the quantum will be set at a just amount, taking into account the above factors. Ms Janet Ang also asked whether other countries have similar legislation. Actually, maintenance of parents legislation is not unique to Singapore. Not many countries but some of the countries that have it include India, Israel and France. Let me move next to deal with the question on why it is timely for this review to be done and these amendments made. The issue of destitute parents with children who have means, needs addressing. We have heard the view that children do not owe anything to their parents since they did not ask to be born. We need to reiterate clearly what we as a society expect of children, regardless of whether the parents have the desire to claim against their children or not. We have specifically scoped this amendment to allow the Commissioner to initiate conciliation for the children whose parents are in welfare homes or are undergoing assessment for admission. These are the cases where the abandonment is the most egregious. These parents are left without a roof over their heads and without means of sustenance. And meanwhile, the children remain uncontactable. It is time for such children to be called upon to fulfil their obligations. Mr Yip Hon Weng was concerned about calling in the children for conciliation when the parents became destitute on account of their own financial mismanagement, or when they previously abused their children. Likewise, Ms Janet Ang observed that for many destitute parents, it is not the children who have abandoned their parent, but the parent who first walked out of the family.”
“I want to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua, for his support and for his endorsement of our proposals too. If the Bill is passed today, the baton will now be handed over to MSF to ensure that the amendments are implemented effectively. Let me quickly address some specific queries which Members have raised. Mr Don Wee asked what if the parent has a few children but only seeks support from particular ones. To be sure, any parent who makes a maintenance application can choose which child or children he wishes to file the application against. Yet, if I am one of the children at the receiving end of a maintenance claim, the MPA allows me to join my siblings to the application. After doing so, those siblings whom I have joined will be co-respondents, and the Tribunal may order any or all of them to contribute maintenance, depending on the facts of the case. This was built into the Bill right at the beginning of the history of the MPA by then Assoc Prof Walter Woon, who saw that it was not fair that only one child should bear the burden, to the exclusion of others. Mr Don Wee also asked what happens if the parent supported the child for some years but later moved out of the child's life. For such a case, if there are official records of abandonment, abuse or neglect, then the parent will have to first obtain the leave of the Tribunal if he wants to proceed with his claim. At the leave hearing, the Tribunal will consider the specific facts and the degree of the abandonment, abuse or neglect. If the parent is able to show a good reason why he is nevertheless still deserving of maintenance, the Tribunal may allow him to proceed if it is just and equitable.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. My sincere thanks to all who have spoken. At this point, a lot of key comments and questions have been dealt with and in these closing remarks, I hope to reiterate why the proposed amendments are needed. But first, let me thank my workgroup members comprising Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Denise Phua, Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Fahmi Aliman and Mr Melvin Yong. All of them have played an important part in putting together this Bill. We did not initially agree on everything, and many of the issues discussed today had also been debated internally. I also want to thank all of them for speaking in this debate today to further explain the different perspectives, articulate their own views and how we eventually landed on these recommendations in this amendment Bill. There were also many others who journeyed with us over the last one-and-a-half years as we deliberated, as we listened in to the focus groups, as we analysed the surveys, as we talked to various stakeholders – and the list goes on. This piece of legislative work is very much a result of their efforts for which I am eternally grateful to all of them. I also wish to thank Mr Murali Pillai for helping me address some of the queries which Member Mr Louis Ng has raised but I do agree it was a bit long [Laughter.]. And to also Member Ms Tin Pei Ling for spearheading the workgroup's public outreach and feedback process. The policies behind the Bill have gone through rounds of revision, containing the collective wisdom of all Singaporeans and professionals who had given us their views. Indeed, those in Parliament who have spoken in this debate, they have all unanimously supported the amendment Bill.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, before I begin my closing address, could I request your permission to allow a key member of my Workgroup, hon Member, Mr Murali Pillai, to address Mr Louis Ng's queries, and then I will come back to address the rest?”
“New section 12C makes conciliation proceedings confidential and disallow legal representation, similar to current Tribunal proceedings. New section 20A serves to protect conciliation officers and mediators from personal liability in carrying out their statutory functions, if they had acted in good faith and with reasonable care. In closing, I wish to reiterate that the MPA is not about legislating filial piety. The law is not the appropriate vehicle for inculcating family values. The effort in promoting family values starts from families themselves, and flows out to schools, and the community and ethnic groups and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). I hope that as a society, we can continue to uphold family values of mutual support for each other. After all, the family is the basic building block of society. The MPA is needed so that there is legal recourse for the needy elderly parents who struggle with unfilial children who refuse to support them. It also sends out a clear signal of what we as a society stand by. I had said that I would leave personal relationships to the personal realm. In fact, I would not even have ventured this far, had it not been the fact that public funds would have to be otherwise expended due to the problems within these private relationships. And that is, the MPA also serves to send a strong signal of what we stand against. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“One individual wrote a Forum letter that counselling is not always enough to ensure a real change in the behaviour of a problem gambler. We also had feedback from our public consultations that the child should not have to pay if the parent fulfils the counselling order but returns to gambling later on. We agree with these views. If the parent returns to the same behaviour later on, the child can apply to the Tribunal for a variation of the maintenance order and the Tribunal can consider whether that is fair depending on the facts of the case. Some options the Tribunal could take up would be to change the mode of payment, so that the child pays the maintenance not in cash but through direct payment in areas such as utilities, medical care or groceries. There is certainly no one-size-fits-all approach. There may be cases where the Tribunal could make other directions such as stopping harassment or giving a child access to visit his parent. The amendment will give the Tribunal more options to help and address the specific issues of the families involved in the claim. In the course of our review, we are also proposing various operational amendments to enhance efficacy of the Act and to streamline processes, and these are as follows. We clarify the definition of "child" in section 2 of the Act as adult children aged 21 or above, and this is to prevent minors from being subject to claims. Minors below the age of 21 remain under parental authority and control on a wide range of matters and so should not be subjected to the proceedings under this Act, which has always been intended to impose the obligation on adult children to support their parents.”
“There have been multiple cases where the children were unwilling to pay maintenance simply because they were aware of the problem gambling-related issues in the parent and are worried that the parent would gamble away the maintenance they received. We thus propose to allow the Tribunal to make any non-monetary direction that it deems fit, if the direction is one that furthers one of the purposes under the new section 6(6), which include the exercise of financial responsibility by the parent or child and the management or resolution of conflicts between the parties. In cases where the Tribunal finds that the parent has issues related to problem-gambling, it can require the parent to attend gambling counselling. Similarly, if the Tribunal finds that the children's complaints against the parent's behaviour is valid, it can require the parent to cease performing that act which causes harm or suffering to the children. And for highly acrimonious cases with underlying relational issues, family counselling is a potential order that can be made as well. With regard to enforcement, the Tribunal will be able to order that the maintenance payments that is due to the parent under an order of the Tribunal that they be withheld from the parent, until the parent complies with the non-monetary direction. I am aware that this is a paradox – mending family ties requires us to go beyond money, but going beyond the ordering of maintenance leads down, some would say further down, the road to paternalism. It is indeed a road which I am reluctant to tread on, so I would like to say that this amendment is probably the furthest I would go in this direction and I would leave personal relationships to the personal realm.”
“This softer approach will still uphold the principle that children have the obligation to maintain their parents and allow the Commissioner to hear the children's side of the story and encourage the child to support the parent, where appropriate. To ensure that we do not unduly cause distress to the child, the Commissioner will only exercise this power where the Commissioner finds that the parent does not have any record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of the child. The Commissioner, in exercising his current powers under the Act to identify and locate the child, will also assess his ability to maintain the parent using information from prescribed agencies under the current section 14A of the Act. The Commissioner will only initiate conciliation proceedings if, from the information obtained, he reasonably believes that the child is able to provide maintenance for the destitute parent. I would like to highlight that in order for the Commissioner's powers of mandatory conciliation to be used, the parent must either be already residing in a welfare home or be under investigation for admission so that he is there on a temporary basis. It is in this sense limited to cases where the abandonment of the parent is especially egregious. Our fourth and final key amendment is to empower the Tribunal to make non-monetary directions. Maintenance cases before the Tribunal are often acrimonious and involve deep underlying issues that are not solved by only a monetary order. Indeed, the Tribunal has observed cases where non-monetary directions could help to address fundamental issues in the family. Addressing these issues will also go towards promoting the durability and sustainability of the maintenance order. One clear example is when the parent has issues with problem gambling.”
“Some even refused contact with them. Although the MPA empowers such needy parents to claim maintenance from their children, they often choose not to, due to fears of further straining the relationship. In some cases, the parents have lost contact with their children and the welfare homes are unable to locate or contact the children. Despite repeated attempts at persuasion, the welfare homes are often unable to get the children to give maintenance or persuade the parent to apply for maintenance under the MPA. In such cases, there is nothing the welfare homes nor the authorities can do to get the children to fulfil their obligations to the parent who had raised and cared for them. As a result, such children effectively leave their parents to the care of the state when they can well afford to maintain them. This, in our opinion, is an unfair use of public funds. Our initial proposal was to empower the Commissioner to apply for maintenance on behalf of such destitute parents, even without their consent. However, we received mixed reactions. One-third of survey respondents were of the view that the parent's wishes should be respected. Some focus group participants also raised concern over the emotional distress that the Commissioner's application might cause to the parent, since it would be going against his wish. We have accordingly moderated the proposal, to only empower Commissioner on his own motion, that is, not at the parent's behest, to have their children attend conciliation at the Commissioner's Office so that care arrangements for the parent can be discussed and the children can be reminded that they have the legal obligation to support their elderly parents. The proposed section 12B empowers the Commissioner to do this.”
“And this can be done where it is already clear from the existing evidence that the application is without merit, for example, where the applicant is clearly financially able to maintain himself or the child clearly has no means to maintain the parent because he himself is receiving long-term financial assistance. Another example would be the application is one that had been previously dismissed and there is no change in circumstances. One individual who participated in our second round of public consultations had raised the concern that improving the ease of dismissal would deter genuine applications. I would like to assure him that applicants with genuine cases need not fear that their application will be struck out. The President and Deputy Presidents of the Tribunal, being experienced legal professionals, are well qualified to determine the merits of the case. Here, the balance is between ensuring that the case is fully considered, with efficiency considerations. There is no doubt that the former is more important than the latter, but there is also no need for an overly onerous process which benefits neither party. The amendments I have surfaced thus far aim to protect children from potential misuse of the MPA. Let me now turn to our efforts to enhance the MPA to protect neglected elderly parents. Under the Destitute Persons Act, destitute persons can be admitted into welfare homes if they are unable to support themselves and lack family support. Before admission, family members are engaged and they are encouraged to care for the destitute person. However, representatives of welfare homes who attended our focus group discussions observed that there are destitute parents, albeit a small number, who have children with the means to maintain them but do not do so.”
“We hear the concerns and would like to assure Members in this House that the Tribunal and the Commissioner have trauma-informed practices in place to sensitively manage and to minimise distress to the children. Our second amendment concerns the dismissal of frivolous or vexatious applications. When I reviewed the MPA in 2010, one of the key thrusts was to ensure that the administrative processes behind the Act are beneficiary-centric, so that any additional or unwarranted stress put on the families should be minimised. At that time, we proposed to give the President and Deputy President of the Tribunal powers to dismiss frivolous or vexatious applications under section 3 of the Act, that is, for "fresh" applications. In the same spirit, and also recognising the distress that can be caused to children as a result of these proceedings, we are further enhancing the powers of dismissal for frivolous and vexatious applications. Currently, the Tribunal has existing powers to dismiss variation applications under section 14(7)(a) of the Act, but a Tribunal quorum is reached only where there are three members present. And this can cause potential inefficiencies and delays. So, we propose to allow frivolous or vexatious variations to be dismissed by the President or a Deputy President, similar to fresh applications. We propose to also allow the Tribunal, as well as the President or a Deputy President of the Tribunal to dismiss an application that is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious without informing or involving the respondent.”
“Section 14A(1) already allows the Tribunal and the Commissioner to obtain information, records, documents or articles from prescribed agencies for the purposes set out in subsection (2), which presently includes supplementing the information provided by the parties. Subsection (2) will be expanded to enable the Tribunal and the Commissioner to obtain records to verify the truthfulness of the declaration made under new section 3A and to use these records to fairly determine the case. Some of the information or documents might be subject to gag orders or statutory prohibitions against publication. The amended section 14A(1A) will enable the Tribunal or the Commissioner to obtain these records but only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the parent has a record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of his or her child. These records will obviously have to be treated very carefully after they are obtained. The other amendments to section 14A introduce special safeguards and protections for such information or documents. In both rounds of public consultation that we conducted, a sizable number of participants had asked for protections to be extended to children who have been abandoned, abused or neglected by their parents, but who do not have official records because the incidents were never reported. We considered this and we too wish that this was possible. However, where there are no records in official databases, it is necessary for the child to be called upon to provide the accounts of abandonment, abuse or neglect, which would otherwise be unknown to the Tribunal. Moreover, we have to balance between protecting the child and ensuring that the elderly parent have fair access to justice. We need to be fair to both sides.”
“And then, there was a conciliation process, the mediation and a full hearing with all the parties. My workgroup proposes that we require parents with records of abuse, neglect or abandonment against their child to first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with their claim. Specifically, the new process would entail: One, parents to declare whether they had records of abuse, neglect or abandonment against the child whom they are claiming against. Two, the Commissioner to screen against official databases for prescribed records of abandonment, abuse, or neglect. And examples of such records could include PPOs, Care and Protection Orders, Orders under the Vulnerable Adults Act, criminal convictions where the offence was committed against the child and investigation records from Protective Services under MSF. Where records are present, Commissioner would refuse or terminate conciliation. The parent would have to go before Tribunal for permission to proceed with the claim. Third, the Tribunal may grant permission if the parent showed a good arguable case that they did not abandon, abuse or neglect the child or that the child should maintain the parent on just and equitable grounds. If permission is granted and the case proceeds to a Tribunal hearing that includes the respondents, the Tribunal can still make a finding that the parent had abandoned, abused or neglected the respondent child based on the evidence as provided by the respondent and dismiss the case. The general approach would be to not notify and involve the child in the hearing at this stage. A new section 3A will introduce a new requirement for the parent to declare at the time of making the claim, whether the parent has any record of abandonment, abuse or neglect of the child.”
“Research on adverse childhood experiences showed that even decades later, exposure to reminders of the original event can trigger severe reactions and adult survivors of child abuse may relieve their trauma almost as if the incident were occurring again. I have talked to and I have listened to adults recounting their childhood experiences that their parent inflicted on them: it was painful and heartbreaking. Currently, about one in four cases at the Office of the Commissioner and one in three cases at the Tribunal involved persons who alleged abandonment, abuse or neglect by their parent when they were young. For the cases that eventually came before the Tribunal for a hearing, the majority were dismissed as it was not just and equitable for maintenance to be granted. Section 5(4) of the MPA currently provides for the Tribunal to dismiss any claim for maintenance or order a lower amount if it is satisfied upon due proof that the parent had abandoned, abused or neglected the child. However, having to go through the proceedings may have already caused significant distress and re-traumatisation to the person. Some might even just have given in to the parent's demands for maintenance in order to avoid further distress. Let me cite one actual case. Bella, not her real name, is in her late 20s and was subject to a maintenance application by her father. She had suffered from physical abuse and neglect from her father since she was a child. She and her mother had a personal protection order (PPO) against him after an incident which left her with injuries on her knee and her wrist. The Tribunal dismissed the application in the end, but only after the proceedings which involved having to provide written accounts of the abuse.”
“These amendments have been developed with careful deliberation and fine-tuned after many consultations with citizens, stakeholders and professionals from social and legal sectors. The first round was conducted in January 2022. Through 13 focus group discussions with more than 200 participants, 1,000-over survey respondents on our preliminary ideas and after deliberating the various views with relevant stakeholders including the Tribunal and Commissioner, we landed on four key and three operational amendments. We made changes to our proposals along the way, taking in the feedback from the first round of consultations. By the time we reached the second round, feedback was generally positive for all the amendments. The first key amendment involves parents with records of abandonment, abuse or neglect against their child that they must now first seek the Tribunal's permission before proceeding with their claim. Over the years, Commissioner and Tribunal have observed cases of parents filing for maintenance claims against the children whom they had abandoned, abused or neglected. This had caused severe and undue distress to their children and it violates the principle of reciprocity and fairness that I had outlined earlier. We want to put in place processes to prevent those who had abandoned, abused or neglected their children from misusing the MPA and to spare their children from unnecessary distress. For abuse victims, the mere experience of going through the proceedings under the MPA can be distressing because it involves facing the parent after years of avoidance and recounting the experiences that they had tried to forget. Indeed, the experience of the parent's abandonment, abuse or neglect has a serious impact on a person's life.”
“These findings are consistent with other studies, such as those conducted by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), that the vast majority of Singaporeans hold strongly to family values and agree that it is their duty to take care of their parents regardless of their qualities and faults. However, we are also aware of the view held by some, that children did not ask to be born and therefore owe nothing to their parents. There is obviously a gap in the argument since the duty to care for one's parents does not arise from an exchange of promises – a baby cannot ask to be born, just as he cannot make a promise to care for his parents. My own position is that this duty exists as a social fact, from the existence and the living out of a family relationship, not from an exchange of promises. But this is mere personal philosophy. As a matter of public policy, I want to say that the Act remains as a pillar of our society's position on the role of the family in supporting one another. It serves as a signal to those children who neglect their needy parents who had previously cared for them, that the law holds them liable for maintenance. The current amendments before us require us to strike the right balance in strengthening provisions for parents, while introducing measures to prevent misuse. That is, we propose to amend the MPA to first, enhance Tribunal/Commissioner's powers in ensuring neglected elderly parents are adequately supported and to put in place new processes to prevent misuse of the MPA by those who did not fulfil their parental duties. This represents an even-handed recalibration for both parties. We recommend four key amendments to achieve this vision.”
“My workgroup's recommendations are guided by the principles of the MPA. First is "family as the first line of support". The MPA is not intended to legislate or enforce filial piety, but to ensure that children provide for their needy elderly parents at a basic minimum level. MPA is a necessary last resort to provide legal recourse for neglected parents to get maintenance from their children for their basic needs. It respects the duty of an adult to his parents, and requires that each of us carry this duty, rather than pass it onto our fellowmen, in requiring that the state provides this private care. Second, is the principle of reciprocity. The obligation imposed on children to maintain their parents is not an absolute one. In circumstances where the parents had abandoned, abused or neglected their children, then it may not be just and equitable for them to be ordered to maintain their parent. Here, where there is no private duty, there is a public one. Mdm Deputy Speaker, from a survey of over 1,000 respondents that my workgroup commissioned in January to February last year, it is clear that family values remain strong among the majority of Singaporeans. The survey, which is statistically representative of national demographic proportions, found that four in five agreed with the principle of reciprocity, that it is important for the children to repay the care received during childhood to their parents. Similarly, seven in 10 agreed that children have an obligation to care for their elderly parents.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Some 12 years ago, I led a workgroup and tabled the Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill 2010. After more than a decade, it was timely for another review. I thank my fellow workgroup members for working with me on this review. I would also like to thank the members of the Alliance for Action to Strengthen Marriages and Family Relationships – in particular, Ms Hazlina, Dr Mathews, Ms Long Chey May, Mr Jasper Yap, Mr Abdul Karim, Mdm Zulaiha and Mr Arthur Ling – for their partnership with my workgroup in conducting the focus groups and survey, and in contributing their views on the amendments. I would also like to thank members of public, partners and stakeholders who had given so much of their time to provide us with their views. This includes more than 200 participants at our focus group discussions, over 1,000 survey respondents, and the people behind the responses to our public consultation paper. The last key amendment in 2010 was to advocate for the "conciliation-first" approach. This has been effective in reducing the number of cases that have to be put before the Tribunal for resolution. As I mentioned at my Second Reading speech on 9 May, the number of elderly parents who applied to the Tribunal had dropped significantly from 183 in 2010 to 110 within the first year of implementation and the number of applications has since stabilised at about 30 cases a year. The world has changed quite significantly in the last 12 years. We have also learnt more about the way the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA) works. So, having reviewed it, our Workgroup opine that it is time for more changes. At the same time, it is important to note what endures and will endure.”
“Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today. Our framework has evolved to a more nuanced and sophisticated one that requires more use of discretion. I agree with this approach. As a result, however, the DGSW's office today, and going forward, is now entrusted with a lot more heavier responsibilities and duties. So, we need to also ensure that this office of the DGSW is properly resourced and supported so that this important work can also be carried out properly. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support this amendment Bill. I just have two points to make. One of the areas which I support is the protection of the survivor's identity. As a general rule, for all matters relating to personal information, consent is key. If a person consents to have their stories published, then it should be allowed. Otherwise, we should respect their privacy. This general rule is especially salient for persons who have experienced trauma. They should have greater control and say over the use of information. Therefore, I support the amendment's prohibition of the publication or broadcast of identifiable information, unless with the survivor's consent and the approval of the Director General of Social Welfare, or DGSW, in short. There need not, however, be a symmetry about this. The privacy of the perpetrator does not qualify for the same level of protection automatically. For one, there should be some deterrent effect if such offenders knew that their names would be made public. There is an argument that doing so may lead to the identification of the survivor and, hence, the perpetrator's name would also be protected unless with the survivor's consent and the DGSW's approval. I agree with this in general, but I would ask that the re-offenders be considered more seriously for identification because of the element of public harm. The need to be protected from re-offenders must be weighted in our consideration. A second point I want to deal with has to do with the power of the Director General of Social Welfare. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we have often said how important family is to our society. Yet, we often think of the family in abstract terms and, quite often, for the positive force it exerts.”
“Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases. In firming up the framework that is coming up, I would like to suggest to the Senior Minister of State that we make it easy for people who feel aggrieved to report such cases. So, I hope that as the Ministry firms this up, let us make it easy for people to file such complaints.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act 1995." [(proc text) Bill read the First time. (proc text)]”
“Second, we propose to put in place new processes to prevent the misuse of the MPA by parents who have abandoned, abused or neglected their children and did not fulfil their parental duties. In so doing, we also protect and spare their children from unnecessary distress. We conducted two rounds of public consultation in January and November last year with citizens, stakeholders and professionals from the social and legal sectors. We also had an online survey as part of our consultative process. All said, there was general support for the proposed amendments. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act 1995." (proc text)]”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move*, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill intituled 'An Act to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act 1995'", or MPA, in short. [(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Tin Pei Ling. (proc text)] Twelve years ago, I led a Working Group comprising about 10 members and we tabled the 2010 Maintenance of Parents (Amendment) Bill. We introduced the conciliation-first approach to help elderly parents and their children resolve maintenance disputes out of Court. This was a major change as they used to apply directly to the Tribunal for the Maintenance of the Parents for an order, for their children to pay them maintenance. This tended to worsen the already strained family ties. The conciliation-first approach has seen positive results. Since its implementation in March 2011, about 90% of the claims referred annually to the Commissioner for the Maintenance of Parents were settled at conciliation. Consequently, the number of elderly parents who applied to the Tribunal has dropped significantly from 183 in 2010 to 110 within the first year of implementation. The applications dropped steadily over the years, have now stabilised and number at around 30 per year. It is timely to review the MPA. So, I formed a nine-member Work Group comprising of Parliamentarians here. We formed this group more than a year ago and we have completed our deliberations and review. My Work Group's key thrust is to strike the right balance in strengthening provisions for parents while introducing measures to prevent its misuse. Our recommendations are two-fold. First, we propose to amend the MPA to enhance the powers of the Tribunal and the Commissioner in ensuring that neglected elderly parents are adequately supported.”
“This can exhaust and frighten, or it can inspire and energise. The choice is ours, all of us who have chosen to fly this jet together. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“In 1971, Mr Lee was speaking of unity and the need for all Singaporeans to feel that we are, at the root of our identity, one people. At that time, his fight was to avoid being torn under and along racial lines. At that time, a Malay newspaper had been advocating "bumiputera" policies. One Chinese newspaper, on the other hand, has been playing up pro-Chinese Communist news. The English press at the time had been pushing for "more permissiveness in sex and drugs and worked up a campaign against National Service." In 1971, the way towards unity was to build common ground in a common language and culture, and a stake in a prospering country. Today, we may all speak a common language, our schools all teach in English and the power of different language newspapers may have weakened. But we still face provocations, falsehoods, dissension sown and manufactured, and we still face a world who has no interest in the success of Singapore. Aside from the fault lines I spoke of earlier, there are other challenges: foreign and other malign influences through social media, the rise of a victimhood culture where each special group stand on its rights and sees "micro aggressions", where subjective feeling and "lived experiences" take priority over objective truths and rational discourse. And as Singapore ages, the demands for state resources for older Singaporeans will rise, we can expect rising resentment among the young. In 2017, Greece and Italy spent around 15.5% of GDP on public pensions; Austria, France and Portugal spend around 13% to 14% of GDP. The entire Singapore budget is only about 18% today. So, this is a serious issue which we must tackle. The challenges today are as numerous as ever. It seems it is the fate of a small nation, to always strive lest we fall.”
“Singapore would then truly be a home which provides higher and lifelong education for all. Five years ago, in 2018, also in response to the President's Address then, I had said that we must make sure that a boy born to poor parents must have more from the state than one born from the rich. This aggressive redistribution, which is a hallmark of Singapore's socialism, must become even stronger and not just in fiscal policy, but in public censure of any pretence to social class. In this, I refer to the most recent incident where the resident of a condominium mocked, humiliated and ridiculed a security guard for clamping the wheels of his car. His utterance – flaunting his wealth, his contempt for the guard is abhorrent and has no place in Singapore. There are some things that money cannot buy and in Singapore, this includes the price of insult and derogation of any man doing an honest job. We have in 60 years indeed, gone from mudflats to metropolis and may now have a different level of wealth and income but we must not stand for those who think money buys access to a different class. In our schools, in our army camps, in this House of Parliament, we stand or fall as one. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been a Member of this House since 2006 and it has been a true privilege to stand alongside my colleagues of all political colours. Our jumbo jet may be a lot bigger today, but entry is still by merit and there is still just one class. Today, as in 1971, we are still flying the same flag, with the same five stars: democracy, progress, peace, justice and equality. Today, the success of Singapore lies not within the few in a jet, but in the multitude of ideas in many people who live and work on this island.”
“I am not asking for a segregation of the super-rich in terms of everyday life, merely in tax regimes, as a matter of fairness. They are, of course, still free to enjoy $4 or $5 wanton mee at one of my coffeeshops at Serangoon Central. We need to keep common spaces open because these are, after all, financed by tax dollars. The second piece of the puzzle is, therefore, the redistributive function of the state. In order to keep us from fracturing along the lines of inherited wealth, we must also level the playing field for those who are not unto the manner born. In health, education and housing, as well as some elements of transport and financial planning, we must create a minimum standard of living for all Singaporeans. I would like to suggest one radical idea: the top 40% of each cohort already have access to state resources in the form of higher education. The budget of our top two universities here run to billions of dollars a year, with high resources inside the classrooms, the best labs, professors; and outside: with overseas travel, mental health and wellness and a close network of mentors. What about the rest of the other 60%? Can we think of some educational spending or resourcing for the 60%? Whether in terms of skills, continuous training, micro-credentials, or even the sort of non-academic opportunities, including sports, which Mr Murali has talked about, that Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) affords to their students? This latter could include opportunities in the arts, sports as well as access to community service and overseas exposure. Our SkillsFuture Credit framework that we have is good, but I think it should be further institutionalised with additional resources targeted for this 60% group.”
“We could reset the game after each round – tax bequests heavily so as to erode the advantages of inherited wealth – but there are two constraints on this: the first is to recognise the ancient instinct which urges us to strive so as to be able to leave something for our family as our legacy; the second is a practical benchmark – that Singapore must set tax regimes for the rich, with an eye on the rates in the rest of the world, rather than merely responding to local pressures. Having said this, I do think that we can tax the rich further, especially in specific expenditures such as, super cars. I asked this in my Budget debate speech and I ask the Finance Minister, at some point again, to consider a separate category of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) for super cars costing over a million dollars. The billionaires should compete among themselves so as not to allow the state to benefit from their preferences for luxury goods. The same goes for the tax for GCBs, country club transfer fees and so on. Net worth is not net income, and it is the first which may be a stronger force for fracture. My second point on inherited wealth is to ask for some data. The data on the Gini coefficient is clear. After adjusting for Government transfers and taxes, the Gini coefficient fell from 0.437 in 2021 to 0.378 in 2022, the second lowest on record. It is a sign that Government transfers are a good way to reduce income inequalities. But the Gini coefficient includes only wage income. It does not take into account capital income which is likely to be more uneven in distribution. I do not know what the wealth distribution is in Singapore, but the Government may consider releasing some data so as to help public discussion.”
“If all the 300 were to crash in one jumbo jet, then Singapore will disintegrate. That shows how small the base is for our leadership." This idea that a man comes into leadership, or indeed, into any position of opportunity, by what he can do, how hard he has worked, the stuff he himself is made of, not who his father was, who his friends are, or how much money he has. This idea that one looks at a man and not his pedigree is as old as Plato's Republic and the Chinese Imperial Examinations. In Singapore, this must remain the only way to get on that jet. The fly in this ointment, of course, is that the two are not unrelated. How much a man is, determines how many advantages his son or daughter has, who this son marries, and in turn, the kinds of privilege he confers on his own offsprings. And so on unto generations to come. In Singapore, there are people who are born into HDB rental blocks that their parents live in, as well as those who inherit good class bungalows (GCBs) that their parents may themselves inherit. The Government can make sure that both have a roof over their heads, they have vaccinations in the clinics, that the sons of the rich serve alongside those of the poor in National Service, but there is no way that the first can afford everything that the second does. We talk often of income inequality and that is indeed an issue. But what I want today to speak about is wealth, because that is an even more glaring offence to the meritocratic ideal. There are 2,700 billionaires in the world – their money comes, not only from their income from work but also through their ownership of capital – property, stocks and the businesses that they owned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has asked us to broaden the way we conceive of "merit", which is another way of saying "who deserves what" in terms of opportunity and access to finite resources. Today, it has become fashionable to hammer this word "meritocracy", as if those of us who use it do not know it was originally coined as criticism. Michael Young, the British sociologist, in 1958, argued that a system that rewarded merit defined as "IQ plus effort" is as flawed as that one rewarding accidents of birth, because having cognitive ability is as much a matter of genetic lottery. This is true, except we may prefer to adopt this system, compensate for its shortcomings rather than adopt the alternatives which are random assignment, other criteria such as money, power or birth. Let me give you the Singaporean rendering of meritocracy which should be seen against our general governance model. In 1971, then-Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave a famous speech about 300 people in a jumbo jet. Most of us remember that speech for the graphic image of the jet crashing and a country bereft of leadership. But the main idea for me is this, how did these people get on the plane? Mr Lee said at the time, and I quote, "The main burden of present planning and implementation rests on the shoulders of some 300 key persons." He goes on to say, "Outstanding men in civil service, the Police, the armed forces, chairmen of statutory boards and their top administrators." And then, he goes on to say, "These people come from poor and middle-class homes. They come from different language schools. Singapore is a meritocracy. And these men have risen to the top by their own merit, hard work and high performance. Together they are a closely knit and co-ordinated hard core.”
“The way we feed ourselves will not be the same. The way we live and the way we work will also be different – telemedicine, work from home, online learning and the need for insurance. But there are other things which will remain the same – resilience, unity, and a single-minded commitment to our joint future. These are enduring virtues that have always been a part of our DNA as a young country formed of hungry migrants. I said at the start that the most important lesson in the White Paper is of the human dimension. It is a lesson of the mind and one that is difficult to record in a document, a lesson that cannot be taught but must be learnt. We must see that our brightest moments in the whole pandemic came from the times when we recognised, and when we respected our common humanity, and that our society is one which has an equality of respect and dignity for each one of us. We must learn and we must remember this lesson, because it is one, that as Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had said, will test us again. Sir, I support the Motion.”
“The work has certainly not ended because our world will never be the same. Let me give you a boring example in logistics. During this COVID-19 period, NTUC Fairprice expanded our warehouse capabilities to support additional storage requirements. During COVID-19, we had to adapt, and we successfully set up an alternative warehouse. We did this within five days. We converted a brick-and-mortar store to an online fulfilment centre within three weeks, again to meet the surge in online orders. By 2021, FairPrice had set up what we called a Supply Chain Ops Centre (SCope). This was to enhance our supply chain capabilities and to ensure we remain operational regardless of disruptions. More importantly, this ops centre allows us to minimise out-of-stock scenarios because it functions as an early warning system. In fact, when the Suez Canal blockage incident happened in March 2021, Fairprice was before the international agencies reported on the news. This incident had affected a few vessels that were transporting some of the supplies and products that we had ordered. The near real-time alert had bought us precious time to execute our contingency plans, thus avoiding supply chain disruptions. Today, we are more agile. We have further diversified our sources of supply, covering over 100 countries and we are constantly looking to strengthen our network of suppliers to avoid any over-reliance on any one source. So, yes, whilst we still carry a lot of eggs from Malaysia, we also have eggs from Australia, New Zealand as well as, certainly, from our local farms. And over this COVID-19 period, we have added Spain, Ukraine and Poland as additional sources for eggs. And just last month, we added Brunei to the list of countries supplying eggs to us.”
“And here, I want to acknowledge that it was plain good luck that we were not hit by a deep and severe spread during the "no need for masks" early days, and that when COVID-19 hit us in full force later on, we already had our masks and we had our sanitisers. However, it was not luck that allowed us to restock our supermarket shelves overnight. After the onslaught of panic buying, it was not luck that enabled the Government to inject money into our system without borrowing. It was also not luck that we got supplies of drugs, food and vaccines – for a country that imports 90% of our food, we never once went hungry. All these were possible because of, one could say, plain and boring virtues – very Singaporean things, like long-term planning, careful husbandry of Reserves, technocratic, technical and engineering capabilities during decades of peace and prosperity, hoarded for this one-time use. This is not just the domain of Government. There are many other partners in the community who spent their reserves too. NTUC was one among many which did our part. In 2020, the NTUC Enterprise group of social enterprises rolled out a $50-million package to provide holistic support for Singaporeans to cope with the pandemic. In the following year, another $20 million was committed to help the community tide over the second year of the pandemic. These initiatives have benefited the community by providing support to frontline workers, ensuring the public's access to affordable essential goods and services, providing financial assistance to vulnerable groups and supporting small businesses that have been affected by the pandemic, and also through our foundations, providing more support to the vulnerable groups, the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) and charities.”
“Indeed, during the day when DORSCON Orange was declared, when Malaysia announced their Movement Control Order and when we announced our circuit breaker, these were pivotal moments where our trust and our faith and our bonds – these were tested in full force. Wearing my NTUC Fairprice hat at that time, and working with the Government and the media, we had to assuage genuine fears and anxieties of the general public, among many messages, that supermarkets will remain open, that stocks are available, and if they were not, they were on the way. And at the same time, seeking the understanding and support of the public to only buy what they need and not create their own stockpiles. Despite best efforts on both sides, however, there were times of genuine confusion, not to say fear or anger, over the application of the rules to eating places and coffee shops, which caused a lot of confusion and sometimes disputes. Businesses were quite badly affected too. I know, as our NTUC FoodFare and our Kopitiam chains were also caught in this spiral. I did raise these issues at the time, but when emotions, fear and uncertainty ran high, and in the trade-off between lives and livelihoods, one would swing on the side of conservatism and safety. We made the right call to be cautious, but we must also be aware of the costs incurred. In a pandemic, no amount of reassurance and communications can eradicate the fear and anxiety we faced. At the same time, we need a healthy dose of agnosticism in the face of so much that we do not know – we recognise that our injunction against mask wearing was over-done. It was hubris to think we knew what was unknowable, at that time.”
“Others held classes to teach them about financial scams. Still others recorded video messages to show their support. The human touch was abundantly evident. When doctors working on the ground at the dormitories called for volunteer translators, students from different countries – India, China, Myanmar, Thailand – all took turns to translate these instructions. When the workers finished their stay at the hostels, they were treated to a "graduation" ceremony, where they took photos with the university mascots. In a real way, I feel our students graduated too, and from a far higher-ranked university than NUS. I also want to reflect on our darker moments. It was indeed confusing when we changed course and took both too much and too little risk. Our safe distancing measures – gathering in groups of two, five, eight, and then back to two – these were a reflection of the dynamic nature of the pandemic. Reality was fast-moving and so too was our response. The key was to explain and communicate, continuously and quickly. We may not have always succeeded but the high trust that we had in each other was a key reason we managed some degree of calm and order. The people trusted that we were doing our best as a Government and the Government trusted that people were doing their best to follow fast-changing rules and guidelines. The business community also played their part and the whole Singaporean community also played their part; we all came together, and together, we reaped the returns of the trust, the faith that we had built over the years.”
“I hope also that our appreciation to this group of workers does not subside now that this pandemic is over and that we are back to DORSCON Green. Indeed, the pandemic showed how important, how underrated, and how under-appreciated they were, and how we need an overhaul of the way we organise our world – from wages to social and economic structures, from the way we live, to the way we allocate resources. It is now a time to see that while praise and awards are good, equitable pay and respect for each other, for work, are better. One of my proudest moments was in the way we reacted in the early days of the pandemic – how we offered free healthcare to anyone struck by COVID-19, regardless of race, nationality or means; how we, being one of the first countries to obtain the vaccine, prioritised according to needs, offering the earliest doses to the elderly and the migrant workers living in dense quarters. I was also proud of the way we opened our hearts and our doors to the migrant workers. It was a mistake not to have anticipated the intensity of the outbreak in the dormitories – it meant that nearly half of the 300,000 workers living in dormitories had been infected by 2020. Sadly, two workers died. At the same time, there were many, many in the community who jumped in to help. I cite one example of NUS who opened their hostels to migrant workers, housing hundreds of them within the halls of residence. Students were briefed about the COVID-19 situation in the workers' dormitories and why they needed to share their hostels. Rather than a fear of infection and resistance to strangers living in their midst, the students worked to make the workers feel welcome. Sports teams conducted online morning personal training every day, just like our National Service times.”
“Sir, first, let me declare my interest as Group CEO of NTUC Enterprise. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to remember lessons when they are fresh and I, therefore, congratulate the Government for its decision to write and to publish this White Paper, because it records our successes, our mistakes, our missteps, as well as the justifications of our key decisions. In leadership of human affairs, there is no do-over – there is only one chance to get it right. And this is why it is so important that when we get it wrong, we make sure that it happens only once and we do it better the next time. That is not to say that we will not make mistakes but let us make new ones and not repeat the ones of history. Only in this way can Singapore progress and emerge stronger from each crisis. That Singapore had weathered the storm is unmistakable, but the reasons we did so may be less clear. I count at least three, the third of which is often overlooked: first, our people; second, our money; and third, sheer luck. We should not discount the role of luck, for only by acknowledging the role of luck can we keep ourselves from hubris and from underestimating the complexity, the ambiguity and the extraordinariness of future events. The White Paper holds many useful operational lessons that I am sure will stand us in good stead in time to come. The most valuable lesson to me, however, is a reminder of the importance of the human dimension. Here, I want to pay tribute to all essential and frontline workers – from cleaners to delivery workers to those working in healthcare, transport, education, social work, and yes, also supermarkets – many of whom had toiled for many years and mostly taken for granted by all of us.”
“Mr Chairman, it has been a long week. It is Friday and it is a quarter past eight. First, on behalf of all of us who raised cuts at this COS debate for Head I, I would like to thank Minister Masagos, Minister of State Sun Xueling and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua for their comprehensive and considered replies to all our questions. Likewise, I think I speak for all to express our sincere appreciation to all those in the social service sector for their big hearts, for their care, for the compassion and for their patience as we all journey together to make Singapore a more caring, a more inclusive and a more giving community. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $4,061,739,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $103,868,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Mr Chairman, just three clarifications – one each for the Minister, Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Ladies first. First, to Minister of State Sun Xueling, I think we are all cheered by the fact that with the revision in salaries and appreciation for preschool educators, we have seen an increase in the number entering this career. But for infant care teachers, I am quite sure many of us are experiencing that there is a long waitlist. There, certainly, is a long waitlist at the preschool centres in my constituency. Therefore, my first clarification is, what can we do to increase the supply of infant care teachers, so that it will help to shorten the queues for them? My second clarification is to the Minister. We are heartened by the top-up of $300 million into the ComCare Endowment Fund. We know that the cost of living has gone up. My simple question is, on the review of both ComCare and Public Assistance scheme, when is this due, because for all those who are receiving these, the last year, in particular, has been quite hard on them. And my third clarification is for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. I refer to a suggestion by Mr Leon Perera where he suggested that we could dispense for SSOs to probably dispense or simplify the need to verify certain documents. My own take is that we need to be cautious about this. I would rather say and hope that, instead, SSOs be empowered more to exercise greater flexibility to work within the guidelines and yet, exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis as they evaluate each of these ComCare applicants.”
“Each year, the Graduate Employment Survey shows that our graduates are more and more in demand by the market and that those in greatest demand are, logically, often paid high salaries. In recent years, this has been the students in computing and data sciences. A paradox is this: in light of the rising stresses faced by our people as well as the increased emotional fragility, social service professionals are in greater demand than ever before. Yet, they remain underrated and underappreciated, and I would say, underpaid. Their work is meaningful as they provide social care and interventions to those in need. We face long-term trends such as a declining birth rate and an ageing population. These will lead to a rise in the need for social care and services. How will MSF better support our social service professionals and better support the social service sector to have adequate manpower and good working conditions? The sector is enormous: more than 15,000 social workers, therapists, psychologists, nurses, special education teachers, early intervention teachers, social work associates, nursing aides and the list goes on. We must focus our minds in ensuring that this large group of professionals are paid competitively, so as to retain the best talents in this important sector.”
“We all know of the importance of early intervention services for children with developmental needs and in fostering inclusive preschool environments. Families with children with developmental needs will face challenges in bringing up their children. They need greater support in identifying their children's needs early and in accessing the necessary tools and information. Since 2019, the Ministry had introduced the Development Support Plus (DS-Plus) programme and Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) under two. In the same year, MSF had convened the Inclusive Preschool Workgroup (IPWG), which made several recommendations that have since been implemented. I would like to ask the Minister to give us an update on these recommendations, including the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) at the selected preschools? In general, what is the Ministry doing to better support families with children who have developmental needs? Staff-child Ratios in Infant Care”
“As a House, we have each year approved increased spending on early childhood. In 2018, the Government spent about $1 billion on this item. In the near future, this will more than double. As a result, preschool affordability and quality has improved, in particular for children aged three to six. But what about those younger than three years old? To nurture and develop children in their early years, families would need to consider all care options available to them. Centre-based care may not be the best solution for all families, if parents and other family members are able to provide familial care for the very young. What is the Ministry doing to assure parents that there will be accessible support in their children's early years? The Government had earlier said that ECDA will be reviewing the Early Years Development Framework (EYDF) for educators of children aged three and below and that this will include new areas, such as the learning of mother tongue languages and creating an inclusive classroom environment. Can the Minister update us on the outcome of this review?”
“At Singapore's current stage of development, no child should fear going hungry or missing out on school, especially preschool. Since 2016, the KidSTART programme led by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been in place to help children from low-income families to have a good start in life. Under KidSTART, ECDA provides services for families and monitors the developmental progress of children from birth onwards. Today, this is a nationwide programme supporting 5,000 children. Can the Minister tell us if this number is the anticipated number at steady state, or are there more children who have not yet accessed these resources? If so, what is MSF going to do to ensure better outreach? Second, is the current level of support adequate for these families? Third, given that it is already seven years since the start of the programme, can the Minister provide some data to show how children under this programme has fared since 2016?”