Syed Harun Alhabsyi
Singapore
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question as well as his deep concern over individuals who may have difficulty completing the SSG courses. Indeed, even after committing to the course, some individuals do have challenges managing the training load, juggling work or study, health complications as well as unforeseen commitments.”
“In 2025, more than 90% of learners completed their SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) courses. SSG does not process course fee waiver requests for learners who fail to complete their courses. Such waivers are subject to the contractual agreement between learners and training providers.”
“I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I do not have the full number, the extent of the collective amount as asked by Mr Pritam Singh. But I can give him some indication in terms of what are the current numbers that we are looking at for specific agencies.”
“I would like to reiterate again to the Member that the nature of the fees that were charged previously was on account of the service that was rendered by the four agencies. The fees were openly prescribed to the extent to where the services were required by Singaporeans, as well as consumers.”
“Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 20 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.”
“Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 2 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.”
The complete record
Every one of 244 lines we hold for Syed Harun Alhabsyi, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“Mr Speaker, in the context of this Motion, I declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice. I hold a Visiting Consultant Psychiatrist appointment in a restructured hospital and I am the Honorary Secretary of the Singapore Psychiatric Association. Mr Speaker, as a mental health professional, seeing that this Motion is tabled today and responded to by at least 28 Members of the House, my heart is full and I say this on behalf of the very many colleagues who work with me in the mental health space. I am confident that the range and scope of what we will discuss today and put forth to the House will be wide ranging and impactful and it will inform the way we, as a country, see mental health and well-being. I am hopeful that this will lead to meaningful change in the way we view discourse over mental health and how it informs public policy from herein. Mental health and well-being are not just an issue that resides in the realm and domain of healthcare and, for that, I am grateful to the five hon Members of the House who had put forth this Motion for us to debate and consider. Importantly, that the debate is happening highlights two things. The first is that the issue of mental health and well-being permeates through and is relevant to all aspects of our individual lives whether it be in school, at work or at home. This is even before we venture into the realm of mental illness. Mental health and well-being features in how we socially interact with one another, impacts how we perform and fulfil our roles at work and has a very direct relationship to our physical health as well. The second is that there is a now wider awareness, realisation and imperative at the national level in recognising the cost to our society if we do not act and leave things as they be.”
“Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I support the proposed amendments to the Bill.”
“Third, Mr Speaker, in relation to the proposed section 88AA, on the Foreign Halal Certification Body, as the market for halal certification continues to grow internationally, so too does the proliferation of FHCBs many of whom take example from the professionalism that MUIS has established over decades in halal certification experience. In total, as of 15 January 2024, I note, on the MUIS website, that there are 99 entities registered on the list of FHCBs recognised by MUIS, including state halal authorities and private entities. In this regard, the inclusion of section 88AA into AMLA is timely and important. To this end, I have two clarifications. First, may I clarify if the proposed amendments of section 88AA (6) are limited to the misuse of halal certificates and marks relevant to FHCBs only registered and recognised by MUIS, or would these cover all FHCBs, even those that are not currently recognised in MUIS' list? If the latter is not covered, my view is that members of the public should also be protected against the use of halal certificates and marks from unrecognised FHCBs and even more so, because they can be misleading and in the first instance, arise from FHCBs that MUIS has not formally endorsed. Second, may I ask what are the safeguards and extent of oversight that MUIS has over recognised FHCBs to the extent that one can ensure that these FHCBs, especially private FHCBs, upkeep their standards of halal certification overseas and are not compromised as a result of cost and profit pressures? These safeguards would be an important assurance for members of the public to ensure that sources of food certified halal, locally or overseas, remain trusted for consumption.”
“Often, these cover very basic aspects of religion and the way of life of a Muslim within their families and I also imagine this to be a universal approach in many families practising their respective religious faiths, Muslims or otherwise. This particular definition of the proposed section that a person could be defined as a Muslim religious school, and be subjected to the rules, powers and controls vested to the Majlis, appears potentially intrusive to the Muslim family unit. This definition of Muslim religious schools also may entangle parents, or grandparents as the case may be, who want to reach out to their family members, teach values organic to a Muslim family, including very basic areas of Quran literacy and recitation, or values related to the Islamic creed and practice. In fact, as a young child, my own ability now to be able to read Arabic script and the Quran was the result of habitual Islamic instruction from my elderly grandmother on a regular basis, and this is something which I would not consider as coming close to a definition of a Muslim religious school requiring regulatory oversight. Could I clarify the intent of including the word "person" as part of the definition of Muslim religious schools, and whether this definition could be nuanced and clarified further to ensure it is not intrusive to, and inadvertently implicate, well-meaning families –and these could be very large families, more than 10 members – that wish to continue their tradition of teaching basic Islamic values habitually within the household?”
“This would give assurance to the community that this wakaf contributed by the people would and could be accessible to its intended recipients not only through programmes by the Majlis, but also through community organisations and societies serving the same. Secondly, I am also concerned about where the oversight and supervisory powers of the wakaf would lie. Where the Majlis has the power to remove and appoint trustees and mutawallis relating to wakafs created by others, may I clarify that in the instance where the Wakaf itself is now created by the Majlis and it is now appointed trustee to this wakaf, what is the intended supervisory structure to ensure governance and compliance to the intent of this wakaf, and whether should this be enshrined within AMLA as well? Second, Mr Speaker, in relation to the proposed section 86A, on the meaning of Muslim religious schools, I have a clarification on the definition and meaning of Muslim religious schools. The stated definition of Muslim religious schools, taking reference from sections 2 and 86A together, are that such schools could also be defined as a person that habitually teaches Quranic recitation, Quranic literacy, Tajwid, Fardh ‘ain and other religious sciences which include, but are not limited to Aqidah, Tafsir, Fiqh and Hadith. In many Muslim families, such Islamic instruction, habitually or otherwise, is seen as part of family upbringing and a way in which to imbibe and inculcate values to their young. Many see it as basic tenet of parental or familial responsibility, and one that does not necessarily need formal instruction nor be certified to do so as is the case in formal Islamic instruction in religious schools.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. In delivering my comments for this Bill, especially in the context of the proposed amendments relating to wakaf, I wish to declare that I am President of Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud, which is an Institution of Public Character, a community organisation and charity that supports education of students in need and those who come from underprivileged communities. Mr Speaker, AMLA is a significant piece of legislation in Singapore that governs matters related to Islamic religious affairs for the Muslim community and establishes the legal framework for the administration of Muslim law and the regulation of Muslim religious institutions in Singapore. It gives guidance on the establishment of Islamic institutions and religious schools, and appointment of key religious figures within the community, addresses the administration of Muslim Law through our Syariah Courts and supports the need for Muslims to manage religious matters relating to Zakat, wakaf, Hajj and halal matters – among other things. I have clarifications relating to three areas of the Bill – wakaf, Meaning of Muslim religious schools and Foreign Halal Certification Body. First, on wakaf, I have two clarifications in relation to the proposed section 58(3A), on the proposed wakaf to be created by the Majlis. I am concerned about the accessibility of the wakaf created by the Majlis to community organisations. Where aligned with the intent and purposes of the wakaf, could community organisations and societies serving for the development of Islamic teachers, mosques, madrasahs and socio-religious programmes and initiatives to uplift the Muslim community and the under-privileged make applications as well for funding available through the wakaf?”
“These could still achieve the intended outcome of public protection and mitigate risk when employed with greater oversight and supervision. If the numbers are, indeed, sizeable, then would it not be telling of how much more we need to do in conducting treatment, as well as rehabilitative and reintegrative programmes back to the community, especially for this sub-group of offenders of violent crimes and sexual harms? Would it be possible then to focus on doing this better instead of introducing SPP and/or SEPP? Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether the weight of the introduction of section 304B especially, in the Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection, consider too strongly the principle of Deterrence and Prevention, when compared to Proportionality in Punishment and Rehabilitation. I do have reservations relating to SEPP specifically, its achievable gains and proportionality in the sentencing framework, as well as its encroachment into civil liberties, even if it is reserved for the most heinous and predatory among us. I wonder whether there are alternatives possible and yet to be considered within the existing structure of our legal provisions to suitably manage the risk and still protect the public. Mr Deputy Speaker, pending clarifications from the Ministry, less the SEPP at least at this juncture, I support all other aspects of the amendments to the Act as proposed by the Bill.”
“First, could the Minister explain the principles behind the selected offences in the Seventh Schedule under SEPP? In our world of widespread Internet and electronic use, the potential of sexual crimes relating to use of intimate images, recordings and voyeurism, as well as gaining access to, producing, distributing and selling child abuse material do have potential for harm to the victims and members of the public not unlike some of the offences already highlighted in the Seventh Schedule. Sometimes, these offences, indeed, far outstrip the extent of impact and harm that current offences included in the Seventh Schedule may pose and I seek greater clarity on how these offences have been chosen. Second, I would like to gain clarification over what is envisioned as the intended gain of SPP and SEPP, and how will this eventually be measured? Are current sentencing frameworks not enough to address adequately both retributive and restorative aspects of justice for the offenders today, no matter how egregious their crimes may be? Third, what are the numbers of current and ex-offenders this Bill could impact and how many of them could qualify for SPP and/or SEPP at their next offence? If the numbers are small, could we not consider a greater amount of resources, monitoring and enforceability for our community sentencing options, release orders, detention orders as well as employment placement and preparation schemes, rather than relying on the hon Minister’s discretion to detain such individuals up to the natural life of the prisoner, as in SEPP? Could we structure interventions better and amalgamate the hybrid use of prison sentences with Community Orders, Mandatory Treatment Orders, use of electronic monitoring and Day Reporting Orders better?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to my clarifications on new sections 304A, SPP, and 304B, SEPP. I begin by unequivocally and categorically stating that the crimes for which the proposed sections 304A and 304B cover are heinous, disgraceful and reprehensible in the strongest terms. These crimes have a long-lasting impact on the victims, in terms of physical and emotional trauma, the psychological effects on their mental well-being, their loss of security and trust towards significant others, and how they potentially view current and future relationships as well. In my work as a clinician, I also see victims of such trauma permanently scarred to the extent that they are unable to form meaningful relationships nor are they able to work, and some even struggle with the need for psychiatric support and longer-term therapy. These crimes are abominable beyond measure and have no place in our society. However, in deliberating this change and the introduction of these two sections, I take a leaf from the document “Sentencing in Singapore” guide published by MinLaw and MHA on their website, wherein it articulates four evergreen sentencing principles: deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionate punishment and prevention. The same guideline also articulates the different types of sentences, including imprisonment, fines, caning, community-based sentences, corrective training, preventive detention and the death penalty, and that rehabilitative potential is also assessed in the context of Propensity for Reform as well as the Nature and Gravity of the Offence. In these proposed sections, I would like to request clarifications over three areas, some of which have also been addressed by the Minister previously.”
“This Bill appears to be more permissive to allow individuals to consent at a younger age by themselves from 16 years old rather than at 18 or 21 years old, at least to the alleged victim, based on the current proposed amendments. Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, under sections 40I to K, regarding refusal for FME and use of reasonable force in certain cases, I agree that refusal for FME could constitute an offence and can appreciate the need for reasonable force to retrieve samples or conduct FME for certain cases. However, in this context, other than a retrieval of blood through a blood draw, which is considered as invasive, would it be possible to list the body samples that are considered non-invasive in the context of a non-consenting FME for greater clarity? For example, would retrieval of other body samples like urine, saliva, head hair and root of head hair, sample of fingernail or toenail be considered invasive or non-invasive? This is not yet clear in the current amendment. In section 40E, these are all articulated as body samples, but only the sample of blood is explicitly considered as an invasive sample. Perhaps, to retrieve urine and stools, one would require access to intimate parts and, therefore, this is not allowed under section 40I but may I clarify what about hair, nails and saliva? Would a probing swab to the mouth or nose for saliva or bodily fluids, or pulling of a hair sample at its root be considered invasive? Given that the type of samples permitted for a consenting FME are already articulated in section 40E, for clarity, it would be helpful to clarify what samples are permitted with use of reasonable force on a non-consenting person and also considered non-invasive.”
“Under the proposed section 40H, there is a distinction for standards of consent for medical evaluation drawn over three groups of alleged victims: (a) alleged victims below 14 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian; (b) alleged victims between 14 and 16 years old requiring the consent of a parent or guardian and that of the alleged victim; and (c) alleged victims above 16 years old requiring only the consent of the alleged victim. Firstly, given that, in the context of Police investigations, FME may cover both accused persons and alleged victims, may I ask whether these standards for consent also apply to accused persons within the same age ranges as well? If this is not the case, could the Ministry clarify why the same consent standards may not apply to both alleged victims and accused persons? Secondly, relating to FME and, more broadly, in medical settings, doctors would consider strongly seeking parental or guardian consent for anyone below 21 years of age seeking medical treatment though there could be unique considerations that may inform such a person’s ability to give consent at a younger age than that. Notwithstanding the forensic setting, it remains the case that this is a medical evaluation, and I would like to seek clarification whether this will be considered the legal standard henceforth relating to consent of medical evaluations in general. If this is not the case, I would like to seek clarifications from the Ministry why a forensic medical evaluation for alleged victims would be different from non-forensic medical evaluations in terms of allowable age of consent and the ages to which permission from a parent or guardian is required.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, given that there have been several references to psychiatrists in the context of risk assessment in a forensic setting, I would like to declare that I am a psychiatrist and a member of the Section of Forensic Psychiatry, College of Psychiatrists of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) plays a crucial role in Singapore’s criminal justice system. It outlines the processes and rules that govern the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases within our legal system. A robust CPC ensures the protection of individual rights and safeguards and access to a fair and just trial. It also provides legal certainty and predictability, outlines accountability of law enforcement and judicial authorities and contributes to social order and stability. When effectively and efficiently administered, it also plays a role in deterrence of criminal behaviour, respect for the rule of law and civil liberties, and strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice. I have two sets of clarifications as part of the changes proposed in this Bill. The first set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new Division 5 – Forensic Medical Evaluation, of Part 4 of the Bill, under Information to Police and Powers of Investigation. The second set of clarifications relates to the introduction of the new sections 304A and 304B, under Sentence for Public Protection and Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection. Mr Deputy Speaker, in principle, I agree with the amendment to articulate the powers relating to FME.”
“We take careful thought in the planning of our urban living spaces and we have done well, over decades, to ensure there is a good balance multicultural representation and interethnic presence in our residential estates. I would argue, though, that it is in the last mile delivery and policy – the one that fronts the experience of the ordinary Singaporean – that integrates and converges all the proximal work that is done for social cohesion. And it takes place and comes to life in the common spaces of residential estates. To falter at this point is like training hard for a marathon for months on end and building towards peak performance and results, but only to trip at the final kilometre of the race on an obstruction that one knew was there to begin with. So, with forward planning, a little bit of creativity, some contemplation and a considered compromise, common spaces in residential estates can be realised as the focal point for community relations and a beacon for social cohesion.”
“There needs to be continued fervent policy encouragement that allows for spontaneous day-to-day activities arising from and that are organically sustainable to community. This should be coupled with a considered approach towards usage of common spaces and engendering trust and responsibility to the end-user and resident. It can be a function of when and where certain activities are allowed, whether modifications need to be made for certain games to be void-deck or common space friendly, or certain no-go areas for specific activities. There is enough space in the common spaces of residential estates, but it is a matter of how we allow for its use to, together, achieve the best outcomes for social cohesion. At the same International Conference for Cohesive Societies in September 2022, Mdm Halimah Yacob also said, "Cohesive societies do not exist spontaneously. They are borne of choice and conviction." In conclusion, I urge fellow Parliamentarians to consider the Motion in the context of how we can choose to do better in engendering social cohesion in our every day. The Motion speaks to how we can and must co-create and curate the common spaces in residential estates, to foster better understanding amongst Singaporeans and consciously allow for the opportunity to interact in a manner that transcends our layered identities and interests. When we take decisions relating to common spaces, we should be wary how it impacts social cohesion, for better or for worse. We need to consciously work hard on social cohesion always, for it is a process and a journey, rather than an end-state to be achieved.”
“However, at the last mile and in the finer details, I think we can do better to imagine solutions that would further promote play and spontaneity, and for social cohesion to flourish. At the outset, if, indeed, social cohesion and community space activities are key intended outcomes of residential living, we should endeavour to eliminate most challenges proximally by design. If noise levels are a concern, could it be possible to design better noise insulation strategies for the lower floors? If safety of passers-by is to be considered, can we not demarcate and design areas of play better? I believe it is not impossible for both new and existing estates to be adapted to foster such activities if we resolve together that social cohesion is an important area we want to develop and further strengthen in our people. We have shown that such adaptations are possible. We employ the same creativity for our green and sustainability goals under the HDB Green Towns Programme. We pilot cool coatings, elevator energy regeneration systems, electric vehicle charging points and even urban water harvesting systems underground. Under the Solar Nova Programme, into its eighth leasing tender last year, HDB has endeavoured to install more than 8,000 blocks with solar panels over the past decade. It is indeed possible to redesign the systems in residential estates to achieve a desired outcome towards how we imagine society should and can be. Beyond the structural aspects of our residential estates, it also requires sound social policy and a desire to strengthen the community further at our doorstep and in our everyday. Today, we have the People's Association alongside our community partners to build and bridge communities.”
“To close, to barricade, to block common spaces appear to suggest that there can be no room for compromise and that the redacted behaviour or activity is so abhorrent that there is no place for it at all. It then becomes a paradox, because these are the same activities that engender close connectedness in the community and a solution to such a quandary is surely worth a thought. We should recognise that these values will be mirrored in other circumstances too. We must try harder to allow space for spontaneous activities in our neighbourhoods and be mindful of how we navigate differences, because it impacts how we consciously or unconsciously view one another, the extent to which we are ready and willing to seek common solutions, to compromise and to co-exist amidst our differing needs, and also, in the longer term, how our young will view each other and the world around them. The third area of concern is that we can do better in terms of finding solutions that are win-win for all. With some creativity, collective thought and deliberate consideration, it is my firm belief that it is possible for us to further nurture common spaces in residential estates for a myriad of activities that engage all layers of society. It takes a good urban design, sound social policy and the interplay of the two to make things work. In terms of macro-urban design, my view is that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) have done well in the strategic planning of spaces to consider most aspects of our residential needs and ensure they are accessible to all, that they are people-friendly and are liveable.”
“The boundaries are not so clear sometimes and it is impossible to articulate an exhaustive set of rules to the extent that all possibilities are covered. It takes people – young, old and of all persuasions – to engender good common sense and consideration of others to find a common ground for the use of the common spaces. There may be a need for some guidance or nudging through broad rules, but how we navigate our common spaces in the residential estates is a function of our values and ability to be socially cohesive in spite of our differences. It is an exercise of navigating our social contract with one another. Achieving a mutual understanding elevates our societal norms to a deeper level of awareness, one of greater compassion and empathy and a genuine care for one another's needs. When youths want to play, say, at the void deck, there is an expectation that when someone frail or elderly comes by, you stop and give them space to pass. When one wants to have an activity at the common multi-purpose area, whether a celebratory wedding or a sombre funeral, there is an expectation to be mindful of the noise levels and at what hour some activities can be conducted. For us to strengthen our social cohesion, we must find ways and means to allow for reasonable play and activity within the common spaces of our residential estates. It is this very "give and take", "push and pull" tension inherent in such common spaces that hones our cohesion as a society and unlocks our potential as Singaporeans to be familiar with and know one another more intimately. We should not be afraid of differences. Instead, we should have a healthy curiosity, seeking to appreciate and understand the different views.”
“Everyone is seen as a fellow neighbour – not the boss or executive at work, not the student of any particular school; nor does it matter whether you stay in a nearby private estate, a 5-room flat or a rental unit within the neighbourhood. You come as you are, you join in the game and no one will notice or care about who you are beyond what you are willing to share. The social currency in the neighbourhood game is your friendship, your sense of camaraderie and your teamwork. It might not even matter how good you are in the sport or game, as long as you are friendly and amicable. The common space in residential estates equalises access, cuts across all layers of society and brings people together and, because of the dynamic and spontaneous nature of such interactions, the mix is never constant and that makes it beautiful for social cohesion. Because they are rooted in the everyday, the nature of such interactions also tend to be the most genuine, unbridled and sustained, and these are the same ties – organic in our neighbourhoods – that will form the basis of how our society will overcome adversity and respond to crisis, if and when it happens. For those who venture often for such activities, you will also notice that the networks of the neighbourhood game or activity are distinct and different from what you may get in school or at work, with subtleties that only free, spontaneous and unstructured play close to your place of residence can replicate. Second, Mr Speaker, in terms of social cohesion, it is a missed opportunity to negotiate and achieve collective compromise. In common spaces, because it is open to all, inadvertently, it is a melting pot for some level of disagreement.”
“As is the case in teambuilding, social cohesion will take some time to form and to norm. It may not come in the first instance, especially if it appears that the activity of one group seems to infringe on the private space of another. My view is that we should not shy away from the opportunity to explore these differences, find common ground and nurture relationships alongside. In recent months, there have been news coverage, opinion pieces and debate over the closure of some common spaces in residential estates, specifically, a barricaded void deck in Woodlands Ring Road and the closure of a football hard court in Bedok North Road. By any measure, I am no die-hard soccer fan. Though in my youth, I have had forays in playing games like football, sepak takraw and even marbles in common spaces. To my memory, there have been other occasional examples over the years of such actions taken by various municipalities on similar common spaces to curb inconsiderate behaviours. Even as I cite these examples, I mean them purely as an illustrative example of the broader points I am about to make. I can understand the challenges of Town Councils in moderating complaints and disagreements on the ground. It is not easy. However, when we take steps to close common areas of play or restrict areas of spontaneity from fair and legitimate interests like sports, for example, I offer three areas of concern relating to social cohesion for the House to consider and ponder upon. First, it is a missed opportunity at the level of the activity itself, in terms of the nature of cohesion it brings to the community. When one goes to the void deck or common space in residential estates, we bring the most authentic, simple and personal version of ourselves.”
“Such common spaces are where social cohesion is most frequently tested on a daily basis and become the first confronting intersection between what is private to an individual and what is common to others around him or her. Often, the line is not so black-and-white, as many of the Elected Members of Parliament can attest to. Frequently, complaints over municipal issues or neighbourly differences hover at the intersection of these common spaces. The best solutions almost always require compromise, some give and take, underpinned by empathy, a consideration for others and a genuine desire for the collective good. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] As far as social cohesion goes, it is less a question of what is mine or yours, but more so of what is ours and what it is that we can collectively build together as a community and as a society. It is anchored by our collective values as Singaporeans; values that are evergreen and resilient both in good times and in adversity. The building blocks of our social cohesion are in the everyday. Social cohesion arises and morphs from the daily grind of how we respond to one another, from the strength of our relationships with our neighbours with whom we live, stay and play and from the way we navigate mutual understanding of one another's needs, cultures, peculiarities and nuances. Therefore, I argue, Mr Speaker, that for social cohesion to take root, we need to allow ourselves to experience one another in the common space of residential estates. We must feel safe and comfortable to bring forth our authentic selves into the space to be discovered by others, to give permission for others to be curious and seek to understand us and have a willingness to share common spaces for mutual benefit.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not imagine that any Member of this House would object when I say that social cohesion is a necessary and integral part of nation-building and national survival. Especially in recent years, one could argue that: more than any amount of economic abundance and resource, social cohesion remains the necessary bedrock of any nation to navigate catastrophe, calamity and modern-day challenges. Societies with greater social cohesion and cohesiveness have been shown to have had better outcomes from COVID-19 and the same can be said with such societies in overcoming disasters, acts of terrorism and bouncing back from national crisis. Social cohesion is the unseen force that binds us together in adversity and it will take us through as a people when things get tough. In her speech at the International Conference for Cohesive Societies in September 2022, then-President Halimah Yacob said, "Social cohesion is a necessary condition for our collective security. Societies cannot survive, let alone thrive, without the social glue that bonds people together." Social cohesion, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not a mere absence of conflict. It is a deeper sense of connectedness between peoples; a sense of belonging to a collective identity, with an entrenched trust and solidarity towards a common good. I scoped this Adjournment Motion of Social Cohesion to focus on Common Spaces in Residential Estates, because such common spaces make up the first boundaries of where one's private residence interfaces with common areas of interaction with others in the community.”
“However, in this globalised and interconnected world, it is impossible and irresponsible for us to ignore the plight of people suffering all manner of injustice and devastation, illegal settlements where there is little access to food, water and electricity, and uncertainty about their lives tomorrow. As a Singaporean, I also take heed that what we have here in Singapore; living amongst groups of variable religious persuasions and racial identities, yet still remaining united as one people, is something we should never take for granted. It is something we should guard fiercely and recognise that in another part of the world, this still remains a very distant possibility at best. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion and the amendments proposed.”
“I can appreciate the initial concerns over public order, the sensitivity of the topic as well as the volatility of the situation overseas, but I do hope that the Government will reconsider this position in good time and I would suggest for this to be allowed sooner rather than later. There should be means for Singapore Citizens to discuss and express their thoughts in a safe space about such delicate issues and raise their own awareness and appreciation of such devastation and atrocities happening around the world. Where there are additional concerns relating to security or public order, such engagements could be done with certain security restrictions or in limited numbers of participants. We should continue to allow for peaceful discussion of such issues so that people with polarising views can discuss such matters respectfully and sensitively. As a whole, society then benefits and matures from such depth and nuance of discourse over time. I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, that while this Motion is focused on the Israeli-Hamas conflict with a specific focus to the House on the recent devastation within Gaza, it should be noted that the wider conflict between Israel and Palestine also includes that of the West Bank, an area that spans about 15 times the size Gaza, where it remains the case that death, injury and destruction of property have also increased dramatically since 7 October. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert in the conflict nor do we, as privileged Singaporeans, have moral authority to be able to tell Palestine and Israel how autonomy and statehood should look like for them.”
“Singapore has shown through examples of her actions internally in our local context and outwardly on the international stage that we have no qualms about proposing and making considered decisions based on what is right rather than what is popular. Being a small country in the global space with little by way of physical resources, our value has been measured through the trust that others have in us. Further to this, our local communities also have an innumerable number of scholars who are familiar with the wider Middle East, its language, culture and history and these are strengths that we can draw upon to facilitate such an involvement in the peace process. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is much that the wider Singapore society and the Government can learn and glean from this conflict. These range from wider issues of international relations relating to foreign diplomacy, deterrence and defence, to internal lessons about how fragile society can be when societal differences are amplified along racial and religious ideologies coupled with a lack political will, stability and ability to achieve peaceful resolution in the longer term. Inadvertently, the ones who suffer most as a result are innocent civilians and the people. In this regard, given the depth and richness of knowledge that the conflict could offer by way of national education and learning, I was slightly disappointed when it was announced that the topic of this conflict could not be discussed more openly at the Speaker's Corner or as part of events or public assemblies when, in fact, the matter was already widely covered and readily accessible online and in local newspapers.”
“We call on leaders from both sides to show leadership, to exercise restraint and to take the difficult but necessary steps towards the vision of a two-state solution." Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two proposals for the Government to further consider as part of my contribution to this debate and Motion. It speaks to what both our hon Foreign Ministers have said earlier. The first takes into account that Singapore is no stranger to difficult conversations, conflict resolution and negotiations. Our stated positions across many conflicting issues on the international stage have been clear and principled, even if it may bring some detriment, disagreement or unhappiness in our relationships with other countries in the short term. The position of trust and honesty at the international stage that Singapore has benefited from could only have been possible because we continue to take consistent principled positions in our dealings and affairs with others and anchored firmly in our prescribed values of justice and equality for all. In this regard, I would urge the Government to build on the trusted partnership that Singapore has on both sides of the fence of this conflict and take a position of arbitration, if and when the opportunity arises, publicly or otherwise. Depending on how one measures the timeline of this conflict, surely, there are differing historical views and narratives on when this conflict started. However, my view is that learning from history has its benefits and we surely must be introspective about such lessons but only in so far as it does not hold us ransom and hinder current and future prospects of peace.”
“I am hopeful for peace and a two-state solution in my lifetime, but certainly, no peace can be had when guns, rockets and airstrikes are still firing from both sides and countless innocent civilians are losing lives on a daily basis. We are not yet sure how much further this crisis could unravel and the destabilising impact that it has in the wider Middle East and other regions of the world. I support the Government's position, as outlined by Singapore's affirmative vote at the UN General Assembly on 27 October for an "immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities", a demand for aid access and a determined protection of civilians. Singapore must continue to push for a ceasefire to come to fruition, for a sustained delivery of humanitarian aid to areas of conflict and to persist in its principled position of unequivocally condemning terrorist acts and violations of international law on both sides, and for the safety and security of civilians, including the release of all hostages. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do support the Government's position that a two-state solution remains the only option for peace, but that the final solution also needs to be tempered with what is fair and just for both sides such that peace can be meaningful and lasting. Taking a leaf from the statement by our Ambassador Burhan Gafoor, our Permanent Representative at the Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, on 27 October 2023, I quote: "We support the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and Israel's right to live within secure borders. Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve to live in peace, security and dignity.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make this speech with a heavy heart, not from a weight of reluctance or hesitation, but from a place of deep anguish and pain. The conflict is a tragedy unfolding so catastrophically that in barely over a month, more than 10,000 lives have been lost. We see troubling and abhorrent images on both sides; on 7 October from within Israel and then, over the past month, from Gaza. By any measure, it is hard to see an end in sight to this terrible conflict and going by how events have unfolded in the past month, it is clear that more lives will be lost in the coming days to weeks. It was reported by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that, as of last Saturday, 4 November, Day 29 of the crisis, that among almost the 11,000 fatalities, 31 Israeli children out of 1,400 Israeli fatalities, 3,900 Palestinian children, 2,430 Palestinian women and 572 Palestinian elderly. One point four million have been displaced in Gaza, a land that is half the size of Singapore and, in relative terms, the number of deaths that the conflict has contributed in a mere 29 days and still counting, is fast approaching half of the total deaths that Singapore saw in a full year in 2022. We have yet to consider, Mr Deputy Speaker, the longer-term impact of food security, water and sanitation, health and healthcare, destruction to family units, the impact of education of children and the physical infrastructure damage to housing units, education facilities, hospitals and other buildings are also included in the UN report. These numbers inform us of a humanitarian crisis and tragedy so deep, protracted and entrenched that it will take years, if not decades, to recover from.”
“I am also of the view that civil society needs space to flourish and grow as well, because the nature of interests, texture of advocacy and the tenor of the times will certainly shift as the years go by. And as these shift, tension will surely exist now and then between new, seemingly disruptive ideas and the prevailing social norm. These may be seen as presenting a challenge to the existing good order of things initially. My hope is that the Ministry considers these factors with perspective and discernment where they apply. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.”
“At the same time, I also call on youths and professionals to contribute to prominent organisations, and it is not something that is old-fashioned or backward; far from it. In fact, lately, the torch of leadership in some organisations have already been passed on to the next generation of leaders. They still value legacy and history and have gained confidence and benefited from the knowledge and experience of past leaders. Some members of these organisations have stepped forward and seized the opportunity to participate in national conversations, such as the National Youth Council and the National Council of Social Services, as well as in the international arena, such as the ASEAN Youth Fellowship. I hope the Government can balance the need to be firm when enforcing the regulations through this Societies (Amendment) Bill. I fully support the use of tough and expeditious methods to prevent organisations from being corrupt and unlawful or from having divisive elements. At the same time, I also hope that the Government can recognise the tremendous legacy, history and contributions of organisations that have been working hard over the decades to do good for the people of Singapore. New and contemporary ideas may sometimes cause misunderstanding initially due to differences in perspective, but if these ideas essentially stem from a desire to uplift society together, I think we should allow such ideas to be explored. Sooner or later, changes and new ideas will become inevitable. In fact, a sign of a maturing society is when it gives due attention to renewal and recalibration after careful consideration. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am in firm support of our stance to protect fiercely our national security and interests.”
“It may well be that the cause remains as true, important and relevant today as it did pre-Independence, and it is just that the current prevailing interest, strength in leadership or continuity remain a temporary but periodic challenge for that particular society. Rather than reinventing new organisations at every turn, I urge some discretion to give time and support for such societies, steeped in history and legacy, to recalibrate its identity and reinvigorate itself anew rather than be dissolved. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): The Societies (Amendment) Bill encompasses, among others, Malay/Muslim community organisations which have existed for a long time and did a lot of good for the community since the 1960s. Apart from LBKM, there are also other organisations like Alwehdah, Jamiyah, PERDAUS, PPIS and 4PM which have served for decades in community matters. These organisations have their own emphasis and focus based on their areas of expertise and specialisation. Although their specific focus area may be different, just like the interdependent bamboo and riverbank, these organisations have shown a desire to work together to address the concerns of the community and the nation. These organisations have a strong link to Singapore's history and have sculpted, shaped and influenced the lives of our community in Singapore together. It is normal that many youths want to try out new interests and, sometimes, these interests seem to go against the cultural norms of the day. Although the sculpture may appear different, the style, nonetheless, remains the same: these youths have a deep desire and commitment to serve and uplift society.”
“The thing about new ideas though, especially those without precedent and appearing as foreign and unfamiliar at the onset, is that they may well be seen as an affront initially to the current norm and equilibrium. New ideas could be viewed with much doubt, cynicism or even distrust by the establishment. I hope that while the Ministry maintains its firm hand on the powers accorded by the Bill to be decisive when it comes to issues of national interest and security, that it also tempers the weight of this responsibility with an even-handed approach to some novelty, creativity, youthful exuberance and unusual ideas so that Singapore society can flourish from the diversity in our societies. Beyond looking at the current laws and regulations, one must also recognise that the texture and grain of societies registered in any one era of our history tell us, to some extent, the matters of interest, influence and advocacy of the larger Singapore society then. On 1 October 2023, via a simple search online on the Registry of Societies, I found that more than half, about 4,420 out of a total of 8,321 societies currently registered, are relatively new and were registered only at the turn of the century from 1 January 2001 onwards. However, it is noteworthy that almost one in 10 registered societies today, or about 798 of them, had already existed pre-Independence more than 58 years ago. Even as the Ministry is able to exercise its powers and authority, I would urge that the Ministry consider with some nuance, discernment and concern any dissolution of societies that have a long history, track record and legacy alongside Singapore's history.”
“The second of this duality, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Bill, notwithstanding the increase of maximum punishments and fines and clarifications on the powers of the Registrar of Societies, provides latitude for societies to flourish and for like-minded individuals to share their common perspectives and come together to advocate, to promote, to discuss and to deepen understanding of a wide set of issues and interests. These can range from issues relating to ethnicity, to religion, to nationality or language, to political inclinations, to civil liberties and rights, to the environment and even to animal welfare. In this regard, the importance of societies within our society cannot be understated. Societies are like ingredients to the recipe of what Singapore is and could become. And beyond political affiliations in this House, I can say with a degree of confidence that many hon Members of the House are, or previously have been, members of societies and ground-up initiatives as well. The nature of the establishment of any one society necessarily involves a group of people invested in a particular topic or issue enough to want to make formal a cause to call their collective own. It tells of a tale of a determined advocacy and of a meeting of intellectual minds and of a sense of belonging via a common thread, theme and identity. By extension, this adds much richness and diversity to Singapore because societies, directly or indirectly, develop a rootedness to the local community, allow for outlets of philanthropy and groom the next generation of community leadership. Mr Deputy Speaker, for youths especially, societies give opportunity to cultivate new ideas, address contemporary issues of interest and advocate for emerging concerns relevant to them and their future.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to first declare my interests as a past and current serving office-bearer of several societies. More relevant and presently, I am the President of Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud and Honorary Secretary of Singapore Psychiatric Association. And I also have memberships in a few other registered societies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I read the Societies (Amendment) Bill with much interest and, if I may, there is a certain duality that exists within the Bill. The first of this duality is that it firmly entrenches our determination as a country to maintain public peace, welfare and good order, and protect what is in our national interest. It also suggests and reinforces that we make no apologies in protecting our Singapore society against undesirable and offensive influences that could fracture us along naturally occurring differences, such as religious and racial identities, or against ideas that are rooted in illegal activities or arising from foreign interference. I am also heartened that the Bill's reach goes wide enough to be able to hold accountable persons who, directly or by proxy, allow any unlawful assembly, induce membership, publish materials and procure subscription and aid for the purposes of such unlawful societies. I think these rules are necessary and the spirit of the amendments keeps pace with our desire to protect society against such detrimental activities.”
“I urge Members to consider your position on how you view issues related to mental health, its accessibility to care and how some of our citizens at their most vulnerable hour struggle to get timely accessible care, lack reasonable alternative options to support their needs and have valid worries about employability after. Mr Speaker, as a category, the lifetime prevalence of mental illness as reported in the Singapore Mental Health Study of 2016, stands at 13.9%. This is even higher than diabetes which stood at 9.5% in 2020 on whom we rightly wage war against since 2016. I ask this House to consider the weight of mental illness on our society and measure its funding, resource and accessibility to care accordingly. Like diabetes, mental illness is often silent and unseen. However, unlike diabetes, the impact of mental Illness on quality of life is more immediate from the point of diagnosis and the grind and burden on caregivers can be immeasurable and very quickly so. I look forward to this House taking steps to set the tone and example through the work that we do and engagements that we have to make mental healthcare more accessible for all. [Applause.]”
“The oft-cited question is that of stigma and how can workplaces and employers engender a better culture of mental well-being. My response ordinarily revolves around the fact that it starts from our own day-to-day biases, how we respond organically and spontaneously to matters of mental health and how sensitive we are to what we read and what we hear of mental health conditions. I am particularly optimistic by the announcement by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in August regarding the upcoming workplace fairness legislation, especially in protecting against workplace discrimination for disability and mental health conditions. In this regard, I look forward to the details in place and the extent to which people with mental health conditions can feel assured regarding their employment. Beyond this, we must ask ourselves how we can do better on rehabilitative mental health and improve outcomes for re-employment and re-integration of persons with mental health conditions. A negative prospect of returning back to their home and livelihoods will feed into people's fears of seeking help early, thinking that they may never return to full function and that there are few opportunities for meaningful employment after a diagnosis of mental illness. To conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House that World Mental Health Day is on 10 October. I will confess that even as I filed this Adjournment Motion, I had forgotten about this fact and I can only posit that it is serendipitous that a psychiatrist is here, winning a ballot to speak on the issue of accessibility of mental healthcare in Parliament just a week before we celebrate World Mental Health Day.”
“In dealing with mental health comprehensively, while it is not a requirement when seeking treatment, if there are experts who possess a deep understanding and sensitivity towards cultural issues, it will provide comfort and ease to patients, so that they can express their feelings and share their personal difficulties without fear of being ridiculed or having their faith, piety or masculinity feeling diminished. (In English): Mr Speaker, through my own clinical lens, I have been educated by patients on their hallucinatory perception of visitations of the occasional deity and spiritual disturbance, whether by Guan Yin, or an omnipotent God or a memory of a distant figure of the past. This is common across very many different faiths, culture and backgrounds. And often, there is an overlay of mental illness that needs addressing and can be helped, not in isolation but through partnership with community and religious institutions playing a part. Beyond medical-related factors, we must also recognise the interplay of culture, spirituality, faith, gender roles and familial factors as potentially being enablers or barriers to seeking help. Other than children and the vulnerable in our midst, men and the elderly, in particular, should also be given some focus as we seek to make delivery of mental healthcare culturally competent and more accessible. Lastly, Mr Speaker, accessibility begins at home and at the workplace. The process of seeking help is a non-starter when the home and workplace are apprehensive to or unsupportive of mental healthcare. It would be difficult for employees to seek help when the opportunity cost of declaring their mental health condition could be their entire employment.”
“It is not uncommon that symptoms of depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and psychotic disorders, much as they are recognised and established mental illnesses, take root, shape and form in the socio-religious and cultural background of a patient. If we want to make mental healthcare effective, we must consider, as part of our system of care, a deep understanding and sensitivity to the different mores of cultures, faiths and spirituality too. When practice of mental healthcare is devoid of this understanding, a diagnosis could be misinformed, treatment becomes sub-optimal, medication compliance becomes poor and a willingness for treatment is lost. In fact, it can be a barrier to seeking help altogether. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For example, Mr Speaker, within the Muslim community, many see the symptoms of mental illness as a spiritual disorder, instigation of evil spirits and caused by something supernatural. This is despite the fact that the symptoms and causes of mental illness are clearly displayed. Just like other communities and ethnic groups, efforts to create awareness about mental illness are sometimes challenging. It requires close cooperation and partners from the Government, community bodies, religious bodies and social agencies. There should be a deeper conversation about mental health in society, and it should be on everyone's lips just like physical health matters and other prominent issues. In line with that, the Muslim community must also focus sharply on raising awareness and encouraging more people to venture into the fields of psychology and psychiatry, because the number of experts managing this issue currently is very low.”
“The Government should also harness stronger lateral linkages across public, people, private sector partnerships as part of a layered approach to deal with mental well-being, mental illness and mental healthcare. I also hope for better vertical integration of services such that the delivery of mental healthcare from community to hospital, and then back to community can be seamless and less disjointed. Efficiency, Mr Speaker, sometimes inadvertently means that the hand-off from one point of care to another becomes narrow but steep because the boundaries can be so well-defined and mutually exclusive. I urge the Government to consider some overlaps at the intersections of mental healthcare, so that the patient journey is seamless and gaps are prevented by design. When care touchpoints become more coherent and less fragmented, the patient will feel that the intersections are less ominous and less overbearing and that their last-mile experience in this journey is one of care and deep concern. This directly ties to their confidence in the quality and delivery of care, their willingness to continue in the care journey and that should they relapse again, they will have little difficulty in navigating the system to find their way to recovery. Fourthly, accessibility also means accounting for socio-cultural needs and being sensitive to community-specific factors to mental healthcare. Not all vehicles are made the same, but every vehicle needs servicing even as they each may be unique in some ways. Mr Speaker, in dealing with the private and very personal nature of mental health conditions, compatibility of care to the cultural, religious and social influences of the individual needs to be considered as part of the ecosystem.”
“More people will take active steps about declaring their conditions and many more others will start taking care of their mental health by seeking treatment early. I am not saying that insurance is the silver bullet to mental healthcare, but it signals to people that we take it seriously, that we want to prevent it and that we want to make mental healthcare as accessible as possible, especially to those who take a keen interest in wanting to manage their health needs proactively. Thirdly, accessibility also means ensuring that we manage the intersections of mental healthcare well. Sometimes, even with the best roads, jams can occur if intersections are not well-designed or if traffic junction timings are poorly thought through. I am heartened, Mr Speaker, that the Government has had a renewed push for Healthier SG, as espoused by its White Paper, with an aim of 32 polyclinics by 2030 and an increase of public hospital capacity by 30%. In fact, just yesterday, a further 500 beds were added to the healthcare system as the hon Minister for Health initiated the opening of the Tan Tock Seng Hospital Integrated Care Hub. My hope is that, in tandem with this increase in capacity, that the Government takes heed to the increasing demand of mental healthcare in the coming years and that alongside this, so too would the resources for mental healthcare improve and increase at both primary and tertiary levels of care. In wanting to improve accessibility through health and mind clinics, my hope is that all future 32 polyclinics will see mental healthcare as part of their staple baseline services by our family physicians.”
“While I am grateful that Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are covered under MediShield Life regardless of pre-existing conditions, the tenor and the spirit of the questions were that of stigma and a lack of parity and transparency for patients who have a history of mental illness, in procuring insurance coverage for themselves. There are challenges that people with mental illness face with insurance coverage that goes beyond the scope of their mental illness or the insurance underwriting on their risk of self-harm. Some find it disproportionately more challenging to secure insurance coverage even for physical health conditions, even though the specific mental health condition they have, or may have had in the past, does not necessarily bear a correlation to a prospective risk of physical ailment per se. Mr Speaker, we cannot paint mental illness with a broad brush. Sometimes, depression can be the result of a temporary but extraordinary loss of a loved one and the likelihood of recurrence may be no different from anyone here in the House. Attention-deficient hyperactivity disorder can be outgrown for many, with little reliance of medications into adulthood for some. Dyslexia can be overcome and strategies learnt to manage reading challenges. Anorexia can be stabilised, self-esteem restored and meaningful relationships blossom thereafter. My proposal, Mr Speaker, is for the Government to study this issue more deliberately and have a deeper look at the evidence and reasons for refusing, for loading and making exclusions for insurance coverage relating to mental health conditions. Give each mental illness the proper airing and stratification it deserves. If we get it right, more people will be willing to get themselves insured.”
“Our restructured hospitals have organic psychiatric departments that are smaller, yet the range and depth of complexity of the cases and the need for interdisciplinary work across specialities are no less challenging. Not all restructured hospitals have dedicated infrastructure and a ward for psychiatric patients and this makes managing even patients, who are of moderate risk, sometimes difficult in a restructured hospital setting. We can do better. Secondly, accessibility also means that where there are limited resources within the public healthcare system, alternatives need to be possible and readily available. We are not saying that every time we need to get to the destination, it must be the expressway all the time, but where that is not possible, fair and ready alternatives should be within reach. Mr Speaker, I can appreciate that there is a utilitarian view to the delivery of public healthcare, with which practical considerations and a desire for the system to deliver the greatest benefit with the limited resources that it has. However, for patients suffering from mental health conditions, they find themselves also stuck between a rock and a very, very hard place. For many of them, to search for alternatives beyond what is available in the public healthcare system remains both a rarity and at steep expense. In our last September Parliamentary Sitting, the House would recall hon Members Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms He Ting Ru asking about insurance coverage for individuals with mental health conditions. Yet, the response from the Ministry, in my humble view, skirts the point.”
“A Parliamentary Question was filed in July this year by the hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng on average waiting times and follow-up appointments for mental health treatment at public healthcare institutions, wherein the Ministry responded that, on the basis of median time, it takes 45 days to see a psychiatrist and 42 days to see a psychologist. Depending on whether one sees it as half empty or half full, it means that 50% of all cases referred to see a psychiatrist or psychologist wait no less than six weeks before an appointment can be arranged. I would be interested to see what our mean numbers are, because there could well be a long tail in terms of the waiting time for patients to get professional help beyond the 50th percentile. Even, Mr Speaker, if we take a conservative and reasonably optimistic view that perhaps the remaining 50% are seen within eight weeks or by the second month from their referral, it is also worth noting that by the time patients need to be referred by the learned general practitioner to a psychiatrist or psychologist, it is likely the case that these patients are already struggling and are having marked difficulty in their lives. I would argue that a further six to eight weeks' wait for access to a psychiatrist and/or psychologist is much too long a wait to bear. For psychiatric departments in restructured hospitals, manpower and infrastructure continues to be stretched to address the increasingly complex medico-psychiatric cases, cases involving vulnerable adults and those lacking mental capacity. Cases where trauma, cancer, strokes, infectious diseases and endocrinological illness overlap with mental illness, there is much complexity in the treatment of psychiatric conditions.”
“Taking a leaf from the transportation industry, to get people and goods from one destination to another, we pave ourselves a myriad and network of walkways, park connectors, roads, tracks and expressways – underground, on the surface and above ground. We maintain them to a tee to prevent potholes and disrepair. We want to make the journey smooth for our road users to get to their destinations of choice so that when they reach the destination, they are comfortable and ready for their intended tasks rather than be exhausted from the navigation of the journey itself. We ensure there is timely intervention and quick removal of barriers for traffic to resume especially during peak hours. And we also manage capacity of our transport systems to ensure we are able to sufficiently absorb the demand on a daily basis. There are clear alternatives routes and diversions as part of the forward planning in the transport infrastructure. And to our best efforts, we also ensure that transportation and people movement are safe and compatible with the users of the day. Mr Speaker, in relative terms, when compared to what we can and have done for transport, I put it to Members of the House that we can do better in terms of accessibility for mental healthcare. First, accessibility means that, at the time of need, there is reasonable expedient mental healthcare and there is capacity in the system to be able to accommodate. We need to ensure our lanes are wide enough to receive and the roadside lamps are up and the potholes are cleared for passage.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, in the context of my Adjournment Motion, I would like to declare that I am a consultant psychiatrist in private practice, I hold a visiting consultant psychiatrist appointment in a restructured hospital and I am the honorary secretary of the Singapore Psychiatric Association. Mr Speaker, I will begin this Motion by saying that the state of mental healthcare in Singapore has improved over the years. There is greater awareness of mental health issues, wider efforts at integrating mental health into primary care, a readiness in the use of telehealth and a greater appreciation and initiation of mental health initiatives amongst youths. There is also greater emphasis on research and local data to help inform policy decisions and allocate resource to areas most in need. Since July 2021, we have had the Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being look into three focus areas: the first of which relates to improving accessibility, coordination and quality of mental health services, the second seeking to strengthen services and support for youth mental well-being, and the third to improve workplace wellbeing measures and employment support. My Motion speaks most loudly to the first focus area and how I think we can and must do better in delivering mental healthcare and make it accessible to all. Mr Speaker, on the theme of accessibility, being the first-world country that we are, it cannot be the case that we are satisfied when accessibility means merely making available a path from Point A to Point B. A path itself is not enough for it to be called accessible.”