Tan Chuan-Jin
Singapore
“A step-parent who wishes to leave any part of his or her estate to a stepchild is encouraged to make a will. Intestacy law would apply in cases where a person passes on without a will.”
“Last year, we reviewed and extended the Child Development Account, or CDA benefits to children of unwed parents. The Government granted CDA benefits, to children of unwed parents born, or with an estimated date of delivery, from 1 September 2016. It is generally good practice to implement our policies prospectively.”
“The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track the number of persons who choose to remain homeless instead of being admitted into shelters. When MSF receives information on persons who may be homeless, we initiate contact with these persons on the ground to offer assistance.”
“Our law places the child's welfare and interests at the heart of an adoption decision. We must not forget that such an adoption is a life-changing event because when an unwed mother adopts her child, the duties, obligations and liabilities of the biological father are terminated.”
“The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) works closely with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to plan for preschools in upcoming Build-To-Order (BTO) developments, including Bidadari new town. To better meet the needs of young parents, new preschools will have larger capacities and also be completed earlier where possible.”
“The Silver Support Scheme under the Manpower Ministry provides an income supplement to seniors who had low incomes through life and who now have little or no family support. Beyond ComCare, we are also expanding upstream intervention to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable families and their children to set a good foundation.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,137 lines we hold for Tan Chuan-Jin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 23.
“Since the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) came into effect on 1 March 2010, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) under my Ministry has made available various resources to guide interested individuals in making their LPAs. These include a guidebook on the LPA, guidebook for donees and a Step by Step Guide to completing the basic LPA form, which is supplemented by a video guide. Most of these resources are available in all four official languages. I encourage interested applicants to review these resources from the OPG website when preparing their LPA applications. As at 31 January 2017, 35,926 LPA applications have been received by the OPG, accounting for about 1% of the total Singaporeans and Permanent Residents population aged 21 and above. As Singapore's MCA is modelled after England and Wales, we looked at the United Kingdom for a quick comparison. In England and Wales, about 4% of their eligible population have made an enduring power of attorney or LPA. Similarly, about 3% of Scotland's population have done so. While these figures are higher than in Singapore, it should be noted that these jurisdictions started much earlier than us, some even as early as 1986. My Ministry recognises that we still have some way to go in getting more Singaporeans to plan ahead and make an LPA. Hence, I would like to reiterate that the application fee waiver for Singapore Citizens making an LPA Form 1 has been extended till 31 August 2018. We hope that more will take advantage of the fee waiver to pre-plan for ourselves and give our families peace of mind in future. We will also continue to increase awareness on the LPA. LPA certificate issuers, who are professionals from the medical and legal sector, perform an important safeguarding role in the whole process.”
“Our society can do more to enable these children, like any other child, to realise their true potential as they become integral members of society.”
“Children with special needs should be accommodated in community activities and play settings, so that they can learn and grow together with typically developing children. The inclusive playgrounds in our community are a good example where accommodations enable interaction between children with special needs and their typically developing peers. Such inclusions pave the way for the community to become more open and supportive towards children with special needs and their caregivers. Corporate and individual contributions, coupled with a grant from the Care & Share Movement, were used to fund the five inclusive playgrounds built by NCSS. These playgrounds were the fruits of a very successful 3P (public, private and people) collaboration. We hope that there will be many more such partnerships and collaborations in building inclusive facilities, or creating inclusive settings. In the education system, the Ministry of Education (MOE) seeks to enhance integration between students in mainstream and Special Education (SPED) schools by facilitating meaningful and purposeful interactions between these two groups of students. Under the MOE's satellite partnership model, some SPED schools practise "social integration" with their mainstream partners. Others like Pathlight School allow their students to join their mainstream peers in class. The satellite partnerships enable students in SPED schools to remain integrated with the larger community. We will like to encourage corporates and community agencies and groups to actively create opportunities for better integration and inclusion of children with special needs, through the infrastructure or programmes they put in place, or the activities they organise.”
“Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder may have needs that range from mild to severe. For those with moderate to severe needs, they are referred to the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC). EIPIC provides learning and therapy intervention for zero to six-year-olds at risk of moderate to severe disabilities, including autism. EIPIC services are currently available at 19 Voluntary Welfare Organisations centres located across Singapore. EIPIC centres train and involve parents and caregivers in the intervention for their child. This equips parents and caregivers to better care for their children with special needs, and the child also benefits when the intervention continues at home. In addition, children in EIPIC may also attend preschool for education, inclusion and childcare. In such cases, the EIPIC centres will work with the child's preschool teacher on strategies and tips on how best to engage the child in the classroom and in activities. The Ministry of Social and Family Development, with the Early Childhood Development Agency, has worked with training institutes and educational providers such as Ngee Ann Polytechnic in rolling out specialised training such as the Specialist Diploma in Early Childhood Learning Support and the Advanced Diploma in Early Childhood Intervention (Special Needs) to equip EIPIC teachers, Learning Support Educators (LSEds) and classroom teachers in preschools with the necessary skills to support children with a range of developmental needs. LSEds provide targeted short-term intervention for children with mild developmental needs and guide preschool teachers in integrating these children in the classroom setting. The community has a crucial role to play in supporting children with special needs.”
“Generally, the main cost drivers for preschools are rental and teachers' salaries. And we have no plans to change our space- and teacher-per-child requirement as they are currently satisfactory. It is very important to take note of that. This, hopefully, is also for centres to take note that the main cost drivers are not changed under these requirements. ECDA is also studying other ways to lower cost of operations, for example, providing more flexibility in manpower deployment, something that we will be looking at to support the sector, by allowing operational staff to assist trained teachers and so on. This space continues to evolve and we intend to strengthen it in many different ways not addressed under the Bill. These approaches that we are taking would also help centres carry out their responsibilities effectively without unnecessarily incurring costs in a very significant way. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I have attempted to address this at length during my speech but it is worth repeating. From one perspective, one could naturally imagine how this could lead to higher compliance cost and so on. We do not anticipate there to be significant cost increases as a result of this Bill. Why do we say this? In the process of coming up with this Bill, we have been working very closely with the industry on how to unfold this, how these various measures would kick-in in very practical terms. Childcare centres today, for example, already operate under a licensing regime. We are not starting from ground-zero. We have already embarked on that journey, and many of these players are already quite far on that journey. We are now, in some sense, formalising it. ECDA is also streamlining its regulatory requirements. We are very mindful as we implement this new Bill. Even as we implement this, the requirements are not cast in stone now. Along the way, there may be push-back from the industry as certain unknown processes may turn out to be more cumbersome than they need to be and they add to costs. For this, we will look at it and see how to best calibrate it. For kindergartens, for example, ECDA will provide more time for them to transit and, as I mentioned, they will be given an additional one year from the time that the Bill kicks in formally. We do not expect the compliance cost to be onerous and, therefore, we are not expecting the Bill to translate into higher fees. It is important, and I would say this, because I also do not want centres to then say, "Oh, there is a new Bill; so, no choice, we have to increase fees." Just a message to everyone, the new Bill should not lead to fee increases.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. With regard to the first, indeed, we will look at the individuals' qualifications that may not fit our criteria today, especially qualifications from overseas. We will look at whether, in their case, a more truncated or accelerated programme is possible. There is a balance that needs to be struck. But it is something that we are open to looking at. With regard to the second question, it is a very important one. It is important for us to realise that part of the challenge is that while we may make some of these schemes and subsidies available, the challenge is with the children's attendance. Because you will find that for some families, and for a range of reasons – there is not one reason particularly – intermittent attendance is actually worrying. The opportunities for development and exposure are there for the children, but for whatever reasons, the children do not attend. We do know some of the factors that are involved. In fact, this is something that I am quite particular about personally. As part of our effort with KidSTART, working with the families, it is not just about the children, it is about the family, too. So, addressing absenteeism, ensuring the children have regular attendance in preschools will be a very important component of this effort. Once we are able to do that, it will go a very long way. It is not just about working on the children. We need to work with the family. So, I completely agree with that.”
“I will also be talking about some of these concerns during the COS debate, and we will have other debates on some of those topics in this House in the future. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the early childhood sector has made very important and good progress in recent years. This Bill is a very important milestone in our journey in raising the quality of early childhood care and education in Singapore, for our children, our families and, from a national perspective, for our future. This Bill will complement the many initiatives that the Government has introduced to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of early childhood development services. This will ensure that every child, regardless of his or her background, can have a good start in life. It is important for us to ensure that every child has that good start. It will also further strengthen our commitment to make Singapore a good place to raise families. Again, just to reiterate, we do not need a Bill to make sure that we raise strong families. This is something that all of us can do. It takes a whole nation to play a part. If we are able to put our hearts and soul into this, both at home and in the sector, we have every reason to be optimistic for our future. Because once you lay a strong foundation, there is a high probability and a good chance that our young children can grow up to be responsible citizens and contribute back significantly to our nation. Once again, I thank Members of this House for their support of this Bill and the very meaningful debate today.”
“Regarding more support for centres and early childhood teachers caring for children with special needs, as raised by some Members, ECDA and my Ministry will continue to work with training institutes and education providers to equip preschool teachers with the necessary skills to support children with developmental needs, such as rolling out professional development courses for in-service preschool teachers who want to enhance their skills in this area. We are quite assured that for centres that are operating in this space, transiting to the new arrangement should not be a problem. On the concerns whether putting in place some of these requirements will force some of these special needs centres to go out of busines, that is very unlikely to happen. On the co-location of centres with primary schools, as raised by Mr Yee Chia Hsing, many of the MOE kindergartens are already located within primary schools, bringing convenience to parents who have children in both MOE kindergartens and the primary schools that they are located in. That is the approach that MOE is looking at with regard to the MOE kindergartens. On employment terms and disputes between centres and their teachers, as raised by Mr Ang Hin Kee, we thank Mr Ang and the Education Services Union for the good work in supporting our early childhood teachers who found themselves caught in unfortunate circumstances. Early childhood professionals could also approach MOM to file a complaint against violations of the Employment Act. These concerns are important as they support the overall functioning of the sector as well as some of the points that I mentioned earlier. But the Bill focuses on ensuring children's safety, well-being and welfare in centres.”
“It will not be addressed within this Bill, but it is something that we will look at and work with the sector to see to what degree we want to define the requirements for some of these individuals concerned. To Ms Thanaletchimi's question on directions for emergencies, ECDA intends to issue directions under clause 17 only for emergency cases, such as hazardous haze episodes, where children's safety is at stake and centres need to act swiftly to safeguard their well-being. As such, it is a criminal offence for any non-compliance, liable up to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of 12 months, as determined by the Courts. I note Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concern on the impact of temporary closures arising from disease outbreaks on parents. I would like to assure Members that it will only be invoked as a last resort, or only during emergency circumstances. To support working parents, the Government has also enhanced child and infant care leave provisions over the years. With regard to the security deposit, this is something that Mr Louis Ng raised, I have also touched on the application of the security deposit as well as the proposed amount. We are applying the security deposit on a small number of centres with poor regulatory track records as a form of assurance from them on their commitment to improve, while recognising that the majority of our sector, by and large, is performing well. Should there be a need in the future, this approach can be reviewed and we are open to it. The security bond may be forfeited as a form of regulatory sanction against breaches, as provided for under clause 16. I note some of the other issues in the early childhood sector that were raised by Members. As I mentioned, some of these are beyond the scope of the Bill.”
“On the other hand, there is another Act that is already governing them. MOE is also intimately involved, and they will meet the requirements that are demanded of the rest of the other centres as well. With regard to Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Louis Ng's questions on closure arrangements, ECDA is studying the advance notification period for centres which intend to cease their operations, which will happen from time to time for various reasons. We agree that sufficient time is needed for parents to look for alternatives. In determining the notification period, ECDA must strike a balance between the feasibility of the time period for centres – because there are real practical concerns from their perspective as well, and centres would not wish to prematurely alarm parents – against the need for early warning. We will see how we can work that out. To Ms Thanaletchimi's question, we will maintain the prevailing professional qualification requirements and this information is available on ECDA's website for all to refer to. As I mentioned earlier, for those who have other qualifications that do not quite fit, if the centre feels that they want to put the person forward, the centre can do so and we can look at it on a case-by-case basis. To clarify on Mr Darryl David's point on third-party enrichment vendor staff suitability, we will start by making simple assessments of these individuals' track record. We do not intend to specify any professional qualifications required of these individuals, since these enrichment classes are optional and encompass a very wide range of niche activities from sports, drama to cooking to whatever it may be.”
“We thought it was important for us to step in. This is why it is not just an MOE effort, but both MOE and MSF are stepping into that space. MOE continues to drive the curriculum in very significant ways; MOE is not just focused on primary school education. There is a need to look at the pedagogy that is involved leading up to that stage. As a result of being involved in MOE kindergartens, MOE is also looking at how that whole continuum extends into the early primary school years, including how to harmonise this whole effort and how that streamlines into the longer-term development effort for education. MOE is not a fringe player coming in, or one of those small establishments that has no background. They have been intimately involved in the process from Day 1. MOE kindergartens will fulfil ECDA's requirements, along with the rest of the industry. The ECDC Act is intended to regulate the standards of private kindergartens and childcare providers. The MOE kindergartens are run directly by the Government, and they have an Act that governs it, similar to the way MOE runs primary and secondary schools and junior colleges. This is not to say that MOE runs their kindergartens the same way that primary schools are run. They should be run differently; the approach is different. The MOE kindergartens will continue to be regulated under the Education Act, along with other national schools. This is an approach similar to how we approach the other parts of the education space. MOE maintains strict oversight of the MOE kindergartens and will be directly accountable, as they are accountable to this House, with regard to broader education. On the one hand, Members feel that bringing them on board under the ECDC Bill would be sensible, and I can understand that.”
“Besides streamlining the regulatory standards checklist, ECDA has also released a series of very useful templates that centres can use to guide and track their day-to-day operations. ECDA will also be enhancing its information technology (IT) systems to allow centres to interface with ECDA more seamlessly on regulatory matters. Technology can go some way to make this more efficient and easier for centres. We agree with Mr Ang Hin Kee's suggestion on the value of tapping on technology to keep costs down and free up teachers' time for our children. Beyond streamlining requirements, ECDA has collaborated with the Association for Early Childhood and Training Services and the Infocomm Media Development Authority of Singapore to identify smart solutions to help teachers with their daily administrative duties, such as temperature and attendance taking. As we embark on the journey towards Smart Nation, it should encompass all manners of activities that we are undertaking. These solutions were showcased at the Early Childhood Conference in September last year, and many operators have signed up since. With regard to the exclusion of MOE kindergartens, Ms Thanaletchimi, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Louis Ng raised the question about why MOE is excluded. I can understand the concerns raised. Let me make a couple of points. ECDA is an agency that is overseen by MOE and MSF. Both Ministries take a very active interest and role in shaping this space. This is the reason why ECDA was set up. We are very clear that the formative years are vital. Education is a long journey. We have in place our primary, secondary, tertiary education, and so on. That continues to be improved. What we have prior to ECDA was a space which was left to the market.”
“These are the finer regulatory details, such as field trips, supplementary enrichment activities and to make enrichment activities optional, which means centres must continue to provide classes for children who do not opt for these programmes. This approach creates greater flexibility and fee transparency for parents, allowing parents to make informed choices and manage their costs better. Administrative workload is something that many of us are concerned about. It is a valid concern and something that we are very mindful of as we embark on this journey with this Bill. We certainly want teachers to spend more quality time on our children than on administration. When you speak to teachers, what they want to do is to teach, not to spend time doing administration. But we also realise that to run a system in a systematic way, where you not just teach well but are also able to replicate that on a sustainable basis, you need structures and processes. Hence, it is important for us to not run away from that, but to make sure that it is not onerous. ECDA has taken a focused effort to streamline administration and make it flexible, as I mentioned earlier. For example, over the past year, we have been working with the sector to streamline the new regulatory standards checklist for operators' own preparatory self-assessments, so that they know what to look out for. To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's query, we do not require operators to employ designated administrative or compliance staff. Most operators should be able to manage the new framework with their existing resources. We have spoken to many of them, in terms of how they envisage themselves adapting to address the needs of this Bill.”
“In addition to these, given that affordability is a concern to many parents, ECDA has also ramped up the supply of more quality and affordable places. This is something I have been talking about regularly, and this includes more places offered by AOPs and POPs. We have also made subsidy enhancements in recent years, and we note Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's suggestion to expand the support given, especially for lower-income families. That is something that we completely agree is important. A lot of it will come under the KidSTART effort, which is something that I have mentioned before. We intend to make sure that it succeeds and takes off on a more extensive basis. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Desmond Choo asked for the Government to have some degree of control over fees to ensure that fees are affordable to parents. Today, there are quality targets and fee caps on the AOP and POP centres, which serve nearly half of the sector. For the remaining operators, we see the need for operators to determine their own fees, as their programmes may have different cost structures and they may need to adjust their fees from time to time to ensure business sustainability. While the Bill will not determine the fees of different preschools − this will be addressed separately − we will continue to require centres to provide sufficient early notification of any plans to increase fees and explain the fee increase to parents. This will help to ensure that fee increases are done in a transparent and fair manner. With regard to the affordability of fees, that will be dealt with separately and I will talk about that in the COS debates. Following feedback from parents, ECDA is also looking into requiring centres to publish incidental charges.”
“In fact, as a result of the effort in the past one to two years, many centres are already well-prepared for this, especially as ECDA has earlier provided funding support to centres to procure air purifiers during severe haze episodes. We also do not plan to increase regulatory requirements around staffing numbers and space allocation, which are the main cost factors for centres. We believe that the prevailing requirements are adequate in our current context. Some flexibility has also been catered for these requirements, as new requirements are added. For example, Miss Cheryl Chan suggested allowing non-teaching staff to support teachers more. I mentioned earlier that there is no reason why the operational staff cannot help trained teachers supervise outdoor play time. Centres can also use neighbourhood playgrounds to fulfil their outdoor space requirements. In fact, ECDA has even gone down to help centres look at how to manage their costs. For example, for the requirement on first-aid kits, ECDA has looked into the items and the quantity of each item. While the first-aid kit items are not going to drive costs up in a significant way, ECDA has gone into details to work with various centres, especially the smaller ones, who are reaching out because they do not have the resources and the set-up to look at some of the good practices in detail. ECDA's advantage is that, because of their oversight over the rest of the sector, ECDA can bring into play many good practices which can be imparted to other players. We have also extended funding support to the not-for-profit kindergartens to help them defray staff immunisation and also minor renovation costs.”
“I would like to assure this House that the requirements in the Bill and the regulatory framework are calibrated with that in mind, to meet some of these higher order requirements but, at the same time, try not to increase costs unnecessarily by making requirements flexible, so that it is not onerous. We are quite assured that it should pretty much unfold in that direction. For those who do have challenges, we will work closely with them. For example, we have a new longer three-year licence tenure which is intended to reduce the administrative costs of centres with consistently good regulatory track records. Mr Louis Ng highlighted that centres will need to undergo regular assessments before their licence renewals to demonstrate that they have maintained their standards. We encourage centres to meet the standards and, if they do, they can have a three-year licence. In addition, ECDA will continue to conduct unannounced audits. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested we should do more audits. For those who have challenges, we will pay closer attention, and we will visit them more often to help them level up their standards. But we do need to strike a balance and I think Members appreciate that. As I have mentioned earlier, many of the new requirements have already been implemented as part of the sector's best practices. Hence, it is not as if with the introduction of this Bill, a whole new slew of initiatives is coming in. Actually, many of these have been unfolding in various forms in the past couple of years. For example, ECDA's advisory recommends centres to have air purifiers during haze periods. ECDA is looking into making this requirement in subsidiary legislation.”
“These establishments do not have a problem transiting to the new regime under this Bill. These are all very important concerns. ECDA is also undertaking many other initiatives to support the sector in this whole transition process. To continue, as we have mentioned, affordability remains a key cornerstone of our whole approach. So, ensuring quality and affordable early childhood development services for parents remains paramount. Apart from broad-based support that ECDA has been providing to the sector to meet the new requirements, I would like to assure Members that we will take a gradual and calibrated approach. Some Members have raised the issue of potential fee increases arising from the higher requirements and their impact on families. Indeed, common wisdom would highlight that there is a trade-off between being cheap, good and fast. In fact, some Members have also asked, "Why are we doing inspections once a year? Let's do it twice a year." So, there is a balance needed. We recognise a need to ensure standards and to level up the sector. At the same time, how do you balance that against onerous requirements? As can be seen from Members' inputs, there will be tensions, and trade-offs will invariably be done. Firstly, let us look at how we can make the regulations that are important flexible and streamlined at the same time. How do we do it? As we have highlighted in CFE, it is about the doing. How do we actively do this? We have been practising that in terms of ECDA's engagement with the sector, and we have been able to put this into practice as far as we can and, at the same time, not compromising on quality. ECDA has field-tested the requirements on a variety of centres, both large and small, to see how it can be operationalised.”
“Does it, in turn, translate into higher fees for parents and administrative burdens on operators and teachers? With regard to the closure aspect, we expect most kindergartens would smoothly transit to the new Act. We have reached out to many different players, including the smaller ones. They recognise the importance and some of the challenges. Since 2015, many kindergartens, with the support of ECDA, have already started making preparations to meet the new licensing requirements. We have been in constant dialogue. Our whole effort is not about penalising and weeding out the smaller players. It is actually about helping those in the industry who are passionate about educating our children. How do we help them to level up? It is very much, as I have mentioned earlier, a developmental approach that we are taking. In addition, kindergartens will be given up to a year after the gazetting of regulations under the new Act, which is expected to be about late 2017 or early 2018, for them to obtain their licences. That said, there will be closures because, every year, we do have a number of kindergartens and childcare centres that will close or have a change in licensees for various business reasons. Some kindergartens also convert to childcare centres to better serve the needs of parents. Just a very quick note, we work very closely also with the special needs sector. So, we are very mindful. We are working very closely with many of the special needs centres, and many of them do not have a huge concern in transiting to this new regime. In fact, many of the very progressive and interesting childcare centres and kindergartens are trying out different types of approaches. In fact, many of them are fairly well-run, which is why, in many ways, they are doing what they are doing.”
“The physical activity time for full-day programmes will also be increased to an hour daily, up from half an hour today, and half an hour at least to be conducted outdoors and more, if you can. As I have earlier explained, this Bill will also provide for subsidiary legislation to be gazetted. Members have highlighted how do we do this, that or the other? A lot of these will come in the form of subsidiary legislation that will be gazetted. Certainly, the suggestions that have been put forward today will be taken on board as we finalise some of these detailed requirements. Of course, there are concerns that many Members have raised and I am fully aware that there will be challenges. It is not straightforward. When you put in place new measures, it is not an effortless process. But it is an important one and stakeholders recognise it; centres recognise that it is necessary, and they have also flagged out their concerns to us. This was expressed by many Members, including Ms Thanaletchimi, Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Darryl David, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Yee Chia Hsing, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Ang Hin Kee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera. Many of these concerns have also been expressed during our many different consultation sessions with the public and the operators. Let me briefly summarise these concerns. One, which Mr Leon Perera specifically highlighted, was whether the higher cost will impact on the continued operations, and whether this is compelling a consolidation of centres, and forcing some of the smaller players to close, especially those catering to children with special needs. Secondly, there is a potentially higher cost to operators, especially the smaller ones.”
“And I will address the issue later with regard to their exemption. For the early years, of three years old and below, centres can refer to ECDA's Early Years Development Framework. This framework also takes a strong alignment with the MOE framework. With regard to nutritional and outdoor physical time requirements highlighted by some Members, I agree with Mr Desmond Choo that increasing access to healthier food options for preschool children will help them develop good dietary habits for life. We should do that at home, and not just depend on the preschool. We do what we can at preschool, but home is where it all starts. It is very important to remember that I do not need a Bill for good parenting to take place, and, frankly, the best influences come at home. So, let us not forget that. I also second Mr Louis Ng's point that we should provide more opportunities for children to play. As mentioned earlier, play is a very central focus in the curriculum, especially playing outdoors. Studies have shown clearly that having outdoor activities makes a lot of difference in terms of preventing myopia, and in developing a more resilient and hardier population. This is something that we welcome. As announced by the NurtureSG Taskforce last week, ECDA will specify more detailed nutritional requirements to ensure that children receive nutritious, balanced and varied meals. We urge families to also look out for these guidelines to follow them at home. These include not allowing centres to serve sugary drinks and deep-fried food, and catering for the regular provision of fruits and calcium-rich food.”
“We will touch more on these efforts to support the manpower needs of the sector, to provide more accessible, affordable and quality pre-school places at the upcoming COS debates. On curriculum requirements, some Members, such as Mr Desmond Choo, noted that our preschool sector provides a diverse range of programmes for parents to choose from, so as to best cater to their preferences and the different needs of their young children. Under the Bill, we will continue requiring centres to have programmes that are age-appropriate and holistic. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh would be glad to know that within the regulatory framework, centres will continue to have the flexibility to innovate and customise their specific curriculum to suit the needs of the children. In fact, this is to be encouraged. For good practices, we will be more than happy to take them on board and see how best to introduce them to more establishments. In the examples cited, ECDA has certainly supported many of these ideas and we will continue to do so. As a reference, centres can refer to MOE's Nurturing Early Learners Curriculum Framework when designing and implementing their kindergarten curriculum. Learning through play is a key component for the framework. For those who are concerned that we are over-schoolifying the whole process − no, we are very mindful that play is a very important part of early childhood development. In fact, MOE is a very important player in this whole effort. They are driving the curriculum framework development; again, not only on their own, but also leveraging on the experiences of other subject matter experts on this. And certainly play is a very key component of their emphasis as well, which is why MOE has stepped in to look at MOE Kindergarten as well.”
“With regard to recognising those who have qualifications from overseas, we do encourage the respective childcare centres and kindergartens to put forward the names of these individuals so that we can evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Through the ramping up of subsidised training places, including the work-and-study arrangements for mid-career entrants and ECDA's Training Awards for aspiring teachers, we are seeing a very encouraging response, such as higher enrolment numbers in the early childhood polytechnic courses and more mid-career entrants joining the sector. To echo Mr Darryl David's emphasis, in fact, many are mid-career entrants. No matter what we do in this sector, frankly, without people, this is not going to work. Some of these steps have been taken. The response has been encouraging, but we are not letting up on that front. We need to keep up at making sure that we not only bring in numbers but ensure the quality of the people who are coming in as well. Many of them are very passionate, the mid-career ones especially, because they have reached a stage of their lives where they are looking at doing something different. Some of them are parents themselves who recognise the importance of early childhood development, and we really welcome them on board the sector. For the teaching staff, including infant educarers, ECDA has, in recent years, moved to open alternate entry pathways for them to upgrade professionally. When in-service educators apply for training courses, ECDA recognises their prior learning and working experiences beyond their paper qualifications. That is something that Miss Cheryl Chan raised and we will continue to move in this direction.”
“Many of the smaller centres appreciate the fact that some of these guidelines and parameters are set, as these allow them to bring themselves up to a higher standard, because they do not have the scale or the resources necessary to level themselves up on their own. I thank the Members very much for all the various suggestions. Let me address some of those in the manpower sphere. For instance, Miss Cheryl Chan suggested considering alternatives to paper qualifications when determining staff suitability. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested increasing the participation of professional bodies in the registering of professionals and accreditation of programmes. He also suggested that it is important for us to consider those who have qualifications from overseas. Mr Yee Chia Hsing suggested a new training institute to ensure sufficient teachers in the sector. Indeed, we share our Members' concerns on the manpower constraints and this is one area we are paying very close attention to. In recent years, ECDA has rolled out a range of initiatives to attract, retain and develop good early childhood professionals. Many of these initiatives have been co-created with partners, such as SkillsFuture Singapore, preschool operators, industry and professional associations and the union. We note Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's suggestion for greater participation of professionals in the process of accrediting training courses and qualifications. This is already done in the development of teacher registration and course accreditation standards where our early childhood professional representatives and subject matter experts are invited to provide their expertise.”
“For some of the children who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds, they enter Primary 1 with a fairly significant gap from the rest of their peers. Some are able to bridge that and carry on and run, but others struggle and might not be able to bridge that gap. Hence, it is important to impose, to some degree, a level of standard in terms of affordability, accessibility and quality of preschools, to make sure that as many children are levelled up as much as possible. The way we have structured subsidies also seeks to ensure that lower-income families will not end up not sending their children to preschool because they cannot afford it. Even down to a couple of dollars, children will be able to attend some of these establishments. Importantly, KidSTART is aimed at working with children from this segment. It is in a pilot stage with 1,000 families. But we intend to see it through and expand it; this is where it is not just in terms of the ECDC itself, but actually an all-encompassing approach to see how we hand-hold and work with the families along the journey. So, I want to assure the Members of this House that there is very little doubt in our minds about the importance of this effort and especially the work to be done with the lower-income families. Mr Christopher de Souza remarked that the Bill is much needed and timely. It is definitely so. A sound and robust regulatory framework guides centres and safeguards the sector against errant practices and behaviours. This sets a strong foundation for the sector to further innovate teaching and learning practices and to develop higher quality programmes.”
“It is also important for us to explore but, at the same time, have a certain structure and approach, and that is the way we have taken it. I am very heartened and encouraged by the strong recognition by all of you on the importance of this Bill. Notwithstanding the various comments, Members clearly recognise that there is that need to ensure higher and more consistent quality standards across the early childhood sector. This can be done without necessarily squeezing out some of the smaller players. I am sure that many of our early childhood professionals and operators are similarly encouraged. The process has taken over two years, because it is a very involved process. We did not want to drive it down from the top; many different stakeholders have been consulted. Where there were areas of concern, we have gone back and forth for a slightly longer period of time to take on board their feedback. What I am encouraged by is, like many Members, many of the stakeholders are strongly supportive of us taking this step. I believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction, because we do need to give every child a good start and to make Singapore a good place to raise families. On a point raised by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh with regard to lower-income children, I would completely agree that early childhood is important for all children, but for children who come from particularly challenged backgrounds, it becomes even more critical. That is also why we set up ECDA. We realise that in those early years, for those of us who are able to provide our children with exposure and development, our children are able to grow and develop well before they reach primary school. But we realise that there is a gap.”
“You may not want a single approach, because there are many different schools of thought. They are effective in different ways and they are effective for different children. We want to see how these different curricula can play out, how we can implement it, and how we can scale it, not necessarily across the board. In some instances, we want to scale it across the board; in some instances, in very boutique areas where it addresses the needs of specific children. We work with different stakeholders. For the special needs sector, one of the concerns highlighted was whether, as a result of these moves, it would impact some of the smaller players. From a purely intellectual and theoretical basis, I would agree that it would sound sensible to allow a thousand flowers to bloom and to have many different players. But having a very practical perspective on this, from dealing with the industry with many different players, I would say that the reality is not quite the same. There are very good small players. I visited a number of them; very interesting programmes but, unfortunately, probably not able to scale up because a lot of its success is centred around the person who is driving the programme. It is very manpower-intensive, which may be difficult to scale. We want to be able to encourage some of these centres to continue. But there are also childcare centres which leave much room for improvement and really do need to level up. So, I would agree that we want to encourage experimentation, but we also want to ensure that our children receive a good standard of education and care, which is the main objective of this effort. It is an important sector, which is why we are doing what we are doing. It is important to engage all the different players.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members of this House for their suggestions and support of the Bill. Clearly, it is without a doubt that many of us recognise the importance of early childhood development, not just because we are parents but a lot of studies have shown the impact that good development work can have on children. The Member, Mr Louis Ng, reminded all of us that it is not just from the ECD, but really, at home as well. This is something important for us to remember. A fair number of points raised here do not pertain to the Bill, but they are important points with regard to the importance of the early childhood effort. I will address some of these subsequently in a few days' time during the COS debates; others, I will address them on other occasions. But I will take the opportunity to make some general points to address some of the perspectives highlighted by some Members. What is clear is this − the early childhood component for our children is vital, which is why we set up ECDA. It is an independent agency but jointly overseen by MOE and MSF. Both Ministries are very intimately involved. As I will illustrate later, MOE plays a very significant role in developing the curriculum and learning pedagogies and the rest of the industry take reference from it. It is also important to note that this whole set-up is not just driven from the top. There is a lot of effort in engaging the various stakeholders. We cannot do it without that, because it is a very varied space and there are many different schools of thought. Some of the examples that Mr Leon Perera highlighted, for example, from Lien Foundation and the many different trials that are ongoing, these are strongly supported by ECDA. We do want to explore the different ways of education.”
“It complements the many, many efforts by the Government to partner the sector to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of early childhood development services in Singapore. With that, Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“From my interactions with the sector, I am confident that almost all our operators would be able to meet these requirements. I believe that clear and appropriate regulatory requirements are crucial in raising standards in the early childhood sector. For example, during my visit to Creative Thinkers Kindergarten in August last year, the principal, Ms Sakinah Dollah, shared that a clear, common understanding among the principals, teachers and support staff of ECDA's regulatory requirements will help centres to organise themselves better and to improve. Mdm Speaker, to summarise, the ECDC Bill is an important milestone in raising the quality of early childhood care and education in Singapore, so that we can give every child a good start. It will provide parents with greater confidence that we are making Singapore a great place to raise families. We received strong support from parents, teachers and operators on the need for this enhanced regulatory framework. The Bill proposes, first, a common licensing framework for childcare centres and kindergartens. Second, all persons working in centres will need to be approved by ECDA to ensure their suitability to work with young children. In addition, there will also be clearer and more consistent requirements to guide centres in their operations. Finally, the requirements will be enforced through a more comprehensive and graduated enforcement framework with enhanced investigative powers to strengthen ECDA's oversight of the sector. ECDA will also work with centres closely to facilitate a smooth transition. To conclude, the proposals in the Bill will help to set a firm and consistent foundation, positioning the early childhood sector well for the future.”
“The maximum fine amount has been adjusted to align with recent legislation like the Private Education Act. Certain offences will be made compoundable at up to half of the maximum fine amount under clause 42. Before ECDA determines any contraventions, its officers will investigate the cases thoroughly and establish the facts from a variety of sources. Very often, a child may be involved in a case, which makes investigations more complex. Hence, ECDA officers will need enhanced investigative powers to effectively carry out their duties under the Bill. Beyond the current powers to inspect centres, ECDA officers, under clause 37, will be empowered to search centres, interview persons, take photographs and videos of the centre, and obtain the necessary documents from the centre. These are powers similar to those available to other regulators in Singapore. As we put these powers in place, we will establish internal processes to ensure that ECDA officers carry out their investigations fairly. I have just outlined the broad regulatory framework. We are expecting to commence the Act over the next year after gazetting the detailed regulatory requirements in subsidiary legislation and publishing the administrative procedures in the Codes of Practice. As kindergartens are less familiar with a licensing regime, under clause 54 of the Bill, kindergartens will be given one year from the commencement of the Act to obtain their licences. Since 2015, ECDA has also been conducting sector briefings to explain and consult on the new requirements, as well as conducting customised on-site guidance for kindergartens. In fact, I understand that, actually, many kindergartens have already been making adjustments to prepare for the new framework.”
“This will allow us a wider suite of regulatory sanctions ranging from public censures, administrative financial penalties of up to $5,000, a security deposit, remedial measures and a shortening of licence tenure. The type of penalty imposed eventually will depend on the severity of the breach and whether it was a repeated occurrence. The penalty will be proportionate to the breach. At the same time, I would like to reassure operators that ECDA will continue to adopt a measured and developmental approach in enforcing requirements by advising centres to rectify problems. One new regulatory sanction I would like to elaborate on is the requirement of a security deposit. I am aware that operators are concerned about this requirement. The current intention is for the security deposit to apply only to the small number of centres with poor track records, such as centres with two consecutive six-month licences, which is the lowest licence standard. This security deposit is intended to spur such centres to raise their standards. We are also mindful that the security deposit amount should be calibrated appropriately and not be overly onerous on the centres. We are looking at a $10,000 amount, which is twice the administrative financial penalty amount for contraventions. I encourage centres with a six-month licence to take their regulatory gaps seriously, and to rectify their breaches quickly, so as to avoid being required to put up a security deposit. At the same time, the Bill provides for criminal penalty for contraventions which pose a more serious risk to the safety and well-being of our children, for example, the operation of unlicensed centres. Under the Bill, such contraventions will incur a fine of up to $10,000 and/or an imprisonment term of up to 12 months.”
“Even as we raise standards in the sector, we will streamline certain requirements which are no longer applicable, for greater efficiency, especially those that place unnecessary administrative burden on our teachers. The sector warmly welcomed these proposals when we consulted them earlier this month. Just as how the Bill provides requirements for the set-up of centres, the Bill also provides requirements for the orderly closure of centres, under clauses 14 and 18. This is in view that, in the past, there had been cases where centres abruptly close. While this has been few, the impact on parents and children involved can be quite significant. Thus, to minimise such occurrences, ECDA will be empowered to require centres to put in place measures to ensure orderly closure. These include giving parents and teachers advance notice of the upcoming service disruption and ceasing the enrolment of new children to the centre. Operators have worked hard to build the trust of parents by meeting the baseline standards. Today, errant operators form a small minority of the sector but they undermine the hard work of the rest of the sector. ECDA takes regulatory breaches seriously and a more comprehensive and graduated penalty framework will enable ECDA to effectively and swiftly enforce requirements to safeguard the safety and well-being of our young children. That is our foremost priority. More importantly, it serves as a deterrent against errant practices and behaviours. With this new penalty framework, administrative lapses will be decriminalised and replaced with administrative regulatory sanctions.”
“The constant dialogue that we have with the sector must continue, so that the feedback can come back to us and this allows us to calibrate these proposals. As with any enterprise, good governance and management are critical success factors for early childhood development centres. Under clause 19, ECDA will continue to prohibit unsuitable persons, such as those with poor regulatory track records, from managing the centre's business as board directors or chief executive officers and so on. The new Bill will further prohibit recalcitrant operators, whose licences had been revoked, from operating centres under another proxy. This allows ECDA to prevent such persons from continuing to misdirect centres. ECDA will also penalise licensees for knowingly allowing such unsuitable persons from managing their centre's business. As the operating environment of the early childhood sector is dynamic and needs to be updated from time to time, clause 51 of the Bill will provide for subsidiary legislation to effect more specific operational requirements. This will provide more clarity on the responsibilities of operators and centres. Under the subsidiary legislation, we intend to enhance some requirements and introduce new ones to raise quality standards. We will continue to consult the sector on this. We will take reference from sector best practices and ECDA's prevailing guidelines. For example, as announced by the NurtureSG Taskforce last week, centres with full-day programmes will need to conduct at least one hour of physical activities daily, up from half-hour currently, and half-hour of which has to be conducted outdoors. Exposure to the outdoors will be beneficial for our children in preventing the early onset of myopia.”
“Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill have provisions to enable better and more consistent quality of staff who interact with children, especially early childhood professionals, given their important role during children's formative years. For example, the Bill will ensure that all principals and teachers meet the prevailing professional qualification requirements before assuming their appointments. In addition, all persons working in centres will also need to be approved by ECDA for their suitability before they can start work at the centres. This will cover, for example, principals and teachers, cooks and cleaners, as well as enrichment vendor staff. All individuals will be assessed on their track record, especially pertaining to children's safety. One benefit of a common regulatory framework across the early childhood sector is a common administrative process to register staff. This facilitates our teachers' movement between childcare centres and kindergartens, which many teachers had called for earlier. I also believe that this regulatory framework will further enhance the professional standing and standards of our early childhood educators. Nevertheless, my Ministry is very mindful of the manpower and other ground constraints faced by operators. They have given us feedback, and we do understand them. As a regulator, ECDA will strive to ensure that its administrative processes are efficient and that its regulatory requirements are responsive to operators' needs, while ensuring sevice quality and the safety of our children. For example, ECDA is exploring allowing non-teaching staff, such as cooks and cleaners, to support trained teachers in supervising outdoor play time.”
“Key areas of focus include physical space norms and design, environment safety and hygiene, programme staff quality and, of course, staff-to-child ratios. Under the new framework, we will increase the maximum licence tenure to three years, up from the current two years for childcare centres. Better quality centres will be awarded longer licence tenures, and this will incentivise them and encourage them to perform better. The new three-year licence tenure recognises the strong core of centres with consistently good regulatory track records of at least two consecutive two-year licences. This is a substantial portion of childcare centres, at over 500 centres today. ECDA officers will continue to conduct unannounced visits to centres periodically to ensure that centres maintain their standards. The focus of this Bill is to regulate what we currently define today to be childcare centres and kindergartens. The Bill, therefore, provides for the exclusion and exemption of premises where specialised services are provided to a niche group. It also excludes centres regulated under other legislations for distinctly different purposes, or operated by or on behalf of the Government, and hence directly accountable to this House. Examples include enrichment centres, standalone foreign system kindergartens, kindergartens affiliated with foreign-system primary schools, or kindergartens by the Ministry of Education. Such entities are currently not under ECDA's purview and will similarly not come under this new Act. As many of us can agree, people, especially teachers, are at the heart of every early childhood development centre.”
“The proposals in the Bill were made through extensive consultations over the past two years with operators, parents, teachers, early childhood experts, industry partners and the general public. Parents who came for ECDA's focus group discussions − I think they came to appreciate and realise the amount of effort that operators and teachers have to put in to ensure that the preschool is safe and conducive for their children's development. ECDA received strong support on the need to raise centre quality, and we also calibrated our proposals based on the feedback received from the different stakeholders. Mdm Speaker, let me now move on to the key provisions of the Bill. Members will notice that the Bill focuses on early childhood development − we emphasise holistic care and education as an integral part of our children's growth. In this regard, childcare centres and kindergartens will be collectively regulated as "early childhood development centres" under a common licensing framework, which this harmonised Bill is better able to support, rather than being separately regulated under the Child Care Centres Act and Education Act, as they are today. What this means is that, instead of the current "lifetime subscription" model for kindergartens, where they are registered one-off under the Education Act, all centres will now run on the "renewal subscription" model, which is already the practice for childcare centres today under the Child Care Centres Act. Centres, essentially, will be approved to operate for a period of time and will be re-assessed when they renew their licence tenures. This requires centres to consciously put in effort to maintain their standards to continue their operations for another tenure.”
“As part of the Government's commitment to give every child a good start and to make Singapore a great place for families, we have undertaken various efforts to raise the affordability, accessibility and quality of our early childhood sector. In support of this, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) was established in 2013 to regulate and develop the sector. To be effective, ECDA has to work in close partnership with the operators of around 1,800 childcare centres and kindergartens in Singapore. Today, parents of over 165,000 children entrust their children to these centres each day. Such trust is possible because of committed and passionate teachers, as well as quality centres, and all this is underpinned by a sound and robust regulatory framework that upholds quality. Regulatory standards underpin the foundation of a good quality preschool, much like the stacking ring toy that we played with when we were young, the one with the concentric circles, increasingly smaller. We find that in pre-schools today, it is a toy that helps children to develop their fine motor skills, it comes in different colours and so on. The biggest ring is at the base and it forms the foundation. The Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Bill seeks exactly to be that strong and reliable base for the sector − to consistently provide good quality programmes that give our young parents peace of mind when it comes to the safety, well-being and development of their children. In short, this Bill will ensure higher and more consistent quality standards across the early childhood sector. Before I go into the key provisions of the Bill, I wish to thank Members of this House, the early childhood sector and the public for their support and valuable suggestions.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". With your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the document that illustrates the points that I will cover in my speech?”
“Today, more than 90% of Singaporean children aged five to six years old are enrolled in a preschool. About 15,000 Singaporean children, or 45% of the cohort, were enrolled in a full-day preschool programme at K2 level in 2016.”
“Lastly, in terms of the outcomes for the Senior Group Homes model, why does it not seem quite so popular? Well, it is relatively new. We reckon that there is a possible need for the Senior Group Homes, but the take-up rate has not been overwhelming. We do have spare spaces, but that could be the result of this being a relatively new sort of arrangement that we are putting in place. We are looking at this to review whether we need to adjust it; whether a better model needs to be put in place. It is still early days yet. We are reviewing, together with MOH, the range of possibilities. It is not all cast in stone. We are open to new ideas as well, because I think providing support for our ageing population in various forms and at various stages of their own ageing process is very important. So, this is something that will be reviewed.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions and clarifications. Firstly, with regard to occupancy numbers, I have visited the Senior Group Homes and have also spoken to the residents there. I understand the concerns with regard to flat size. The flats do vary in size and layout, and also, when there are wheelchairs and walking aids involved as well, we will have to take that into consideration. The idea is this: in a regular rental flat, you have two people living in the flat and these are largely able-bodied individuals. The Senior Group Homes are meant for those who need some assistance and we feel that, with three, there might be the possibility of providing better mutual support. But having said that, we are taking on board various feedback and we are completely open to reviewing this. This is ongoing. Secondly, adults with special needs. So, not only just for the elderly, but whether this is a possible model for adults with special needs. This is something that we are open to look at. As mentioned, for the elderly space, we are looking at a whole range of different possibilities. Some of these ideas may or may not work, but we want to try them because the numbers will be quite significant. Managing of numbers and space allocation would be important, but we will experiment with the different possibilities. For the special needs sector, not just for the elderly, as the Member mentioned, for adults with special needs, we will be quite happy to explore what are some of these options that we think might be useful for adults with special needs and whose families may not be able to look after them. We will be quite happy to engage the Member if she has specific ideas. Let us see where that goes.”
“For adults with special needs whose families are no longer able to look after them, MSF will take their care needs into account and help to site them in the appropriate residential setting, such as an adult disability home.”
“Thank you. The Senior Group Home model supports frail elderly in rental flats to age within the community and delay premature institutionalisation of these seniors. The objective is that each Senior Group Home would be located in a public rental block and typically comprises six to eight rental flats which can accommodate 12 to 18 seniors. The Senior Group Home is an assisted living model where seniors can live independently in the community and provide mutual support to one another. They are paired with their room-mates as buddies and they help to look out for each other. The number of seniors per unit is determined by the rental unit's configuration, the seniors' mobility status and the use of assistive devices, such as a wheelchair. Having three seniors staying together raises the level of mutual support, which is important as Senior Group Homes are not designed to provide round-the-clock care. Such a configuration also takes into account the eventual demand for places as our population ages. But having said that, the Senior Group Home operators are also learning from the actual experience. This is a relatively new set-up that we have put in place and we will look at feedback and what we are learning from it. As we operationalise the scheme, if necessary, we will make adjustments along the way. Seniors with special needs who are eligible for HDB public rental housing and are also suitable for communal living can be supported in the Senior Group Home. There are currently visually-impaired seniors in the Senior Group Homes. The Senior Group Homes are unable to support adults with moderate disabilities as there is no round-the-clock supervision.”
“Sorry. Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take the next two questions together?”
“Mdm Speaker, the Senior Group Home model supports frail elderly–””
“The prevalence rate of persons with disabilities in Singapore is as follows: Persons with sensory (blind and deaf) and physical disabilities would constitute half of the disability group. The remainder comprises those with intellectual disabilities and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. An enhanced standardised in-take assessment was introduced in 2016 to enable professional staff to assess the level of functioning of persons with disability in our funded services. This enables staff to provide appropriate levels of intervention and support as required. The Ministry of Social and Family Development refines its system of data collection regularly. The Ministry has started on a project to leverage on the Social Service Net, a national IT system for the social service sector, to collect more comprehensive data across our disability services. We will also work with partner Government agencies to put together a more complete disability dataset to better guide disability policy and programme development.”
“The Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to explore means of capturing information on the employment status and conditions of persons with disabilities, so that we have a more complete picture of the situation and can better support them as part of our diverse workforce.”
“Employment is integral to enabling persons with disabilities to live independently and integrate with society. In 2013, SG Enable (SGE) was set up to enhance employability and employment options for persons with disability. SGE works with voluntary welfare organisations to seek out employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and to place and support them in these jobs. Over the past two years, SGE and its partners have collectively placed more than 1,000 persons with disabilities into employment. SGE has also supported internships for about 75 tertiary students with disabilities in our Institutes of Higher Learning. Employment support for persons with disabilities range from training for employability, to job placement and support, to working with employers to put in place arrangements for better integration. Through these employment support efforts, SGE has gained a better understanding of the needs and challenges of persons with disabilities seeking employment. With this knowledge, SGE will continue to render timely and customised support to persons with disabilities in seeking and sustaining employment. Persons with disabilities comprise about 0.55% of the resident labour force, and 60% of them tap on the various employment support schemes ranging from transportation subsidy, income supplement and training support. These persons with disabilities are mainly employed in the hospitality, food and beverage, wholesale and retail and administrative support sectors. Their median monthly gross wage ranged from $1,000 to $2,800.”
“Singapore adopts an inter-agency, multi-pronged approach to address suicides through promoting upstream prevention, encouraging help-seeking behaviour, providing support to at-risk groups, and offering crisis intervention and support. For cases of attempted suicide, the priority is to ensure the immediate safety of the person attempting suicide. The Police are thus activated as the first responder to attend to the crisis situation immediately. Police officers will, when they notice signs of suicidal tendencies, recommend the appropriate follow-up, including engaging the next-of-kin to assist in caring for the person, or referring the case to the Samaritans of Singapore for counselling. If there are signs indicating possible mental instability, the Police may refer the person to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for an assessment of the person’s mental state, and treatment if necessary. The current staged approach works well, and it rightfully prioritises the immediate safety of the person attempting suicide. Time taken to mobilise a larger team, including psychological and mental health experts, may delay our response.”