Hansard, Friday, 13 March 2015

[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [12 March 2015]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates to be reduced by $100." – [Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Chair, this issue of baby drop boxes has been raised many times in this House. I am again raising this issue, hopefully to prevent infanticide, abandoned babies and vanishing mothers.

It is time to reverse our mindset about baby drops for unwanted babies of anonymous mothers and the whole notion of motherhood in Singapore where population growth is declining. The Government rejected the idea on the basis that it would indirectly encourage or sanction child abandonment or promiscuity, should now think and reconsider again the idea of "baby repositories" at strategic and convenient places throughout the island to prevent unwanted babies being left in rubbish dumps and other unsafe places.

The concept of baby drop boxes or hatches has worked well in countries like Germany, Italy, Hungary, Austria, South Africa, Russia and even Malaysia that have adopted it. One of the main reasons is the mother's anonymity being maintained. In Germany, mothers can

Page: 10

drop their babies through a chute at a specially designated place where the baby drops onto a soft heated bed, triggering of an alarm at a nearby hospital.

We should provide safeguards for the afflicted women who are desperately in need of care and understanding, and fear being prosecuted. A baby drop scheme will have the potential to save the lives of babies who would otherwise be left to die. Each child should be given the right to live and prove himself or herself to this world. Olivia Lum, CEO of Hyflux, is such a case.

Mdm Chair, I would like to raise three MSF social policies. They are: (a) elderly abuse and elderly care; (b) single parents and their children; and (c) families with chronic needs.

First, elderly abuse and elderly care. The social ill of elderly abuse is unacceptable in any society, but sadly, abuse of the elderly happens and will increase in tandem with our fast-ageing population. I first raised this issue of elderly abuse in 1999 and had been raising this issue regularly in this House subsequently for some regulations to be put in place for better protection of our vulnerable elderly. I am, therefore, very glad that MSF will be proposing a new Bill for this purpose called the Vulnerable Adults Act. I support and commend the Minister for adopting it. I would like the Minister to consider the following points concerning the vulnerable elderly for this Bill.

One, empowerment of social workers, doctors, family members and home caregivers to report cases of abuse, in the same way as they can intervene on behalf of abused children.

Two, identifications on the various kinds of abuses such as infliction of physical pain and injury, debilitating mental anguish, unreasonable confinement, wilful deprivation by caretaker of services necessary to maintain mental and physical health and financial abuses.

Three, raising the awareness on vulnerable adults, encouraging victims to report, facilitating the relatives and friends of the victims to report and seeking support and care for victims.

Four, care and support for the victims of abuse to be provided for to encourage reporting of cases. Many abused elderly are unlikely to report on their own families for fear of losing whatever care and support they may have.

Page: 11

Five, could MSF also look into provision to better protect our elderly from financial abuses?

May I ask the Minister whether there is an increasing number of elderly seeking MSF's assistance due to the lack of family support? Does Minister see this to be the increasing trend in view of our ageing population and smaller family units? What steps can be taken to attenuate this trend? How would MSF plan to give support in caring for the group with no family support, especially the physically weak elderly living on their own? For those with family support, would MSF look into the availability of support services to give respite to caregivers especially those looking after elderly with demanding needs such as dementia or who are terminally ill to prevent the burnt-out syndrome of the care providers?

Next, single parents. Many single parents are in the predicament they are in because of unforeseen circumstances rather than by choice. Our policies are much geared towards supporting the nuclear families. Hence, single parents are frequently not eligible for the many subsidies and pro-nuclear family incentives.

I would like to bring the plight of single working parents who are facing difficulties. In the culture of Asian societies, many of them do face the stigma of being unmarried mothers; but they still have to bring up their children single-handedly. I am concerned about the upbringing and support these children get. How does MSF ensure that single parents and their children are provided the assistance they need? Just as with medical care where no Singaporeans will be deprived of any medical care due to the lack of funds, I would like MSF to adopt a similar policy that no single parents and especially their children will be deprived of assistance to ensure their well-being. In fact, such children should be given total assistance in terms of their health, physical, psychological and educational needs as well as their social needs.

Next, family with chronic needs. Could MSF take a holistic approach in helping those families with chronic needs? There is an urgency to assist this group of needy Singaporeans with more lasting solutions. Most times, these families may have a slew of needs such as housing, inadequate income, caring for the children and ill-health of family members and so on. They are usually families with low skills and low-paying jobs. Some of them are single-income families.

Whilst they need immediate cash assistance to tide them over, it is more important that they acquire long-term capabilities and are able to sustain themselves. Their needs have to be looked into holistically in order to lift the family up altogether. For example, in equipping parents with skills and finding them employment, assisting their wives to move away from prejudices and mental barriers to employment. Their housing needs may also need urgent

Page: 12

fixing. Their children should be assisted for the sake of their well-being, health and education.

More social workers and MSF staff are required to undertake such hands-on personalised approach to solve the various needs of each family. Most times, many of their issues cannot be solved overnight. Thus, these families are assisted with continued follow-up. Only with such holistic assistance can the needy families achieve sustained and long-term benefits. Madam, we need to adopt this policy urgently to lift this group and especially their children out of their disadvantaged predicament by the next generation. Let us put into action this proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

Mdm Chair, the number of citizens with dementia is expected to grow from 28,000 in 2013, to 80,000 by 2030. It is important to ensure that the interests of our ageing population are protected.

The Lasting Power of Attorney, LPA scheme, is very useful but I have some concerns. First, there is a real risk that elderly persons are subject to the undue influence of persons that depend on. Secondly, a resident related his worry about the ease of the scheme as his brother had made an LPA in favour of a stranger to the family, without anyone else knowing of it. Thirdly, I noted a big grassroots initiative to get residents to sign LPAs, leading to masses of LPAs being issued by certificate issuers without personal knowledge of the donors.

Our current LPA scheme requires the certificate issuer to be a doctor or a lawyer. It is a safeguard but limited if the doctor or lawyer has no prior knowledge of the donor. In the few minutes spent with the donor, it may not be possible to determine if the donor's mental state is stable or the LPA arrangements accord with the donor's well-being and interest.

I have two enhancements to suggest. First, re-instituting a safeguard that was removed. Putting into the standard form of LPA the question of whether the donor wishes to inform another person of it and giving that person the right to object to the LPA.

Although the Minister had previously replied in the House that the donor could still inform someone, the safeguard is precisely for those who may be less aware of the risks. By requiring the certificate issuer to ask the donor specifically whether he wants someone to be informed, the donor can respond to the certificate issuer on this, without the donee's influence.

Page: 13

My second suggestion is to require the certificate issuer to indicate in the LPA how long he has known the donor, or how he forms his opinion that the LPA is reliable.

Finally, I refer to the regime of Court-appointed deputies. Being someone who recently went through the process to be appointed deputy, I appreciate the need for rigour especially when one is appointed deputy to handle someone else's assets. However, parents of adults with mental disabilities are also required to be appointed deputies, in order to make decisions about their children's personal welfare.

Recently, I met a resident with an adult son with severe cerebral palsy. As he could not give valid consent for a medical procedure, she was asked to get a Court order to be his deputy. Law firms quoted her legal costs at $6,000 to $7,000. In such cases, she and other parents would be caring for their disabled adult children for the rest of their lives, with or without the Act. Will the Ministry institute a more streamlined and cheaper procedure for such cases?

Madam, profit maximising markets are poor allocators of social value. Hence, as economy improves, trust and productivity deproves and social capital falls. Creating a truly inclusive society with high social capital requires commitment to action from everyone.

In the UK, South Korea, US, Thailand, Hong Kong and others, governments have identified social enterprises as a driver of social capital and pledge to support social enterprises at every stage of the journey. Funds, manpower, private and public sector links are forged to support ground-up initiatives.

In the case of Singapore, I think we have done some but far from enough. In fact, we are falling behind many countries that have started after us. Can the Minister give an update on the state of social enterprise development in Singapore, and also, the one-stop centre or the hub that he once thought about?

The public sector can also consider assigning social value to their procurement process or even devolve public services to social enterprises, as in the case of UK where 15% of all social enterprises (SEs) started in 2011 and 2012, and some 40% of all SEs worked to deliver public goods and services. Corporates too can be good partners of SEs in helping to mentor, provide distribution channels, generate demand and supply of SE goods and services. Would MSF facilitate these bridges or better still, engage and partner SEs to play match-maker

Page: 14

between the SE sector and corporates. Does MSF have a plan to quantum leap the SE sector?

Minister Chan Chun Sing.

Mdm Chair, let me first thank all Members for the very many useful suggestions and support for the work of MSF. We would not have been able to do all that we want to do without their support.

There are three critical social challenges that we have to confront in the coming years: first, social mobility; second, our evolving family support system; and third, our ageing population.

Many in the House have spoken about the issue of social inequality. The way that we need to tackle social inequality is not just about transferring some help to the people at certain points in time. More importantly, we must ensure that the next generation has the best chance to move up the social ladder if they work hard and if they have the talent to do so.

Our next challenge has to do with the shrinking size of our family. We are having fewer children in the average family. Many of them are living independently and many of our children may also be working or staying overseas. In a hyper-competitive global system, our families will face new stresses and strains in the coming years. Marriages have also transcended the traditional geographical boundaries.

Third, we have an ageing population. Financial security and assurance will be key considerations for them. Likewise, how we integrate them socially will also be a big challenge. We have to re-look at our social systems and support networks in order for us to tackle the three challenges of an ageing population, social mobility and our evolving family structure.

In 2015, MSF will embark on a two-pronged strategy to meet these challenges. First, continue to invest in the foundation years of our children. This is to provide all our children with the best opportunities to fulfil their talent, regardless of their starting point in life. Second, we must build a future-ready social service sector, and I will elaborate on this in the second part of my speech.

Let me start on the first thrust of MSF's work for this year. That is, to strengthen our investment in the early years of our children so as to give everyone the best possible headstart. Members of this House will remember that I always have the mantra of providing

Page: 15

quality, accessible and affordable early childhood services for all our families. When talking about affordability, we want to focus our resources on those with less. We also want to make sure that the broad middle of our population has access to affordable and quality services to give parents peace of mind. Let me update on the efforts that we are going to embark on, and also, some of the challenges for which I seek Members' support.

First, quality. We now have 360 SPARK-certified pre-schools. We have also introduced a new Commendation Category to recognise strong teaching and learning practices and we hope that this continues to grow and proliferate across the entire sector. We hear that many parents are now looking out for the SPARK certification. I am personally heartened by this because this is a better indication of quality compared to using price, bells and whistles as proxies, as these may not be in the best interest of our children. So, we are making progress on SPARK and we will continue to push for more centres to come on board.

On the second issue of accessibility, in 2013, we had enough childcare places for one in three children. Since 2013, we have added 17,000 childcare places across the entire island. We will meet our target of having 20,000 new childcare places by 2017, ahead of planned schedule, providing places for one in two children for each cohort. And we will continue to closely monitor the demand and supply as needed, especially in housing estates where there are many more young parents.

Besides developing childcare centres at void decks, ECDA has also other schemes that will help to boost the supply in the estates. First, allowing developers to apply for bonus gross floor area if they set aside spaces for childcare centres. Second, providing grants for childcare centres located in workplaces. Third, helping some kindergartens to convert their centres into childcare centres if the usage for the kindergarten is not particularly high. Fourth, helping to defray the rental costs for childcare centres in high demand areas.

On top of these four measures that we have implemented over the last few years, in 2015, ECDA will work with the Anchor Operators (AOPs) to develop large centres with a capacity of 300 to 500 childcare places. These centres will provide an additional 2,400 new places over the next few years and help to alleviate demand for parents living in these high demand estates. This goes beyond our original target of 20,000 additional childcare places that will be put in place between 2013 and 2017.

As we build the new and bigger childcare centres, we are trying a new model, and I urge Members to give us your support and mobilise the community to address the issues that may arise from having bigger childcare centres. There might be issues related to traffic congestion, and I seek Members' support to mobilise your respective grassroots organisations to help us build and design such centres that meet the needs of the young

Page: 16

parents amongst us. ECDA will be providing the detailed site locations in due course.

Let me provide some updates on the affordability issue. The enhanced subsidies have helped to reduce the out-of-pocket costs, especially for the lower- and middle-income families. Thirty-one thousand children have since benefited from the additional subsidies, with the lowest income tier paying as low as $3 per month for a full-day childcare service and 10,000 have benefited from the enhanced KIFAS since January this year, and the lower-income families pay as little as $1 to $2 per month for the kindergarten services.

Mr Pritam Singh asked about the fee schedules for those who want to increase their fees. ECDA has strict control over the AOP operators that are on the scheme. But the best way to check the fee increase and profiteering is not to micro-manage them because, ultimately, they are still private entities. The best way is to make sure that we have sufficient affordable, quality options in the market.

Next, I want to touch on the CDA top-up. Beyond the new schemes to enhance affordability of our early childhood services, we will also top-up the Child Development Account (CDA) account for all Singaporean children aged zero to six years old in 2015. This will assist the families with the cost of raising their children, through kindergarten or childcare fees, or healthcare-related expenses. Today, 85% of CDA usage goes into either childcare or healthcare-related purposes. So, the top-up of $300 or $600 per child, depending on the annual value of the family's home, will be a big help to many parents in the low- to middle-income group. Parents will receive the top-up by September this year. That, basically, is the short update on what we have done for the quality, affordability and accessibility challenges so far.

Let me now move on to the next challenge and, that is, manpower. Members Mr Ang Hin Kee, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Intan Azura and Dr Janil Puthucheary have all spoken about this issue. Currently, we have about 14,000 edu-carers and teachers in the sector. We will need another 1,500 more by 2017.

From our analysis, we know that many of the young teachers that join the sector typically find it most challenging in the first three years of their time in the sector. Many of them cite the challenges in career progression, pay, professional development and meeting the high expectations of the public.

I agree with Mr Ang Hin Kee's point that we need structured training and better career opportunities for our teachers and edu-carers taking care of our children. Thus, we will do more in the coming year. We have already introduced more courses and internships to attract more people to join the sector. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah has also

Page: 17

highlighted that ECDA will introduce an Early Childhood Capability Grant to support operators hosting enhanced internships for the students. There will also be more opportunities for in-service professionals to continue their work in the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Masterplan. In the past year alone, one in two early childhood educators have already benefited from these courses. ECDA is currently working with WDA to jointly develop the Early Childhood Singapore Skills Framework to groom our many teachers in the sector.

In addition, this year, we will appoint the first batch of ECDA Fellows who have been exemplary professionals to create a fraternity to uplift the quality of the sector and help mentor the young teachers and edu-carers in the sector.

The salaries have been improving for the sector but I want to see greater progress. The progress has been uneven with the AOPs leading the way and the rest following.

This year, we will also introduce a new Professional Development Programme (PDP) for our early childhood professionals with at least three years of experience to encourage them to deepen their competencies and stay in the sector. This is a structured three-year upgrading programme to equip kindergarten and childcare teachers for larger job roles to help them to realise their potential.

Teachers, nominated by their employers, will undergo certifiable training and receive monetary incentives at key programme milestones to recognise their skills and encourage them to stay in the sector. Details will be announced by ECDA subsequently. ECDA will further explore how we can facilitate a system where we can provide more opportunities and time for training. This includes, for example, setting up a register, very much like how MOE does it for their relief teachers, so that our teachers who are already doing their work can have the time-off to go for their upgrading courses.

Once the scheme is in place, I expect employers to do their part to nominate suitable teachers and give them the time and space to undertake this training. Once they have completed the training, recognise them with greater responsibilities and salary progression as they move on in the sector. This is a tripartite partnership between the operators, the teachers and ECDA. Operators will need to give our teachers the time and the flexibility to attend the training and to attain deeper competencies in their respective areas. On the other hand, the teachers will also need to take ownership of their own training and to commit to enhancing their skills for the sector for the long term.

The Professional Development Programme (PDP) will be progressively rolled out from 2016. Besides the teachers, we will also be working out a professional development

Page: 18

programme for our edu-carers and leaders. ECDA will be working with the sector in close consultation in the coming months and will release details in the later part of this year.

For Dr Intan's question, apart from the PDP, ECDA has also many opportunities for teachers to engage in innovative practices through the Innovation Grant and Early Childhood Research Fund.

Having dealt with the manpower issues, the next and most critical issue that we need to think further has to do with the industry structure for the early childhood sector. We need to ask ourselves: will more demand-side subsidies lead to inflation of prices but not lead to improvements in quality and assurance for families? Is the current structure of the industry helping us to moderate costs, pay competitively and to develop our teachers?

I personally think that it is good for us to have a variety of learning models since children at this young age learn very differently and have very different needs. It is not easy to standardise learning needs and systems. On the other hand, while we desire to have greater variety in the sector, is having more than 600 different brands of operators a bit too many for us to create the efficiencies of scale required for us to keep prices competitive and affordable, and to give the best opportunities for our teachers to progress in their career? For example, does it make sense for us to have more than 600 sets of different curriculum requiring so many teams so much time to develop those curricula?

After studying this issue and talking to the operators and teachers in the sector, we have decided to adopt a very targeted approach to provide more funding to support childcare operators who are committed to doing three things for us: first, to keep the childcare fees affordable by stabilising and/or reducing fees; second, a commitment to raise the quality of early childhood care and education in their centres; and, third, to improve the career and professional development opportunities for teachers.

We will invite applicants to come and join us on the Partner Operator Scheme. What must they do? Three things.

First, they must reduce current fees and promise to keep future fee increases affordable. They must maintain a fee cap of $800 for full-day childcare service. This means a sizeable reduction of at least $100 for centres at the median fee of about $900 today.

Page: 19

Second, we are looking for operators to raise quality, including attaining SPARK accreditation as soon as possible.

Third, they must agree to develop their teachers professionally and benchmark the teacher's salary according to ECDA's advice.

We have already seen the benefits of economies of scale enjoyed by the current five anchor operators. Many of the mid-size operators can benefit from economies of scale, and I would encourage the smaller operators to come together to take on the challenge and to enjoy the benefits of economies of scale. A fragmented industry structure does not allow us to develop our teachers well, does not allow us to enjoy the economies of scale to keep fees affordable and it does not help us to raise the quality that we so desire.

The selection of the Partner Operator Scheme will be a competitive process. We will choose the most competitive proposals from the submissions based on the fees that they propose, the track record of the operators and the grants required from the Government. The lower the fees, the more substantial the reduction in the fees, the better. The longer the track record, the better. The lower the grant required to achieve all these, the better. Applications will start with immediate effect.

Dr Janil Puthucheary asked about the provision of Mother Tongue in the preschool sector. Indeed, this is one area where I think we can also try to organise ourselves better and attain economies of scale. Anchor operators with enough scale in the same locality, are already doing this. There is much scope to encourage the independent, small-size and mid-size centres to similarly to come together to provide the Mother Tongue services as a cluster in a particular locality. I have seen this in Pasir Ris Town when I last visited one of the anchor operators. They may not be able to provide Mother Tongue in every centre but they can provide the service across different centres by pooling the resources.

Last but not least, to raise the overall sector quality, we will have a new Early Childhood Development Centres Act. Some of these key features will be to harmonise the regulation of childcare centres and kindergartens. Kindergartens registered under the Education Act today will be licensed under the new Act, similar to childcare centres. The Act will also require the registration of all early childhood professionals and ECDA's regulatory powers will also be enhanced to uphold higher standards required for the sector.

Both parents and operators will stand to benefit from this harmonised legislation. Parents will have greater assurance of the standards in ECDA-licensed kindergartens and childcare centres. Operators will similarly benefit from having a clearer and more consistent requirement regardless of the type of early childhood services that they provide. ECDA will

Page: 20

continue to work with the sector on the specific changes and we aim to introduce the Act in the second half of this year. Mdm Chair, may I have your permission to say a few words in Malay?

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, the early years in a child's life are crucial in providing a strong foundation.

The Government is committed to ensuring that every child has a good start by uplifting the quality and accessibility of early childhood care and education, regardless of a family's financial situation. Our priority is also to ensure preschool fees remain affordable, especially for childcare, to better help working parents with their childcare arrangements.

With the enhanced subsidies available, low-income families pay as little as $3 a month – just $3 a month – for a full day childcare service. With the enhanced KiFAS, these families pay only $1 to $2 a month in kindergarten fees.

To complement the Anchor Operator scheme or AOP, ECDA will introduce a new Partner Operator scheme. The appointed operators will receive Government funding to reduce their fees and keep them affordable. They also have to improve the quality of their services and show their commitment to the professional development of their teachers.

I would like to encourage more families to seize this opportunity to benefit from this newly enhanced Government investment into preschools to give their children a good start in life.

However, no matter how good these policies and schemes are, there are families who may not be aware of them, as Mr Zainal Sapari mentioned the other day. Hence, at the end of the day, we still need the help of the community to reach out to those in need and raise their awareness about these schemes. The community should reach out to such children and families and encourage them to attend preschool. They can also tap on the various subsidies available. For those who need additional help, they can also approach the Social Service Offices or the Family Service Centres.

We believe that with these schemes, together with the cooperation and support from the community, these families get to build a brighter future that is full of hope.

(In English): Let me round up this segment by thanking Members for their suggestions for us to make further improvement to the early childhood sector. We are committed to ensure that we give our children the best opportunities and fulfil their potential. But ECDA cannot do this alone. We cannot raise the quality, affordability and accessibility of the entire

Page: 21

sector by ourselves. We need everyone's help – as Dr Intan and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah said yesterday, we, as parents, can do our part. We can recognise and respect the contributions of our early childhood professionals to provide a good foundation for our children. We can give them the respect and, in turn, teach our children the sense of respect that we give to our teachers. We need the help of operators to play a part, to work hand-in-hand to uplift the quality of this sector and to make sure that our teachers will be paid competitively.

My commitment to all the operators is that the Government will help you raise the quality and scale up your operation as you put the children at the forefront of all that you do, so long as you take the Government's subsidy and translate this into lower fees and higher pay for the teachers. But if the operators are in this sector for pure profit, then I must say that you are probably in the wrong sector and it will not be my job nor my interest to help you succeed; if profit is your only goal.

We will also need teachers to take ownership of their own development. If we can all chip in, I am quite sure that we will have an even better early childhood sector in years to come. Let me now invite Parliamentary Secretary, Ms Low Yen Ling, to give an update on Persons with Special Needs and our Family Support and Services.

Mdm Chair, please allow me to begin in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Members of the House, as announced by the Minister earlier, we are committed to improving the accessibility, affordability and quality of early childhood services. We have made progress over the last few years. We will embark on a few new efforts towards the same direction in the coming year to provide families with young children with more support.

First, ECDA will introduce a new Partner Operators scheme. The Government will provide funding to appointed Partner Operators and parents can expect to pay lower fees next year for better quality preschool education for their children.

Next, Government top-ups of the Child Development Accounts will also go some way to alleviate childcare and other expenses.

At the same time, we will implement a Professional Development Programme in stages to help pre-school educators to improve their professional development and raise the overall quality of the preschool sector.

Page: 22

Children are the future of our nation. We will invest in building a strong foundation for our children, to give every child the best start in life so that they have the opportunities to maximise their potential.

(In English): Mdm Chair, as Ms Denise Phua mentioned yesterday evening, every Singaporean has a mission to enable and empower those with difficulties or disabilities. It is a mission that MSF is deeply committed to. In the next 15 minutes, I wish to share how MSF aims to provide those with special needs and disabilities a chance to live full lives and to participate in the community.

As we seek to create an inclusive home for all, it is the family as an institution that gives us the strength and stability to achieve that goal. We are into the third year of the 2012 Enabling Masterplan (EM) that aims to build a more inclusive society, where persons with disabilities are integrated and contributing members. We have made steady progress and I will share the milestones of our journey and what is ahead with regard to the EM.

Earlier, Minister Chan Chun Sing spoke about investing in a strong foundation in early childhood. This is especially important for children with special needs. Early intervention is crucial to maximise their potential.

Let me describe briefly how we are making our early intervention services more accessible and more affordable. First, I will touch on accessibility. Last year, 2,200 children benefited from the MSF-funded Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, or EIPIC for short. That is almost double the 1,200 children five years ago. We will continue to press on to expand EIPIC, and aim to provide 3,200 places by 2018.

The other programme, Development Support Programme (DSP), was started in 2012 to help preschoolers with mild development needs. This early intervention service has, to date, assisted 2,000 children in over 300 mainstream preschools. In MSF, we are all very heartened to hear that these children have shown good progress in their development and literacy skills.

Next, we have also made improvements to the affordability of EIPIC. Last October, we increased the universal subsidy of EIPIC from $300 to $500. The eligibility criteria have also been reviewed and the eligibility for additional subsidies was extended from 50% to 80% of the population. The quantum of support was also raised. Today, the lowest-income family pay as little as $10 a month for EIPIC service, just to give an example.

Now, about student care – we will also provide more funding to voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to build and run more student care centres for older children with special needs. This will make it easier for their caregivers, especially those from lower-

Page: 23

income families, to look for jobs and stay employed. These services will also give caregivers greater peace of mind knowing their children are in good hands. Details will be shared with VWOs later this year.

Besides early intervention and education, other key enablers like ease of transport, lifelong learning, employment support and opportunities for social integration are equally important to persons with these disabilities, as Ms Denise Phua, Ms Chia Yong Yong and Mr Png Eng Huat mentioned last evening.

In the aspect of transport, we have made efforts to reduce the physical as well as the financial barriers so that persons with disabilities can better access opportunities and gain greater mobility in public space. Last year, I shared about subsidies for different modes of transport according to the needs of those with disabilities. Today, I am pleased to report to the House that more than 10,000 persons with disabilities have since benefited from the Public Transport Concession. In addition, MSF's VWO Transport Subsidies have benefited 3,000 persons with disabilities who take private bus or van services to attend special education schools and services.

This year, we will further strengthen our support by widening the transport options. MSF has partnered the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) to award grants to three transport operators to provide dedicated transport services for persons with disabilities to access community-based services. So, we hope this will all help develop the right expertise and achieve better efficiency in meeting the unique transport needs of persons with disabilities. And we hope that these various initiatives will enable persons with disabilities and their caregivers to lead their daily lives with a difference as they tap on to the continuum of available transport options.

Another key enabler we have focused on is in training and employment. We share Ms Denise Phua's view that lifelong learning can empower persons with disabilities to pursue their aspirations. MOE has developed a framework for vocational education in Special Education schools to prepare students for employment and independent living. We can certainly do more in this area and extend support beyond the school. MOE, MSF and SG Enable are working together on a School-to-Work Transition Programme to offer customised training pathways and work options for Special Education school students with potential for work.

Persons with disabilities will also be eligible for the upcoming SkillsFuture initiatives. For example, they can take courses in communications, IT or culinary training. Like other

Page: 24

Singaporeans, they can access continuing education and training opportunities in our Institutes of Higher Learning. The Special Educational Needs Support Offices in these institutes stand ready to support them.

MSF is also expanding training options and employment support for persons with disabilities. In 2014, about 140 persons with disabilities underwent work preparation and job-related training organised by SG Enable. Most of these courses – as you can imagine – were customised to each of their different disability needs.

Annabelle, a young Special Education graduate with an intellectual disability, approached SG Enable last August for help to get a job. And very quickly, SG Enable connected her with a job coach who helped her explore the various and available options and get the needed training. She landed an interview and secured a job with Pizza Hut. Annabelle started off by clearing tables and cleaning. Today, about six months later, she serves and attends to customer requests. Pizza Hut, today, is training her to take orders. As we all know, taking orders is the most complex job for any F&B crew member. Her colleagues and supervisors praise her for her punctuality, her work attitude and her eagerness to learn. Annabelle is thrilled with her job. She is also very happy at being able to earn an income. At MSF and also at SG Enable, we share Annabelle's joy and wish her all the best. She is an excellent example of how targeted training, customised training, for persons with disabilities can expand their employment options and also facilitate integration in the community.

Employers play a critical role in the opportunities we hope to create for persons with disabilities. Ms Chia Yong Yong asked last night about funding to help employers identify relevant job adjustments for employees with disabilities. A year ago, we enhanced the Open Door Programme to support a wider range of services, including consultancies, for employers to bring more persons with disabilities into the workforce and to raise their work potential. Employers can tap on grants to redesign job processes, to redesign and reshape the work environments, to train supervisors and co-workers to manage and work with colleagues with disabilities.

In this financial year, SG Enable and its VWO partners placed about 300 persons with disabilities with jobs. Under the Open Door Programme, close to 100 employers pledged to hire persons with disabilities. We aim to increase these numbers beyond 100.

Besides the private sector, we are also happy to share that the public sector employers, too, are hiring or providing internships for persons with disabilities, including professional and management positions. SG Enable is working closely with a number of them to develop more such opportunities.

Page: 25

Last year, in 2014, a total of more than 5,900 employers received the Special Employment Credit for jobs created to 7,500 persons with disabilities. We are grateful and thankful to these far-sighted employers who have partnered us on this journey. We would like more of such big-hearted employers to come forward – to step forward – and play an enriching role in creating an inclusive Singapore.

Let us turn now to the issue of adult care. Parents of adults with disabilities do worry about the care of their children. We understand their concerns and are committed to pledge more resources.

This year, we will add another 140 places to Day Activity Centres, bringing the total number to almost 1,200. We will also build a new Adult Disability Home for persons with disabilities with physical and also multiple disabilities by 2018.

To better support persons with autism (ASD) and their caregivers, we will open a new Day Activity Centre for adults with autism in 2015, as well as an Adult Disability Home in 2018.

Beyond expanding capacity, we will review, more fundamentally, the adult care landscape for persons with disabilities. In MSF, we recognise there is no one-size-fits-all approach, so we hope to have a wider range of care options in future to meet the different needs based on the type of disabilities, based on severity and also based on the different levels of family support.

We are therefore piloting several new service ideas. One example is the Drop-In Disability Programme that serves higher functioning individuals by helping them remain meaningfully engaged with the community. It is located in Senior Activity Centres, which Mr Png Eng Huat had suggested. Another pilot is the Home-based Care Services that offer home help for those unable to tap on centre-based services. We will scale these various programmes up if the pilots are successful.

We would like to assure caregivers that we would certainly continue to look into ways of increasing the capacity as well as the range of adult care services. We will also look into the needs of caregivers, as Ms Denise Phua had spoken passionately about last evening. Last year, SG Enable worked with the Tote Board to launch the Tote Board-Enabling Lives Initiative. Twenty-three million Singapore dollars has been set aside over five years to support innovation projects for the disability sector in three cross-cutting areas, one of which is caregiver support. We hope that this fund will help develop and test-bed new and innovative ideas on caregiver support.

Page: 26

We are not doing this alone and we cannot do this alone. Together with our passionate VWOs, committed employers and the community, we can uplift the lives of those with disabilities and their families. To realise the shared vision of the Enabling Masterplan, we need the active participation of all Singaporeans.

And this is why I totally agree with Ms Chia Yong Yong on the importance of public education. To this end, NCSS will be leading an effort to educate the public on disability issues and build empathy about the challenges that persons with disabilities face. Together, we can encourage community action to build an inclusive society. NCSS is working out an outreach plan with different stakeholders. And to this end, I hope that Ms Chia, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Png Eng Huat and the various Members of the House will give their full support towards this national effort.

As we reach out to help one another, we are also reminded that at the heart of our society is the family. The family, as an institution, is fundamental to Singapore. This explains why the Government's efforts to strengthen, to promote, to protect families cuts across various Ministries, agencies and policy areas, such as housing policies for young marrying couples and the Pioneer Generation Package to help middle-class families better care for their elderly parents.

MSF is committed to supporting families as they build their lives together. Besides investing in pre-schools which Minister Chan Chun Sing spoke about earlier, we will enhance support for marriages and parenting.

Couples starting a new family life together can now attend a new lunch-time marriage preparation talk as being offered at the Registry of Marriages (ROM). This talk will share tips on how couples can communicate and better manage each other's expectations. Those of us who are married in this House know this is very important – managing expectations. This talk has been launched about three months ago and it has already reached out to more than 400 participants. We polled them and more than 80% of them said that they have found this to be useful. I encourage more couples to make it part of their marriage preparation plans to attend the ROM talk together before they register their marriages.

Couples who are interested to learn more about marriage preparation can also then sign up for a full marriage preparation programme called Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Programme, or PREP. This programme will be offered as a workshop by MSF-appointed agencies from May this year.

As a mother of two young boys, 10 and seven years old, I can fully understand that parenting is not always easy. To support parents, we piloted two parenting programmes last

Page: 27

year, namely, "Positive Parenting Programme", or Triple P, and the second one, "Signposts". These two programmes identify the emotional and behavioural concerns of children, then refer the parents to appropriate support services to address and support their parenting needs.

Mdm Chua is one parent who has benefited from Triple P. She shared with us her experience. Her teenage son used to keep his feelings to himself and he would get very angry whenever his mother scolded him, chided him or nagged at him. Mdm Chua was referred to Triple P. From the course, she learned how to better communicate with her teenage son. So, now, whenever he does something she feels is not quite right, she manages her own temperament, she will exercise her patience to reason with him, to try to rationalise with him instead of reacting instinctively and raising her voice. As a result, her teenage son has become more open in his communications with her.

Like Mdm Chua, over 1,100 parents from 20 primary schools and secondary schools have completed the two programmes. We will add another 30 new schools to the pilot in 2015 and complete a detailed evaluation study next year. This will help us to refine the programmes before rolling them out nationwide.

Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms Lee Li Lian and Dr Lily Neo spoke about the support for single parents. Minister Grace Fu has explained the Government's approach on this issue earlier in the week. We understand some single parents face financial challenges. Like other vulnerable families who need help, they have access to a range of social support from the Government and VWOs, for example, the ComCare assistance, higher infant and childcare subsidies as well as student care assistance.

The Ministry also extends help to expectant mothers, single or otherwise, who need support. Mrs Lina Chiam's suggestion on baby drop centres – as she has mentioned – has been brought up previously. And we have studied other countries' experience. Other countries with baby drops have reported mixed experiences, such as the downside of encouraging baby abandonment.

We have chosen instead to focus our resources and attention in ensuring that there are a range of support services for expectant mothers who may be facing distress, and to protect the safety of both mother and baby. For example, we have hotlines, counselling and residential services for expectant women to carry their pregnancy to term.

Page: 28

Children are often caught in between their parents whenever a painful divorce takes place. It can be a very traumatic experience for the child.

To manage the negative impact on children from divorce, we have appointed four new Divorce Support Specialist Agencies. They will run a Mandatory Parenting Session for divorcing parents with young children. The parents will have to attend the session so long as they cannot agree on all matters of the divorce. The session will cover issues, including the impact of the divorce, parental conflicts on children, as well as financial and housing implications, all of which we know will affect a child's well-being.

As for the children, we are working with the agencies to introduce a new programme to help affected children learn coping strategies when they get caught between their parents' conflicts.

Yesterday evening, Mr Alex Yam spoke about couples who wish to have a third child after joining the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) programme but are worried that they would lose the various forms of financial support under the scheme.

Let us give some background. HOPE is a voluntary scheme for young, low-income couples who choose to keep their families small, so that they can focus their limited resources on upgrading themselves as well as the lives of their children. Couples are aware of the benefits as well as the conditions before they join this programme.

More than 3,200 families have been placed on the HOPE scheme since its introduction in 2004. About 40% have seen an increase in their household income and the employment rate of the mothers has doubled from 30% to 60%. Sometimes, a helping hand is needed to navigate very complex issues. And this is why we have HOPE Mentoring Agencies to provide case management support to coordinate the different forms of assistance for these families.

HOPE couples who decide to have a third child can withdraw from the scheme at any time. They can also tap on other financial assistance schemes for lower income families after they exit HOPE. For example, they will continue to be eligible for additional pre-school and student care subsidies, as well as other forms of social assistance, depending on their needs. They are also eligible for the Baby Bonus scheme.

With regard to Mr Faisal Manap's suggestion to publish a report on the state of social protection, our Government agencies regularly publish information on the progress of efforts to improve the well-being of vulnerable groups. We will collect and share more useful data over time with social service partners and researchers.

Page: 29

In summary, MSF's holistic range of initiatives and programmes meet the needs of families at different life stages. From couples starting out their married life, to having their first child, their second child, their third child, to bringing them up – all are important milestones. In MSF, we pledge to support families throughout their journey because families form the basis of our strong and cohesive society. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The family is the cornerstone of our society. The family is not only a safe haven but also the core of our spirit and what we work for as a nation. Through the combined effort of various Government agencies and Statutory Boards, the Government has signalled its strong commitment to families and will provide more support for them. Our commitment and efforts today will shape the next generations' values and attitudes towards families.

Hence, as an individual, each of us must cherish our families, set aside time to be with our family and build a harmonious and warm home. We should also reach out to help the vulnerable groups so as to strengthen the cohesion within the Singapore Family. Let us work together to build an inclusive, warm and happy home for all!

Mdm Chair, let me now touch on the second thrust of MSF's work this year. That is, to build a future-ready social service sector. I will touch on this at five levels – future-ready services, systems, organisations, legislations and professional development.

We have talked about the evolving challenges to the family structure and also our ageing demographics. For services, we cannot just scale up what we do today. We need to think of new models to provide those services given our finite manpower resources. I will use two examples to illustrate this: (a) Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, or EIPIC; and (b) adult disability.

For EIPIC, our early intervention programme for children with special needs, the diagnosis rate has been going up. Part of it has been due to a greater awareness of the services provided. We have earlier diagnosis and we have more seeking services. This is a good sign because the earlier we can help our children with special needs, the better their chances of leading a fulfilling life, just like any other normal Singaporean. The benefits of early intervention are clear. However, our professional manpower is still lacking, and we cannot just replicate and scale up the current model.

We have discussed this in the Enabling Masterplan Implementation Committee and the committee members have given us many good ideas on how we can improve on the continuum of services given to these children. We need a common assessment tool. We need this tool to track the progress of all the children under the scheme so that we can give

Page: 30

them targeted help. We need the family and the pre-school teachers to be more involved, and this is why in the second half of this year, we will be developing a new model to provide services for the entire early intervention sector.

This new model will involve a common assessment tool, a common tracking tool, a better system to allow those with milder needs to be supported by the upskilled Learning Support Educators, thereby dedicating the professionals to help those with moderate to high needs. This will better utilise the finite manpower resources that we have, to provide the best services available to our children in the EIPIC programme. So, we will need to upgrade the skills of our Learning Support Educators, we will need to change the way we make our assessment and track the progress and we will need to deepen the competencies of the professionals, and at the same time widen the pool.

Ms Denise Phua and Dr Lily Neo also talked about the issue of adult disability. Indeed, we also need to rethink the model to provide such services including day care services and how we can mobilise the community to provide help for these adults with disabilities. Our challenge is how to provide those services to those who completed their time at SPED schools and are above 18 years old. It is a long journey as we will need to provide them with home care, community care and if possible, open opportunities in the job market.

We will adopt a three-pronged strategy to up our services for adult disability. First, for those who can find jobs, we should do our best to work with employers to redesign the workplace to allow them the best opportunities to be integrated into the core Singapore workforce. We have to work on partnerships with employers to redesign the work processes and get the employers on board. Second, for those who cannot go onto employment, we have to see how we can revamp the care model for them at the community level. This will allow us to better use the finite resources that we have. Finally, for those who need very specialised home-based services, we have to look beyond the current model that is dependent on foreign domestic help, which is highly labour intensive. We will be tapping on the ideas of the Enabling Masterplan Implementation Committee to see whether the models that we have going forward will be future-ready for the new demands that are emerging.

Let me talk about the second issue – building future-ready systems. I will share a story. Many of you in the House would have probably noticed that I have not used the phrase "Many Helping Hands" in my last three years in the Budget and Committee of Supply (COS) debates. And that was because when I first came on board, some of you told me that the phrase "Many Helping Hands" was a "bad" word. It was as if the Government had washed its hands or did not want to do anything.

I have another version for the "Many Helping Hands" approach. I want the "Many Helping Hands" to be like the "Thousand Arms Bodhisattva" or the “千手观音”. We can have

Page: 31

many hands but we must have a body and a central nervous system to coordinate the helping hands. Like the “千手观音”, we must also be close to the ground and to be able to listen and discern the needs of the people on the ground. Over the last few years, we have worked quietly behind the scenes to put in place these systems. While we have many outreach points and many helping hands, we must put in place a nervous system and a body that can continue to provide that help as needed.

This is the reason we have set up the SSO network; so that services can be closer to the ground; so that the needs of the ground can be heard more immediately. Going forward, the SSOs will also act as a nerve system to help coordinate case management, especially for the very complex cases on the ground. They are already doing this in many of the towns that the SSOs have been set up. The SSOs will coordinate not just the work between the different VWOs, they will also coordinate the back-end support by the different Ministries and the different agencies; so that for someone or some families who need the help, they need only to access one point of contact.

Over these few years, we have also aligned the boundaries of all the Family Service Centres and the Senior Cluster Networks. With aligned boundaries, we can provide more localised and integrated services at the town level to avoid our "Many Helping Hands" approach being seen as uncoordinated. In fact, I am always inspired by the image of the "ThousandArms Bodhisattva" who is compassionate, who reaches the ground and who hears the cries of help. We may never reach that but we must strive that all the hands, be it hundred hands or thousand hands, are all coordinated, all working closely together, all with their ears on the ground to meet the needs of our fellow Singaporeans.

This is also the reason why we are improving our system with the Social Service Net, which we will roll out in the second half of this year. We have one vision: "One Client, One Record; One Sector, One System." Once the system is rolled out, first to the SSO and the FSCs, then subsequently to the VWOs, we will have an integrated case management system across the entire social service sector. There will be no need for clients to repeat their stories and there will be no need for us to search for files, to see the kinds of social intervention that had been given previously to those clients. With that, we save manpower and we can deploy the time savings to better interface with the families in need.

But I must also urge patience. It will take us some time to transit into the new system. We will need time to download and upload all the records onto the new system, just as how we did it for the medical system many years ago. So, we will do this progressively but, in time to come, I am confident we will reach our vision of "One Client, One Record; One Sector, One System."

Page: 32

Beyond the level of future-ready services and future-ready systems, let me talk about the third issue of future-ready organisations. I think Ms Denise Phua and Ms Chia Yong Yong had also talked about this. We expect no less from all the VWOs in terms of corporate governance. We want to professionalise our front-end services; we want to systematise our back-end functions; we want to ensure business continuity from leadership to operations; and we want to manage risks just like any well run organisation.

In order for us to do that from this year, we will invest $6 million per year under a Corporate Development Funding Scheme to target VWOs that can scale up to help support their back-end functions so that we can level up the corporate governance in all the VWOs, especially those that utilise time, talent and treasures from the public. We will set high benchmarks in order to inspire confidence in the sector. Only when we are good stewards of the resources given to us, will we engender more resources to be entrusted upon us. To support this growth, each eligible VWO will be given $150,000 to $300,000 per year to help them hire experienced corporate professionals in areas ranging from IT, HR to Finance. This will help them professionalise such services.

In parallel, NCSS will look into shared services to support other VWOs. NCSS has already rolled out the Compensation and Benefits consultancy in June 2013 to help VWOs with remuneration matters. NCSS has also piloted small consultancy projects in five capability areas – financial processes, community engagement, client empowerment, utilisation of space and services and process delivery – and they have appointed consultants to help 12 VWOs. We will evaluate the success of these schemes before we roll out more.

The Care and Share Movement will also be extended for another year to help us build up the capability and capacity of the social service sector. With the one-to-one matching, we will have up to $1 billion to build and deepen the competencies of the social service professionals and have our infrastructure ready for tomorrow.

Miss Penny Low has also spoken about the third organisational framework of being future-ready and that is the role played by social enterprises. We thank Miss Penny Low and Mr Seah Kian Peng for championing this cause all these years. Over all these years, we have had various measures to help many of the budding social enterprise. And I applaud all these founders, because they have now decided to come together to provide a one-stop centre, called the "Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise", to be set up by the second quarter of this year to help our budding social enterprises to do good and to do well.

Page: 33

This one-stop centre will bring together all the partners, from the previous Social Enterprise Association, Tote Board, NCSS and staff from MSF. They have laid the foundation and we will build on this foundation to further the cause of the social enterprises. The new Centre will be situated at the JTC LaunchPad@one-north. It will be a single touchpoint to help sector-wide development. It will provide a wider range of financing options to meet the evolving needs of the social enterprises across different stages of growth. It will help to link up with other mentors and other successful enterprises to help make sure that our social enterprises get the best chance to succeed commercially.

Let me now touch on the fourth area of being future-ready and that is legislation.

We have all spoken about the increasing number of elderly amongst us. I am glad to say that the rate of elderly abuse has been stable over the last few years. But because the numbers of elderly are growing, we must eventually expect that there will be more such cases in time to come. This is where we have to get our legislation ready, not because we are in a crisis today, but because we want to build up the capacity, the capability, the common language, the common referral protocol, before the problems even emerge in Singapore.

This year, we will enact the Vulnerable Adults Act to help better protect our vulnerable adults, as mentioned by Dr Lily Neo. There will be a three-pronged approach to this Act. First, to better support the families, to better support the community, and as a last resort, for the Government to come in as required.

The family plays an important and critical role – they provide emotional support, financial support and caregiving support. Where families are unable or unwilling to care and if there is abuse or neglect, or if the vulnerable adult neglects himself or herself and is unable to care for himself or herself, then the community comes in.

For the community, we need to build the common screening and assessment tools, and common training programmes for the community to help us pick out those instances where the vulnerable adult may be abused. We have started this programme to equip many community partners with the detection and intervention services. We will continue to push on.

Social workers have also highlighted to us that there is a legislative gap today, as we are not allowed to intervene. For example, we came across a case of a Mdm Tan. She is an 80-plus-year-old lady who is invalid, bedridden. She is taken care of by her son, her primary caregiver, who has been abusive and who has been depriving her of her medicine and, sometimes, food. The son did not allow the social workers or the community partners to

Page: 34

access her, to give her help. In today's situation, it takes a lot of moral suasion, a lot of hard work by all the social workers and community partners to reach out to this elderly lady. With the law in place, as a last resort, we will have the authority to go in and intervene before harm befalls the elderly lady.

Under the Vulnerable Adults Act to be enacted by the end of this year, we will also cover adults who are incapable of protecting themselves from harm arising from abuse, neglect, or self-neglect. We will have the powers to conduct social investigations, enter homes and possibly relocate vulnerable adults to places of safety, if necessary. We will enable the application to Court for intervention orders to help those in need. Family members can also apply to Court for some of these orders. MSF will build up the capability to perform these statutory functions under the Vulnerable Adults Act; but most importantly, we hope most of these cases can be resolved amicably without using the Act as a last resort. We must also respect the individual's right to self-determination and this Act must not replace other Acts. In fact, this Act will complement the Mental Capacity Act, which we will also update and amend in the later part of this year.

For the Mental Capacity Act, we will first want to encourage and empower more individuals to plan ahead before they lose their mental capacity. We have since simplified the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) Form 1 in July 2014. It has led to more than 30% increase in the number of applications. It has served the vast majority of the people well.

As part of our regular process of updating our legislation, we will continue to take in feedback from all sectors. In fact, in this regular process, some of the suggestions that Ms Sylvia Lim made, will be taken into consideration. But whatever we do, we must make sure that we continue to have a rigorous system that can cater to the needs of the vast majority to enable them to act. On the other hand, the system must be robust enough and have a risk management matrix that can catch the outliers and to flag out those outliers for us to take a deeper look at them. We must continue to find the correct balance, as we have an increasing number of LPAs being done up to take care of our future elderly.

Secondly, we want the Mental Capacity Act to also support families who are taking care of the mentally incapacitated individuals who did not or could not make an LPA. Today, the families need to go to Court to get an order, and it can be a laborious and expensive process. We will work with the Court to simplify the process and improve the accessibility of the court processes, and also to reduce the cost to make it easier for the families.

Finally, for mentally incapacitated persons who do not have family to be their decision-makers, we will form a group of public-spirited persons, who will apply to the Court to act as deputies for the mentally incapacitated adults with modest assets but no family support. They will be known as the Panel Deputies. So far, we have 16 of them – lawyers, accountants

Page: 35

and social workers.

We will put in place all these legislation by the end of this year.

On the fifth prong, let me talk about the heart of our social service delivery, and that is our social service professionals. They are the heartbeat of all that we do. In order for us to have good social services, we must make sure that we have a strong social service professional core. They must have meaningful career prospects, good professional development opportunities and receive recognition from society. We will be rolling out various initiatives to further this.

In terms of salary norms, we will be reviewing the salary norms for social service professionals this year. Following our review in 2012, the MSF-funded VWOs have made progress to better remunerate their social service professionals. For example, shortly after our adjustment in 2012, the median salary increment for employees of these VWOs was 8%. In 2013, the median increment was 4.5%, slightly higher than the national average. Between 2012 and 2013, the percentage of employees paid within NCSS' recommended range has also increased from under 80% to more than 86%. We are seeing signs of improvement but I still want to push further.

This year, we will, once again, revise the salaries for social service professionals, for them to be closer to the market benchmarks. MSF will increase VWO programme funding by $16 million in 2015, starting from 1 April. Twelve million dollars out of this $16 million will go into supporting the VWOs in raising the salaries of their social service professionals. The rest will go towards helping the VWOs cover their operational expenditure. Adjustments to programme funding in subsequent years will also take into account market wage movements, among other factors, for the salaries of our social service professionals. For the social service professionals in the sector, they can see a salary adjustment from 3% to 19%, depending on their level of professional competency and also depending on the sector which they are in. For example, a junior therapist will get about a 9% increase with this new funding arrangement.

Beyond salary remuneration, we will also strengthen the professional development opportunities for our social work professionals. The Social Service Institute (SSI) will be providing more training courses for our social service professionals to undertake bigger roles, for those who are going on to the leadership track, and for the rest who are on the specialist track, to deepen their competencies in order for them to be future-ready.

MSF and MOH will be rolling out the National Social Work Competency Framework for social workers this year. It will map out all the core competencies of all the social workers at

Page: 36

different career milestones across the community and health sector.

MSF and the family services sector will also develop a Code of Social Work Practice that will be implemented across the Family Service Centres (FSCs), so that there is a common language and common professional standards when it comes to protocol. This will fit in nicely with the work that we are doing in SSNet, where we have the vision of having "One Client, One Record; One Sector, One System".

This year, we will also be rolling out a new Social Service Fellowship programme to better recognise our accomplished social service professionals. This will recognise the top echelon of social service professionals. They will inspire the younger professionals to aspire towards the apex of their professions. This will apply to all social service professionals, such as social workers, therapists, EIPIC teachers, psychologists and counsellors. This Fellowship will not only recognise their higher level of competencies and contributions to the sector; it will also tap on the expertise of these Fellows to do work at the sectoral level to help us improve the sector as a whole. They will supervise and mentor younger professionals; they will partner MSF to develop the Continuing Professional Development frameworks. We expect to appoint about 50 Fellows by 2017.

We will also be expanding our Therapy Hubs to have a third Therapy Hub. We will be investing $7 million over the next three years to expand the two existing Therapy Hubs at Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and Thye Hua Kwan Moral Charities, and also to fund a third Therapy Hub. This will allow us to pool the services provided by a finite professional pool of therapists in the sector. This will also provide our professionals a better career path because they now can devote maximum time to their professional area of work. We target to increase the MSF-funded therapists at the Hubs to 125 by 2017.

We will also be setting up a new Community Psychology Hub to help VWOs to deliver quality psychological services in the social service sector. VWOs will be able to tap on the Hub for qualified psychologists to provide needed services. We will invest $8 million to fund this Hub from 2015 to 2017. It will be located at SG Enable and will start deploying psychologists to the sector from the second half of 2015. The Hub will first focus on disability services, especially EIPIC. As we scale up, we will cater to other areas of emerging needs, such as family services and elderly services.

Mdm Chair, let me now round up for MSF and also, perhaps, for the whole COS debate. There has been much talk over the last two weeks about us shifting left, shifting right, increasing funding for social support and so on and so forth. The Government is committed to providing all support necessary for Singaporeans and their families. We have never been shy to spend money. It is not about being hard-hearted or soft-hearted. But we have a duty to make sure that whatever we spend on gets the greatest impact on the beneficiaries that

Page: 37

we want to serve.

Our benchmark for success in the social service sector and, perhaps, in the larger Singapore system, is not and cannot be framed in any philosophical or monetary term. I have never judged MSF's success based on the amount of money that we spent, the number of Social Service Offices (SSOs) that we have built, or even the number of people that we are currently helping on our various schemes. These are not my measures of success.

I think that, as a system, our measures of success should be the following four.

Our first measure of success is not how many people are being helped now. Instead, we should measure ourselves by the number of people in the entire system that are able to stand independently and do not need help from society. We can divide the whole society into three parts: those who need help; those in the middle; and those who can provide help. The more that we are able to expand the centre – the broad middle – to take care of themselves and to take care of their families, the more successful we are. Once we have expanded the centre to as big as we can, then we can focus our attention and bandwidth to get those who are most able in society to help those who are least able. Therefore, our measure of success is not how much we transfer from those most able to those least able. Yes, that might be a matrix, but, actually, the biggest success for our Singapore story is when we can expand the broad middle so that the broad middle can take care of themselves; and we will have fewer people requiring assistance at the national level.

Our second measure of success is to make sure that whatever we spend on will do the maximum good for all the people that we want to serve. I will be the last one to go to the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to ask for more resources if I do not think I can do justice to the resources that MOF can give me. On the other hand, I will never be shy to go to MOF to ask for more resources when there is a pressing need and when we can do justice to the resources entrusted upon us. I think the Care and Share Movement is a good testimony of the faith that MOF has given MSF. They have given us $250 million, in addition to the $250 million last year, because they can see the good work being done. When we are good stewards of the resources entrusted upon us, I trust that MOF will open their hearts and their wallets to support all the good work in this sector.

The third measure of success is not just about helping those people in need. It is also about our ability to mobilise the community to come together as one to take care of our fellow Singaporeans in need.

Page: 38

But, finally, our greatest measure of success is not how many people are still on our schemes. It is how many of our people who have gone through our schemes are able to stand independent once again and, perhaps, to reach out to help others who are more in need. That will be our greatest measure of success – the people who have gone through the system and are independent once more, rather than have more and more people in the system.

Members, I thank you for your support for the work of MSF. Let us walk this journey together not just to celebrate SG50 this year, but to celebrate SG100 in time to come. Inequality, social stresses and strains will not define us. On the other hand, what makes us stand out as Singaporeans and Singapore is our commitment to social mobility, helping all according to needs, and being good stewards of the resources, time, talent and treasures entrusted upon us.

What makes us stand out, what will define us, is how we anticipate our challenges, put in place services, systems, organisations, legislation and professionals to be ready for tomorrow's challenges. If we can do all this together, then I think we will be proud of ourselves as Singaporeans not just at SG50, but also towards SG100.

We have a bit of time for clarifications. Ms Denise Phua.

Thank you, Madam. Just three clarifications. One, I wanted to ask Parliamentary Secretary Ms Low Yen Ling on the strategic communications plan that I have suggested. This is so that the good work on the Enabling Masterplan and its progress can be updated and so that it is not always kept as a "best-kept secret" in our country. There are information gaps that need to be determined; it is good to allocate resources to make sure that there is a plan for strategic communications to the various stakeholder groups and to regularly deploy that plan.

The second is to do with special needs adults. I am thankful to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that work is going to be done especially for the care options portion, and that there will be more attention given to that end, due to the urgency. But for the people who can work – and I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister is here to hear this – because of the SkillsFuture Council, I think it is one thing to say that the courses are available and open to anyone who wants to take it, regardless of your ability and where you come from. But it is quite different in reality – courses can be open but may not be accessible due to pedagogy, instructions and so forth. I would like the Ministry to work with the SkillsFuture Council as well as the whole-of-Government to ensure that structured official efforts are made so that the workforce has access.

Page: 39

Ms Phua, please make your clarifications short. Just ask your questions.

Like having a network of learning access support officers, just like in the formal education sector. I would like to ask for more work to be done to make it more structured and formal.

The third clarification is on what the Minister said. I agree with everything except one. The Minister spoke about the imagery of the “千手观音” as the way that we want to organise the sector, that there is a central nervous system that is the brain that does all the thinking and so forth, with the rest of the players as the many helping hands working in alignment with the nervous system.

Your clarification, Ms Phua.

I would like the Ministry to consider not to carry this to the extreme, as it could then be perceived that the Government is the nervous system and the central thinker whilst the rest of the players are seen as outsourced contractors carrying out the central nervous system's plan. Especially for the social service sector, this is quite dangerous. If I misunderstood that, I stand to be corrected. But I believe that different players, whether they are professionals, volunteers, corporate or individuals, can also play a part and help co-shape the sector as the thinkers.

You really got to keep it short. There are so many hands.

I want to thank Ms Denise Phua for her very thoughtful comments. I will make a response to the first two. The first is regarding the request for a strategic communications plan under the Enabling Masterplan. She is part of the Committee and we thank her for her thoughts and her leadership in this journey. We will certainly continue to press on with the progress of the Enabling Masterplan.

Our efforts in this journey, the Enabling Masterplan, really must be a concerted one not just by the Ministry and SGEnable but also the community, employers, families, caregivers, teachers, therapists who have the skills and training, and we will give them all the necessary infrastructure and support. Members will remember last year, as I was giving an update, I showed the brochure which had already been pushed out to all the VWOs, SPED schools. Admittedly, we must do more in this area and we will certainly give this suggestion of a strategic communications plan greater thought as we press on in our journey as part of the Enabling Masterplan.

Page: 40

With regard to adult care, we would also like to thank the Member for her passionate speech in this area. As an inclusive community, we can all come together to further empower and enable those with disabilities and learning difficulties to participate fully in our community, in our society. Like what the Member and Ms Chia Yong Yong mentioned, the SkillsFuture Credit is for every Singaporean, including persons with disabilities. While the amount of SkillsFuture Credit given to persons with disabilities and Singaporeans is the same, persons with disabilities have access to dedicated and also specialised avenues of facilitation of help, support for training and employment, as I have mentioned, the Open Door programme and so on. We want her to rest assured that the Ministry and SG Enable will certainly work with MOM and the relevant agencies to ensure that the SkillsFuture efforts are relevant and are also structured to benefit persons with disabilities.

In so doing, we would like to call upon everyone in the House and also fellow Singaporeans – business owners, enterprises, individuals – to join us in transforming disabilities into opportunities so that each and every one of us, regardless of ability, can co-create a better future for all of us.

Mdm Chair, as usual, we do not carry analogies to extremes. But I must say this. Even hands, hands are not just to serve, hands also feel. What we want is to have every part of our body acting as one, feeling the ground, listening, making collective decisions to best serve the individuals and put the beneficiary, the client who needs help, at the centre of what we do.

It does not matter how many hands we have. We must act as one, be one in body, in mind. And I see all hands not just as working hands, but the hands also give us the feel on the ground – the eyes, the ears. This is how we want to work. And for this year, we will be piloting this in Taman Jurong. Taman Jurong will have an SSO side by side with the FSCs and WDA. The next one we are looking at is Kreta Ayer whereby we have a more integrated model. Already, we see that they have weekly and monthly conferences to take on the most difficult cases to make sure that all agencies, be it the Government agencies, the VWOs or the FSCs, are all working as one, making a common assessment and providing the integrated help as necessary.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mdm Chair, I have a clarification to ask and it concerns single unwed mothers. I acknowledge that we have moved significantly to help single parents over the years, and I am sure these schemes will be enhanced over time. But for the single unwed mothers, I think notwithstanding the social assistance schemes that the Government is extending to them, it is quite different from having certain benefits being

Page: 41

mandated versus getting handouts.

So, I would like to ask the Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether they agree that single unwed mothers should be given the same maternity leave and childcare benefits as married mothers. If they do, can the Ministry set some timeline to achieve these goals? Likewise, for the children of these single unwed mothers, can they also be entitled to top-ups to their Child Development Accounts?

Mdm Chair, I thank Mr Seah Kian Peng for speaking up passionately for the single mothers. It is an emotional and emotive topic. I just want to assure Members of the House that I understand what single mothers go through. I grew up in a single-parent family. The journey is not easy; and, often, it goes beyond providing sufficient monetary benefits and incentives. For children growing up in single-parent family, there are many challenges, including the social and emotional upbringing of the child. We are committed to do what we can to help all Singaporean families, particularly those more vulnerable families and those more in need.

In this House, we have heard various calls for us to provide better support for single unwed mothers. I think there are merits for us to consider this seriously. In this House, we have also heard various calls by Members to better support parenthood within the context of marriage. That, in itself, I think, is also valid and worthy of consideration. In this House, we have also heard even more calls for us to provide the best support for all Singaporean children, regardless of their parentage. Indeed, children do not select the families that they are born into.

Between and amongst these three policy objectives, we will have to continually find that balance. I looked through all the things that we do to support our children. I asked my staff to give me a table of things that are being done. The bulk of all our support focused on the child as the centre because we believe that the child is innocent and should be given the best support possible. The best thing and the most important thing that we must do for the child is to provide education opportunities, good healthcare and a good social environment for them to be brought up to fulfil their talent as much as possible.

Within that context, how do we balance providing more support for parenthood within the context of marriage? Some countries have decided to forgo the second objective. It is something that we have to think about. But if we say that we want that objective, then how do we moderate that gradient between the first objective and the second objective?

As Mr Seah Kian Peng said, it is an evolving journey. Let us continue this evolving journey but, at the core of it, even if there is a gradient, because of the two different policy objectives

Page: 42

between supporting the child as the centre of what we do and supporting parenthood within the context of marriage, then let us use the third policy objective of the social service support to give our children the best chance. I think that is what we are committed to do, and MSF will continue to work with Members of this House and our society to find that balance between these three valid policy objectives. We have to continue to find that balance.

Madam, two clarifications, please. I spoke on these two issues earlier in my speech, but the Minister has not replied.

Firstly, does the Minister have any scheme in place to assist physically weak elderly living on their own with no family members to depend on and how does MSF assist in attenuating this trend?

Secondly, could the Minister comment on my suggestion earlier on assisting cases of families with chronic needs by taking a holistic approach and helping the family as a whole in adopting the same concept as "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"?

Indeed, for the increasing number of elderly who have no family support, there are two things that we can do more and do better.

First, for those who are still ambulant, able to walk and step out of their own house, we have to see how we can expand the suite of services at the community level for them to be kept active and engaged. But, then, there will be another growing group of people who can, perhaps, no longer so easily step out of their own home, but we do not yet want to institutionalise them in the nursing home – this is where we need a new care model whereby, perhaps, having a pool of care workers that can go on rotation in the community and just watch out for them. In the interim, we have piloted the "Care for Your Neighbour" scheme in Jalan Kukup, whereby able-bodied neighbours help to take an interest, to care for those who are less able. This also keeps the able-bodied ones active and healthy with a sense of mission. So, that is an area that we need to do more.

On her second point, indeed, for the chronic needs cases, if Members have watched the programme "Don't Call Us Poor" by CNA, you will know that many of the poor families have multifaceted problems. In order for us to provide help to them, this is where the SSO, the local planning team, comes in to have the case conferences with all the agencies involved – from WDA to MOE to FSC and so forth – to provide that integrated care management.

Page: 43

The SSO can give the short-term ComCare assistance. The longer-term plan requires us to place them on jobs, to get WDA, to get e2i, to come on board to train them and place them on jobs. Even after they are trained, we need to make sure they continue to stay on the job, so that the family situation is stabilised. On the other hand, we have to help them settle their housing options, their school options, so that their children have a stable platform to get out of the problems that their families are having now.

So, the Member is absolutely right to say that we need to increasingly go on this integrated approach, one family at a time. This is why I want the SSO to play a greater role in coordinating the local services at the local family level, taking care of each family's needs respectively.

Mdm Chair, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reassurance that MSF is committed to caring for families. But coming back to my point, the elements of the HOPE Scheme have seemed to run counter to this. Yes, there is support for families, but if you have more than two kids in some families, we are very sorry we cannot give that to you. And the amount of benefits that the HOPE Scheme provides is quite significant, so, it can be an offer that is hard to refuse for some of these families. So, how does the Ministry reconcile this?

Secondly, does the Ministry keep track of figures of any children that have been aborted because of the HOPE Scheme? And, lastly, yes, there is an option for them to withdraw from the scheme if they would like to keep their third child, but what are the penalties, because they have already received quite a lot from the Scheme? Is there anything that they need to give back and does that become a barrier?

Let me assure the Member that there is no penalty for those who withdraw from the Scheme. Training grants that have been given will not be clawed back. The aim of the Scheme is to encourage young families, the low-income families, better plan for the future, for themselves and for their children, and we fully recognise that some of them may not be able to stay on the Scheme. If they cannot stay on the Scheme, we do not penalise them. We will transit them to other help schemes as necessary.

Please keep clarifications and replies short. We only have four minutes. Mr Yee Jenn Jong.

Thank you, Madam. I agree with the Minister that the pre-school sector is fragmented and I support the idea of consolidation. My question is, can an application for POP be from a group of operators banding together, rather than from a single operator? This may speed up the process of consolidation. Also, is

Page: 44

POP applicable to private or for-profit organisations? Because I think they play a role in offering diversity and innovation.

Lastly, I like to ask about the student care sector. I noted the many training initiatives for early childhood, such as the skills framework, fellow schemes and PCP. Are there similar types of initiatives for student care? The Minister did not cover anything on student care in his speech at all.

Mdm Chair, the answer to the first question is yes.

The answer to the second question about private operators, you have to convince us that if you are a private operator, you are not taking the public's money for your profit. That will be my basic guideline. I think I am accountable to the public on how we spend money, and I am prepared to spend money so long as it leads to stable prices, affordable prices for my families, quality education for my children and fair remuneration for my teachers. But if the private operators come and make us a proposal that does not meet these three criteria, but instead benefit from enriching their profits, then my answer is no. So, I leave it to the private sector to make me a proposal. And I want to reiterate what I have said. I am committed to operators who put the social mission of caring for our children first. That is my first priority. I want to make sure that their services are affordable for the families, quality is assured and teachers are paid well. But it will not be in my remit to help private operators make profit.

On the third issue of student care, we will be announcing more initiatives in the later part of this year. I think Minister Heng Swee Keat has already said that we will expand the suite of student care services in the schools, and MSF is committed to working closely with MOE to expand this suite of student care services in the school system.

Ms Denise Phua, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

I would like to thank Minister Chan Chun Sing and the Parliamentary Secretary, Ms Low Yen Ling, for the comprehensive responses. I also want to thank the Permanent Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the MSF team for serving with so many partners on the ground to fulfil MSF's mission. The Ministry has, indeed, grown from strength to strength, so thank you for that. As Minster Chan Chun Sing proceeds to his next post to serve in the unions from 1 April, our GPC team would like to wish him all the very best. We know he will make an impact there. So, thank you very much. With that, Madam, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Page: 45

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,007,381,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $115,591,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I shall now deal with the remaining Heads of Expenditures in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D, E, G and Z. I propose to take those Heads of Expenditure en bloc.

[(proc text) Question, "That the sums stated for Heads B, C, D, E, G and Z which appear in the last column of the Schedule of estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 6 of Paper Cmd 1 of 2015 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to. (proc text)]

In respect of the Development Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D and E.

[(proc text) Question, "That the sums stated for Heads B, C, D and E which appear in the last column of the Schedule of estimated expenditure under the Development Estimates on page 7 of Paper Cmd 1 of 2015 stand part of the Development Estimates," put and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question, "That the sum of $76,912,394,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016," contained in Paper Cmd 1 of 2015," put and agreed to. (proc text)]

Question, "That the sum of $30,788,559,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 contained in Paper Cmd 1 of 2015," put and agreed to.

[(proc text) Resolutions to be reported. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.

[(proc text) First resolution reported – (proc text)]

Page: 46

[(proc text) "That the sum of $76,912,394,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, contained in Paper Cmd 1 of 2015." (proc text)]

[(proc text) Second resolution reported – (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the sum of $30,788,559,800 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, contained in Paper Cmd 1 of 2015. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]

Page: 47

[(proc text) Order for Second and Third Readings read. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in the Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet the expenditure in the Financial Year, 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each Head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year, 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, as contained in Paper Command No 1 of 2015.

The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund. Mdm, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time".

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Page: 48

[(proc text) Order for Second and Third Readings read. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act 2014. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates, which have been considered and approved by the House as Paper Cmd 2 of 2015. Mdm, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time".

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Page: 49

Mdm Speaker, we have completed Budget 2015/2016. Allow me to make some round-up remarks.

Since this term of Government began in 2011 and after four consecutive Budgets, the strategic directions as set out by Prime Minister Lee in his National Day Rally (NDR) speeches and during the debate on the President's Address following the prorogation of Parliament last year, have been followed through in the plans of various Ministries working in concert to flesh out these directions. With this Budget passed, we are another step closer to achieving the vision of a "fair and inclusive society". Surely and steadily, deep structural changes have been enacted to better prepare Singapore for significant challenges ahead. The silver tsunami as our population ages and the need to maintain a strong social compact in a rapidly evolving world stand as the most important challenges for Singapore's next frontier.

As promised, the new initiatives and programmes by the Government over the past four years have significantly strengthened social safety nets and redistributed more wealth to the lower- and middle-class. But as a result, too, commitments on the Government's recurrent Budget have also been increased, pari passu. As an example – through Workfare and Silver Support – the Government has now put in place a permanent financial support scheme for 20% to 30% of all citizens aged from 20 or so, and for as long as they live. This represents a fundamental shift that has occurred. What has happened?

If previously, Singapore were a fleet of fast moving cars and trucks gunning for fast growth on the quicker right lanes, we have now added a sizeable fleet of coach buses that will keep to the slower left lanes, to bring along our elderly, the disadvantaged and less able so that we can maintain our precious social compact and bring opportunities and benefits to all. The entire fleet must arrive at our destination.

Members' speeches during the Budget debate and Committee of Supply supported this shift, whether they were from the Government Party, the Opposition Members or Nominated Members. But some hon Members also advised caution on fiscal sustainability and were right to do so. They showed good judgement and honesty because it would have been so much easier and populist not to sound these warnings but instead give false assurances that all will be well. The simple truth is that uncertainty does exist, even if our projections assure us for the short and medium term. Beyond that, no one can see that far ahead. The only certainty we have is that there will be unexpected events. And whether these commitments on future spending are sustainable will depend on the ability of

Page: 50

Singaporeans to work together in the years ahead to ensure that Singapore continues to thrive in our region and globally.

Not surprisingly, with the PG package and Silver Support introduced, wages up and more affordable housing, fewer Members this year asked if the Government was doing enough for the poor, for older Singaporeans and lower-skilled workers. With the introduction of MediShield Life, cuts for MOH fell quite noticeably, too, displacing it from the "top three". So, too, the concerns on the influx of foreign labour, as tightening measures have worked. Instead, this year, there were more cuts and speeches focused on SkillsFuture, stimulating productivity and innovation, equipping more Singaporeans to be the core to drive our economic engines. In our Golden Jubilee year, many Members also focused on Singapore's "soul" – what makes us unique and the need to retain these cultural and historical traits, including our hawker food. There were many calls to cultivate ourselves to be a more civil society or, at the very least, to be more green and clean, like Taiwan and Japan. Hon Members also asked that more be done to assist single mothers, disadvantaged children and our brothers and sisters with disabilities. All these calls represented earnest aspirations for a better Singapore, and much work remains to be done.

This Budget was also the debut for our Nominated Members of Parliament, sworn in less than six months ago. I believe that they got into the swing of things quite well and some made passionate and stirring speeches. Members in this House would agree with me that the new Nominated Members have added substance and style to our deliberations.

So, after nine days, we have come to the end of the FY 2015/2016 Budget debates. We have had good productive debates and scrutinised the Government's spending to satisfy ourselves and Singaporeans that we represent, that the direction Singapore is taking is the right one. The high standards and good functioning of the proceedings were made possible by the staff of the Secretariat in Parliament and the able but firm hand of our Speaker.

Mdm Speaker, we are, indeed, grateful for your patience in sitting through all our speeches and debates, and for guiding the proceedings onto their satisfying conclusion. We express our deep and special thanks to you and your Deputies. [Applause.]

With speeches made and the Budget approved, what remains is for us in Government and all Members in this House, to serve our people faithfully and conscientiously, with honesty and trustworthiness, to ensure that all these good plans come to fruition for their benefit.

Page: 51

Hon Members, first, I wish to thank the Leader of the House and the Government Whip, as well as their Deputies, for their support and cooperation which have enabled us to conclude this COS successfully. I also wish to thank all hon Members for your active participation and support throughout the COS.

A total of 65 hon Members submitted 466 cuts this year. Fifty-four Members also spoke on the Budget Statement. The "star" Ministry, as the Leader has mentioned, attracting the most number of cuts is MOM, which is understandable because of the various new initiatives that were announced in this Budget which are covered by the Ministry.

It is clear that there was unanimous support for this year's Budget, not just from the Government Members but also from the non-Government Members. There is a general consensus that this Budget has, indeed, lived up to its name of being a Jubilee Budget, to prepare us for the future and to build a fair and inclusive society.

This year's COS also saw the active participation of our nine newly appointed Nominated Members, who made robust speeches and had contributed to the debate. I am proud to have with us, for the first time in our history, a Nominated Member representing the special needs community, Ms Chia Yong Yong. I am glad that our Parliament is truly inclusive and no disability or impairment is an impediment to any Singaporean who wants to contribute and has the people's welfare at heart.

This year's Budget gives depth and meaning to the Government's move towards a broader definition of success, one that is not circumscribed or limited by grades linked only to academic achievements. Members were concerned that our society is becoming polarised by this rigid definition of success and wondered about its impact on social mobility. Hence, Members strongly supported the SkillsFuture scheme, in particular, the thinking behind it, which is to give all Singaporeans a chance to uplift their lives.

But Members also agreed that for SkillsFuture to succeed, a policy alone is insufficient. We need truly committed employers who will give every worker a chance to develop his capabilities. We also need individuals who will take greater ownership over their own growth, instead of just waiting for the Government or their employers. As many Members had pointed out, beyond SkillsFuture, we need a quantum leap in mindset change among all the actors.

Many Members also supported this Budget's provision of greater stability, security and peace of mind to Singaporeans, even as we weather the changes that arise from economic restructuring and a rapidly ageing population. Change is not easy for anyone, least of all if it results in uncomfortable disruptions and dislocations. People embrace change better if there

Page: 52

is some buffer for them to fall back on, a safety net to catch them if they fall.

To that extent, many Members applauded the Silver Support Scheme, the higher CPF interest rate on the first $30,000 in the RA, the other social schemes. But as pragmatism is deeply ingrained in our psyche, many Members asked whether these social programmes are sustainable or will they leave our future generations in shackles. Members were also concerned whether the shift towards greater risk pooling and collective responsibility will erode individual responsibility. The Finance Minister had given an excellent response to these concerns, and I do recommend all Singaporeans to read his summing up speech.

So, did we turn to the left, an ideological debate the likes of which one has hardly heard in this august Chamber? One Member reminded us that if we move too much to the left, we will have nothing left, to which another Member promptly countered that moving too much to the right is also not right. The last words came from a Member who pointed out that the real issue is not whether we should turn left or right but whether we are moving forward. Again, pragmatism dictates that ideology should not determine how we craft policies, but rather what is really of benefit to our people and what really works for us. It is all about building a fair and inclusive society.

Members will agree with me that we still have a lot of work to do. Last week, after the Finance Minister had tabled his Budget Statement, I had lunch at my kopitiam in Bukit Batok East and I met two women who worked as cleaners at a nearby condominium. They were both in their 50s and I asked them whether they knew that they would be getting an additional 1% for the first $30,000 in their CPF RA account. They were not only not aware of it, but one of them even thought that if anything were to happen to her, her children would not get her CPF savings.

I took the opportunity to set the facts straight. However, this shows just how much misinformation there are on the ground on some of our policies and why the end of this Budget debate is but the beginning of more concerted efforts to reach out to Singaporeans on these policies.

Let me conclude by thanking hon Members, once again, for the many thoughtful speeches that you had made that had added colour and life to this debate. I also wish to thank my two helpful and reliable Deputy Speakers, Mr Charles Chong and Mr Seah Kian Peng, for their assistance.

My thanks, too, to our Parliament staff who have been working quietly but tirelessly behind the scene to ensure that Parliament runs smoothly throughout the Budget debate.

Page: 53

Our commitment is to serve the people of Singapore. On this note, thank you, once again.

Page: 54

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That item 7 of today's order of proceedings be taken after item 4."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 7 on the Order Paper for today be taken after item 4." – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Page: 55

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Madam, the Police Force Act (PFA) is the main legislative instrument that provides for the organisation and disciplinary procedures of the Singapore Police Force (SPF). The PFA was last amended in 2004 to introduce a regulatory framework for the auxiliary police forces (APFs).

This Bill seeks to strengthen the operational effectiveness of the SPF, prevent abuse of Police uniforms and insignia, and streamline internal processes.

Madam, let me now elaborate on the key amendments.

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 26(2) of the PFA to increase the penalty for evading Police road blocks, from the current penalty of a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

This is aligned with the penalty for the Penal Code offence of rash driving or riding which endangers the life or personal safety of others.

The Police conduct road blocks to deter and detect crime, including offences, such as drink driving. Drivers who evade road blocks endanger the lives of other road users, as well as our officers manning the road blocks and themselves. These enhanced penalties serve as a stronger deterrent against such irresponsible and dangerous actions.

The next set of amendments seeks to strengthen the internal disciplinary processes for regular Police Officers below the rank of Inspector and for Special Police Officers. Special Police Officers comprise members of the Volunteer Special Constabulary, full-time National Servicemen (NSmen), Operationally-ready NSmen and Volunteer Ex-National Servicemen.

Clause 10 amends section 29 which deals with interdiction of Police Officers. The circumstances under which the Commissioner of Police or "Commissioner" may interdict

Page: 56

Police Officers are expanded. Interdiction may be ordered where the Police Officer is charged in Court and the Commissioner is of the view that the nature and gravity of the offence warrant interdiction, or where the Police Officer is being investigated for having committed an offence and the Commissioner is of the view that it is undesirable for that officer to exercise Police powers, or discharge Police duties, during the period of investigation.

Interdiction may also be ordered where disciplinary proceedings which may result in the Police Officer's dismissal, reduction in rank, or retirement are instituted or where the Commissioner considers that it is in the public interest that the Police Officer should immediately cease to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Police Officer.

Clause 15 amends section 40 to set up Disciplinary Appeal Committees to hear appeals from Police Officers.

Currently, a Police Officer who is found guilty of a service offence by a disciplinary officer may appeal to the Commissioner against the finding or punishment imposed. The decision of the Commissioner on an appeal is final.

Under the new framework, Disciplinary Appeal Committees will be established to hear these appeals. A Disciplinary Appeal Committee will be chaired by the Commissioner and comprises two other senior Police Officers of the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, or higher, who are not involved in the original disciplinary hearing. Having Disciplinary Appeal Committees hear appeals will provide a more efficient and robust mechanism for handling appeals.

Clause 40 amends section 115 and lifts the limitation period for all Police Officers and members of the Volunteer Special Constabulary. The limitation period is the length of time from the commission of a service offence that the offender must be tried. It is presently six months. This amendment protects the public interest by ensuring that disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against an errant officer, regardless of when the alleged offence was committed or discovered.

I will now move on to explain the changes in the disciplinary framework for National Servicemen or NSmen.

Clause 28 amends section 79 which deals with the interdiction of Police NSmen. This includes both full-time NSmen and Operationally-ready NSmen.

Page: 57

The circumstances in which the Commissioner may interdict a Police NSman are expanded, similar to the changes proposed for interdiction of Police Officers.

Clause 30 amends section 82 to allow a Disciplinary Officer to order a Police NSman to serve a term of detention, in lieu of a fine imposed. If at any time during the period of detention, the NSman pays the fine quantum, he will be released from detention.

Clause 31 amends section 85(2) to allow for the remission of Police NSmen's sentences on grounds, such as good conduct.

Clause 40 amends section 115 by instituting a limitation period of three years for disciplinary action for service offences for all Police NSmen. This means that any disciplinary proceedings against Police NSmen must begin within three years from the date on which the offence was alleged to have been committed or when the alleged offence was reported to the investigating officer, whichever is later.

Civilian officers with specialised skills and training will be appointed to support the Police and law enforcement agencies in their work.

Clause 19 provides certain Police powers to these civilian officers. Sections 65A and 65B relate to forensic specialists, and sections 65C and 65D relate to Civilian Police Assistants.

Clause 19 introduces sections 65A and 65B which allow the Minister to appoint suitably qualified civilian officers as forensic specialists to assist Police Officers or law enforcement officers in their investigations. The provisions detail the powers and responsibilities of such persons.

Forensic specialists will be given powers to secure and search crime scenes, seize evidence, conduct forensic examinations and take statements from individuals. They may exercise their powers once directed by Police Officers or law enforcement officers whom they are to assist. For example, forensic specialists may be directed by Police Officers to respond to a crime scene. Thereafter, the forensic specialists may exercise their powers even if the Police Officer is not present at the crime scene.

Clause 45 makes a related amendment to the Fire Safety Act by providing similar forensic examination powers to fire forensic specialists, who will assist SCDF officers in fire investigations.

Clause 19 introduces sections 65C and 65D to provide for a new class of persons known as Civilian Police Assistants. The provision details the powers of Civilian Police Assistants.

Page: 58

Civilian Police Assistants, who will be known as Community Wardens, will assist Police Officers in maintaining peace and good order. They will attend to cases of high impact noise disputes in the community, where individuals are suspected of making noise to the annoyance or inconvenience of others. Community wardens will be provided with specific powers to record particulars, take statements from the parties involved, advise individuals to abate the noise nuisance, and deliver composition notices on behalf of the Police.

The Community Wardens pilot is one of the initiatives under the Community Disputes Management Framework led by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth will elaborate on this during the Second Reading of the Community Disputes Resolution Bill which follows immediately after this Bill.

Clause 22 amends section 68 to empower the Commissioner to enrol Police ex-NSmen into the Police Force.

Currently, Operationally-ready Police NSmen are unable to continue serving once they reach the statutory age of 40 for junior officers and 50 for senior officers. This amendment will allow Police NSmen to voluntarily serve beyond the statutory age where their services are needed by the Police Force. It allows the Police to continue to draw on the valuable knowledge and experience of these Volunteer Ex-NSmen and add depth to SPF's operational effectiveness. The volunteer Ex-NSmen will have the same powers and protection as Police Officers while they are on duty. They will have the same status, recognition and benefits and be subject to the same disciplinary regime as Police Operationally-ready NSmen. The introduction of voluntary extension of National Service by this Bill aligns the SPF's practices with those of the SAF.

Madam, I will next clarify the powers of Auxiliary Police Officers or APOs.

APOs support the work of the Police. They help the Police maintain law and order and ensure safety and security in Singapore. This is why APOs have certain Police powers, such as those of arrest and the right to bear firearms while they are on duty.

However, APOs do not possess all the powers of Police Officers. In particular, APOs do not have powers of investigation. Furthermore, unlike Police Officers who can exercise their powers at all times, APO powers are limited to the period when they are on duty. This has been the policy intent when the PFA was amended in 2004 to provide for a regulatory framework for the Auxiliary Police Forces.

Clause 32 amends section 86 to make clear that APOs may detain or arrest individuals in the course of assisting the Police in maintaining law and order. Such powers of arrest are

Page: 59

restricted to the period they are on duty and are conscribed to two situations, as is the current practice.

First, APOs would be able to make arrests for arrestable offences committed in their view or presence. Arrestable offences are offences for which a suspect may be arrested without a warrant, for example, shop-lifting.

Second, for arrestable offences not committed in their view or presence, but reported to the APO, they may require the subject to provide his particulars while awaiting the arrival of Police. Should a subject fail to comply, the APO may detain the subject until the arrival of Police. The APO must hand over the person to a Police Officer without delay.

Clause 36 repeals and re-enacts section 108 to streamline the procedures for handling lost and unclaimed property deposited with the Police.

Under the re-enacted section 108, lost property will be treated as unclaimed at the end of 30 days after it is deposited with the Police and the owner does not make an earlier claim or cannot be found after reasonable efforts are made by the SPF. The Commissioner can then either arrange for the property to be disposed of or sold, with the proceeds paid into the Consolidated Fund. Lost cash that remains unclaimed will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

The new section 108(5) will allow the owner to still recover the property, or its cash value, net of costs, if the property had been sold. This new section 108(5) prescribes a limit of one year for the owner to do so.

Current laws in the Penal Code against impersonating a public servant, or uniformed officer, may only be used after the impersonation had taken place. Greater protection is required for Police uniforms and insignia, as the powers which Police Officers have are greater than those of other public servants. These powers include powers of arrest, search and seizure of property.

Clause 42 introduces a new section 120A which will make it an offence for a person to wear or possess any Police uniform, or use any Police insignia to impersonate a Police Officer or to cause members of the public to believe that he is a Police Officer or has certain associations with SPF. The offence carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

The new section 120A will also make it an offence for a person to manufacture, sell or distribute any Police uniform or Police insignia without a licence from the Commissioner. The

Page: 60

offence carries a penalty of a fine not exceeding $10,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

Clause 46 of the Bill makes a consequential amendment to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act or MOA to provide for the compounding of offences under the Act. This supplements prosecution and victim composition for the other MOA offences under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Madam, this Bill improves the operational effectiveness of the Police Force as a whole, strengthens the disciplinary framework for Police Officers and gives powers to the Police to deal with those who abuse Police uniforms and insignia. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

The Singapore Police Force or SPF has kept Singapore safe and secure. We are fortunate to enjoy a home that is a thriving global city without high crime rates and no threats to personal safety. This is due largely to having a capable, efficient and trustworthy Police Force.

This Bill seeks to enhance the operational effectiveness of our Police Force in several ways, including manpower assistance. It will enable the Ministry to equip civilian officers, such as forensic specialists and community wardens, with powers to assist the Police with their duties. While this measure will boost the capacity and reach of the Police Force, I have some concerns that I hope the Minister can address.

Firstly, what will be the extent of the training and evaluation of the Civilian Officers, to ensure that they have the skills and competence to carry out their tasks, and to keep the public, themselves and their fellow officers safe in the line of duty?

Secondly, will they have the same authority as regular Police Officers to engage the public as needed?

Madam, the SPF has had APOs in service for some time. As a result of this Bill, the legal powers of the APOs will be affected. Will this have an impact on their ability to be effective in the front line of police duty? Do APOs have the skills and competencies needed to carry out their duties effectively?

Page: 61

There have been several recent cases of members of the public being abusive, threatening or violent towards our Police Officers. While this behaviour by a small section of the public is of concern, representing an indifference to the uniform and what it represents, it is likely to be a factor within the environment that our SPF officers would have to operate in. Will the civilian officers and the community wardens be given legal protection to the same extent as a regular Police Officer should anything happen to them while they are on duty?

Whether the officer concerned is a civilian specialist, a community warden, an APO or a regular Police Officer, the public needs to recognise the important work that they do, we need to cooperate with the Police's work to keep us all safe and to recognise the good work of these men and women who step forward to serve.

This Bill also proposes that the various SPF logos, insignias and uniforms be protected, and anyone found using the logos, insignias and uniforms without permission may be jailed or fined. It would apply to those distributing or selling these items.

There are retailers who are stuck with stocks of these products and they are unsure of what they should do to avoid committing an offence once this Bill is passed. Is there any way that they can be given time to clear their stock? Could an interim period be given to sell off these stocks, especially apparel, to full-time NSmen, provided that these servicemen provide proof of their identity in the force?

Madam, an effective SPF is crucial to maintaining the Singapore we are proud to call home and I support the Bill.

Madam, I support the Bill. However, I would like to seek some clarifications on clause 19 concerning Forensic Specialists and Civilian Police Assistants.

First, Forensic Specialists. The proposed sections 65A and 65B provide for Forensic Specialists who will be assisting in investigations of crimes. Section 65B sets out their powers which are to secure a crime scene, search the crime scene and any individuals in the vicinity, seize and detain potential evidence, conduct forensic examinations and procedures and take statements from individuals, as directed by the Police or a law enforcement officer.

It is stated in section 65A that the Forensic Specialist is not a Police Officer and could either be a public officer or an individual who is not a public officer at all, that is, from the private sector. Does this mean that the person from the private sector continues in the private sector while being appointed as a Forensic Specialist and is this due to a lack of

Page: 62

expertise in the public sector in certain areas or simply due to insufficient manpower? I would also like to ask what kind of expertise outside the public service does the Ministry envisage tapping on.

Secondly, though these Forensic Specialists are experts in their own domain, yet under section 65A(5), they will be issued with the accoutrements or equipment that may include handcuffs, cable ties, batons and defensive weapons. Is it appropriate to issue such items to forensic specialists? Are these scientists expected to undergo some sort of Police training in order for them to use these items appropriately?

Next, Madam, I move on to Civilian Police Assistants or CPAs. Under section 65C and D, CPAs will assist the Police to attend to noise complaints. The CPA is to take down the particulars of the persons complained against and advise such persons to abate the nuisance. They can also take statements from the complainants, the person complained about and from witnesses. I would like to ask whether the CPAs will all be paid positions or would volunteers also be roped in? And what will be the criteria for the recruitment of CPAs in terms of educational level? For example, would there be a minimum age to ensure that a certain degree of maturity is there to deal with the public?

Again, as with Forensic Specialists, the issue of having CPAs being given Police accoutrements and equipment is provided for under section 65C(5). This time, only batons are specifically mentioned. What sort of training will CPAs undergo to ensure that they do not misuse their powers and weapons?

Minister Teo.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank both Dr Janil and Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking on and supporting the Bill. I will address the issues raised in turn.

Dr Janil asked about the impact on retailers arising from criminalising the unauthorised use, distribution and sale of SPF insignia and uniforms. Madam, the amendments are made to protect the public. Police logos, insignia and uniforms, if misused, may result in serious consequences, given the considerable powers vested with the Police. Police have, in fact, been engaging the retailers since late last year. And the retailers were informed of the plans to criminalise the unauthorised sale and distribution of these items. The retailers said that the early notice has been helpful, as they would stop bringing in new stock and take the next few months to clear existing stock. So, they have had some time. Police will continue to

Page: 63

engage the retailers in the coming months.

Dr Janil and Ms Lim raised questions relating to two groups of civilian officers – Forensic Specialists and Civilian Police Assistants. The appointment of these civilian officers with specialist skills and training would enhance the effectiveness of the Police and law enforcement agencies.

With regard to the need to tap on forensic expertise outside the public sector, while the Police and public sector have sufficient forensic capabilities for Police's day-to-day operations, there may be situations where additional surges in capacity or specialist expertise may be required. These can include a natural disaster or a building collapse. There may also be occasions when external experts are engaged to assist in specialised evidence gathering. Examples may include commercial divers who may be engaged to obtain evidence underwater, or overseas forensic specialists who are trained in conducting sophisticated forensic examinations, in specific types of crimes and circumstances.

Dr Janil and Ms Lim asked about the equipment and training that will be provided to Forensic Specialists. Forensic Specialists will be empowered, equipped and trained to enable them to perform their duties. As they may not always partner a Police Officer when working at a crime scene, defensive equipment like batons will be provided for self-defence. Restraints, like handcuffs, may be issued to Forensic Specialists as they may have to detain individuals who attempt to remove evidence from, or interfere with, the crime scene. So, these are mainly provided for them to be able to carry out their immediate duties.

Forensic Specialists may not necessarily carry such equipment with them every time they are on duty. Police will take a risk-based approach and equip them accordingly, depending on the specific operating environment at the crime scene. Forensic Specialists will be trained and tested on the use of these equipment to ensure their own safety and that of members of the public.

Madam, I will now elaborate on the Community Warden programme. The Community Warden programme was developed as part of the overall Community Dispute Management Framework led by MCCY.

Community Wardens assist the Police to respond to high impact noise nuisance cases in the community. Why have we focused on noise? First of all, because it is currently an offence in extreme cases of noise. And second, because noise actually constitutes a very large proportion of the cases for which Police are called in for, in the community. These Community Wardens will take case notes, coordinate the referral of cases to grassroots

Page: 64

leaders for informal mediation and issue noise abatement advisories.

The Police will pilot the deployment of Community Wardens in two wards, Tampines North and Boon Lay, in the second half of 2015. These Community Wardens will be civilian officers employed by the Police. They are not volunteers, though the provision is there for subsequent phases, if it proves to be useful, to have volunteers. But in the first instance for the pilot, they will not be volunteers.

Ms Lim asked about educational qualifications. I thought we have spent quite a lot of time during this Parliament not talking about educational qualifications and trying to move away from that. Educational qualifications are one factor to be taken into account in selecting Community Wardens. However, more importantly, Community Wardens need to have good people skills as they will be at the frontline dealing with disputing neighbours. The pilot will last six months. Police will then review the effectiveness of the pilot before deciding on longer term plans, together with MCCY.

Dr Janil and Ms Lim asked about the equipment and training that will be provided to Community Wardens. Similar to Forensic Specialists, the Community Wardens will be empowered, equipped and trained to enable them to perform their roles. As Community Wardens will often be deployed alone, defensive equipment like batons will be provided for self-defence. They will also put on body-worn cameras. Community Wardens will be trained in basic law, mediation skills and self-defence. The Community Wardens will be under the command and control of the Police, and their work and safety will be monitored by the respective Police Division Operations Rooms. They will also have communication equipment to call for Police assistance if this is needed.

I was also asked about the rationale behind the amendments related to the APOs' powers of arrest. The policy intent and practice have always been for APOs to have powers of arrest when they are on duty. The proposed amendments do not make any change to these powers, but seek to remove any ambiguity and make clear in law that APOs may detain or arrest individuals in the course of assisting the Police in the maintenance of law and order. APOs may only exercise these powers when they are on duty. This is also the current practice.

The circumstances where the APOs can exercise these powers will be further clarified by a Police Gazette. First, if an arrestable offence is committed in the APO's view, the APO may arrest the individual, hand-cuff the person if necessary, and hand over the person to the Police without delay. For example, if an APO is on duty at the airport and he spots a pickpocket committing an offence, the APO can arrest the pickpocket. In fact, he should. Second, if an APO is made aware of the commission of an arrestable offence but this was not committed in his view, within his sight, the APO may ask the person for his particulars and request the person to wait for Police to arrive. If the person refuses to comply, the APO may

Page: 65

then detain the person until the arrival of the Police.

All APOs must meet a set of stringent selection criteria, including educational qualifications and security screening, before they are considered for employment. They also have to go through and pass a stringent training and testing regime before they can be deployed. APOs are trained and tested in shooting, unarmed tactics and Police procedures as part of their basic training. Similar to Police Officers, APOs are also required to take annual physical fitness and shooting tests. This comprehensive training and testing regime ensures that APOs perform at a high standard and are effective in discharging their duties.

Dr Janil also asked a very important point and I thank him for that. What protections are there for our officers, especially our Forensic Specialists and Civilian Police Assistants? Will they be accorded the same legal protection as Police Officers? The laws that protect Police Officers and public servants also apply to these civilian officers while they are on duty. For instance, if a person assaults a Forensic Specialist or Community Warden to prevent the officer from discharging his duty, the culprit would have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from carrying out his duty under the Penal Code.

These civilian officers are also granted the same immunities as Police Officers under the PFA while they are performing their official duties. They will not be liable for consequences of proper acts performed while discharging their duties.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. This Bill covers a range of amendments to strengthen the operational effectiveness of the Singapore Police Force, prevent abuse of Police uniforms and insignia, and streamline internal processes. Taken together, these amendments enable the Police to be more effective in maintaining law and order in Singapore, and keeping Singapore safe and secure. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, and I urge Members to give their support to the Police Force (Amendment) Bill.

[(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 Teo Chee Hean.] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Page: 66

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mdm Speaker, the Community Disputes Resolution Bill 2015 proposes to introduce a new statutory tort for private disputes between neighbours and to establish specialist Tribunals in the State Courts to facilitate the resolution of such disputes.

Last year, in the Committee of Supply, I spoke about the need to strengthen our approach to managing such disputes. I emphasised individual and community ownership and how everyone has the responsibility to be a considerate neighbour so that residential living will be more pleasant for all. When problems arise, residents should first seek to resolve the matter amicably with their neighbour, failing which, they should try mediation. But I also acknowledged that, for a minority of "deadlocked disputes", adjudication by specialist Tribunals may be necessary.

Let me explain the impetus for this Bill. In a densely populated city-state like Singapore, day-to-day friction between neighbours will sometimes occur. Living in close proximity with our neighbours can heighten sensitivity towards disturbances, like noise, smells and what we perceive to be inconsiderate use of spaces like the common corridor. These tensions could easily sour relations between neighbours, even when there are attempts to talk through the issues.

Mediation can help disputing parties find a mutually acceptable solution. But as Members are aware, there are sometimes limitations to mediation. Showing up for mediation is only the first step to resolving the issue. While more than 70% of the cases seen by the Community Mediation Centre or CMC are resolved, the remaining ones are not settled. More importantly, some parties refuse to avail themselves to mediation in the first place. This is evident from the no-show rate at the CMC every year, which is about 60%, or about 900 out of 1,500 cases.

Mdm Speaker, this is the context we have today which has led to this Bill. Madam, I will now take the House through the primary objectives and key features of the Bill.

Page: 67

In devising the Bill, we have kept in mind three factors.

First, the legal recourse introduced in the Bill is intended to be the avenue of last resort to deal with intractable cases; second, conciliation through mediation will continue to play a critical role in the process of the Tribunals; third, robust enforcement mechanisms must be put in place to deal with recalcitrant anti-social persons.

So, these are the considerations which underpin our effort to put in place effective measures to long-running disputes between neighbours.

There are two main aspects of the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill deals with the new statutory tort of interference with a person's enjoyment or use of his place of residence; and Part 3 of the Bill deals with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, including their establishment, jurisdiction, proceedings and appeals.

And there are also consequential amendments to be made to the Community Mediation Centres Act and the Small Claims Tribunals Act.

Let me first explain the new statutory tort provided for in this Bill. The Bill introduces a new statutory basis of claim that a person may bring against his neighbour for unreasonable interference with his enjoyment or use of his place of residence. A person can bring this claim in any Court or ask for a community dispute order from the Court. I will refer to the person suffering the unreasonable interference as the "victim", and the neighbour causing the interference as the "respondent".

So, this new tort and the community dispute order give victims the legal tools to deal with unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of their own residence. This new tort is required because existing laws do not adequately cover the wide range of disputes that can arise. With this new tort, the natural question is: what types of situations can be considered as unreasonable interference with a person's enjoyment or use of a person's place of residence?

The Bill provides that the tort can involve any act or omission by the respondent, including acts or omissions causing excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration, littering, obstruction, surveillance and trespassing on a neighbour's place of residence.

There are examples set out in clause 4(2) of the Bill. They are merely for illustration; they are not exhaustive. Nevertheless, they represent a broad range of common issues faced by residents, based on actual cases which we have seen from the frontline agencies as well

Page: 68

as the feedback that we have gathered from public consultation on the Bill.

Members may ask what could be considered unreasonable. The Courts will have the discretion to determine this, based on the facts of each case. For example, it is unrealistic for a person to expect that his neighbour's children will never make any noise. But, if the children play drums late into the night persistently, then this might be considered unreasonable interference.

Madam, for the Bill to be effective, it has to offer practical and effective resolution to such disputes. After all, the parties involved would have to live close together as neighbours even after the mediation or whatever the process they go through.

So, clause 5 of the Bill sets out the types of orders that a Court may make as part of a community dispute order if it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so. The Court can order: first, the respondent to pay the victim damages; second, an injunction, to stop the respondent from doing something; third, specific performance, for the respondent to do something; fourth, an apology from the respondent to the victim; and, fifth, any other order necessary to give effect to the Court's orders.

The Court's consideration of whether it would be "just and equitable" allows the Court to consider all the facts of the case before determining whether it would be appropriate to make a community dispute order, and what type of order should be made. In particular, the Court may consider the impact of the order on the respondent, the persons living with him, and any other person who can reasonably be expected to be affected by the order. The Court may also consider the ordinary instances of daily living that can be expected to be tolerated by reasonable persons living in Singapore. So, this provides a safety valve against abuse of the community dispute order by, perhaps, over-sensitive individuals.

At this juncture, Madam, perhaps it would be useful to provide a case study for illustration. Let us say there are two neighbours living side by side and, for simplicity, I will call them Mr X and Mr Y. Let us say Mr X has issues with his neighbour Mr Y because of a persistent noise emitting from Mr Y's air-conditioner at night. Being a good neighbour, Mr X first approached Mr Y to mitigate the problem. Unfortunately, this did not work. So, Mr X called the authorities to investigate. When they went to the home, they did not detect the problem, but still it continued at night. The sound continues. And with the best of intentions, Mr X resorted to mediation at the CMC. Even after mediation, after promises to stay quiet, this same problem continued. So, as the noise issue continued, the relationship with Mr Y got worse. This may sound like a problem that many Members would have faced when you talk to your residents. Mr X now knows that there is this new statutory recourse. What can he do? Understandably, he would like to seek a community dispute order from Mr Y for Mr Y to stop switching on his air-conditioner at night. But, perhaps unknown to Mr X, Mr Y has

Page: 69

a young child who cries non-stop unless he sleeps in an air-conditioned environment.

So, based on the facts of the case and the elements of the new tort, the Court may decide that the order sought by Mr X is not realistic. A more just and equitable order could be, for instance, for Mr Y to service his air-conditioner to ensure that it no longer causes persistent noise and disturbance.

Ideally, all would be well if Mr Y complies with the community dispute order. Realistically, however, there will be some inconsiderate, recalcitrant persons who will not be deterred by a Court order. In fact, the need for effective enforcement was a key issue raised during public consultation on the Bill. Members of the public who responded to our feedback were concerned about whether Court orders would be ineffective or difficult to enforce.

We agree that a strong deterrent is necessary to ensure that the community dispute orders have bite. At the same time, we also recognise that bringing the full weight of the law upon wrongdoers for one-off breaches may be too harsh. So, we really worked hard at trying to get the balance right. What the Bill provides for is a two-strike approach to enforcement. The consequences are calibrated and will become more severe with each additional breach.

To illustrate, going back to the earlier example, what if Mr Y fails to comply with the community dispute order without reasonable excuse for the first time? Mr X can apply to Court, with the necessary evidence, for a special direction for Mr Y to comply with the order within a specified time. This is what we call the "first strike".

Along with imposing a special direction on the offender, the Court may order any person other than the offender to enter into a compliance bond and impose any conditions or make such directions as part of the bond. The idea is that since the person has already breached the community dispute order once, it may be necessary to involve those around him to ensure that he does not do it again. This recognises that community disputes are sometimes not just a matter between two persons, but require the efforts of those around them to resolve the matter.

This Bill gives the Courts a broad discretion to decide who should be required to enter into the bond, and whether any conditions or directions should be imposed, as this would depend very much on the facts of each case. They could include parents and guardians, particularly for young offenders.

For example, the parents of a young person causing a nuisance may be ordered to keep away a child's musical instrument if it is the source of loud noise at night causing interference with a neighbour's rest. It could also include requiring caregivers to ensure that those whose

Page: 70

mental illnesses may have contributed to the anti-social behaviour receive appropriate treatment. The Courts will give these persons an opportunity to be heard first, so that they can voice their concerns and objections.

Another group who could be ordered to enter into a compliance bond are landlords. For example, if Mr Y is a tenant, the Court may order his landlord to enter into a compliance bond of a specified sum, and impose any conditions or make directions as part of the bond. The landlord has to ensure that Mr Y complies with the special direction, otherwise his bond may be forfeited. For a case like this, the landlord could take steps to resolve the issue, such as by ensuring that Mr Y services the air-conditioner regularly.

The Bill also provides that if a landlord is ordered to enter into a bond, the landlord has the option to terminate the tenancy agreement with the wrongdoer by giving at least 14 days' written notice. This will not extinguish any rights which the landlord may have against the tenant. At the same time, this will incentivise tenants to be considerate.

Now, assuming Mr Y remains recalcitrant and fails to comply even with the special direction of the Court. So, he has already breached once and he remains stubborn and recalcitrant, he fails to comply with the special direction of the Court. This is what we call a "second strike" because the offender would have failed to comply with a Court order two times in a row.

A breach of the special direction without reasonable excuse is an offence, and, if found guilty, the offender will be liable to be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months or both. We believe that, for most wrongdoers, the real possibility of criminal sanctions will be sufficiently deterrent to ensure compliance.

Mdm Speaker, there may be situations where a very strong enforcement response is necessary. When someone commits a "second strike" breach of the special direction, in addition to criminal penalties, the victim can also apply to Court for an order to exclude the wrongdoer from his place of residence. And it will be an offence for the wrongdoer to breach this exclusion order.

This is a very serious consequence for those who have repeatedly ignored Court orders, and will not be invoked lightly. The Court will consider whether it is "just and equitable" to make the exclusion order. This will include considering the impact of the order on those living with the offender and those who could be reasonably affected by the order. It is similar to the Personal Protection Order or PPO regime, where a domestic exclusion order can be granted in cases involving family violence to protect family members.

Page: 71

To sum up, the two-strike enforcement mechanism is carefully designed to give the offender opportunities to stop his anti-social behaviour, so that residents can enjoy peaceful and harmonious living in their community, failing which, the Bill provides a range of calibrated enforcement options to prevent or deter recalcitrant offenders from continuing to interfere with their neighbour's enjoyment or use of his home.

Madam, I will now turn to the next set of provisions in the Bill, namely those relating to the establishment of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals, which are specialised Courts hearing cases involving only the new statutory tort I just spoke about.

The Tribunals will be part of the State Courts, as full-fledged Courts presided over by District Judges. But the Tribunals have several distinguishing features.

First, the Tribunals will be governed by special and simplified procedures to help laypersons navigate the Court process. Given that parties will usually represent themselves without involving lawyers, proceedings will be less formal and will be more judge-led. Proceedings in these Tribunals will also be in private, by default.

Second, the costs of proceedings in the Tribunals will be lower compared to normal civil proceedings, as processes will be streamlined and no lawyers will be involved, unless the parties agree to have legal representation and a Tribunal allows this to happen.

Third, to ensure that no one will be denied access to justice, a third party may represent a case on behalf of a party who is a minor, elderly, illiterate, or mentally or physically unwell.

Fourth, considering the simplified procedures, we do not expect the Tribunals to be a forum for complicated claims where large sums of money are involved or where there are other issues at stake. The Tribunals will have jurisdiction to hear claims of up to $20,000, which is aligned with the prescribed limit at the Small Claims Tribunals. Larger claims, of course, can still be brought in other Courts, where more formal processes will apply.

Lastly, the Tribunals will not hear claims which are brought more than two years after the cause of action in the statutory tort has accrued. This also aligns with the position in the Small Claims Tribunals, and provides sufficient time for parties to attempt earlier conciliatory efforts – including mediation – before resorting to the Tribunals.

Mediation will play a critical role in the Tribunals' process. We envisage that the Tribunals will generally only hear cases if mediation has already been attempted. So parties are encouraged to mediate their disputes even before filing their cases in the Tribunals. If one party has tried to mediate but the other has persistently refused to participate, then the

Page: 72

parties may be ordered to attend mandatory mediation.

Mediation is important because solutions which have been reached by mutual agreement will help preserve good neighbourly relations. And even so, we recognise that some people will remain uncooperative. These people should not frustrate attempts at dispute resolution indefinitely, as is sometimes the case now. Where mediation fails, the Tribunals will proceed to hear the case and make the orders as may be necessary and just.

Mdm Speaker, I have highlighted the key features of the Tribunals and provided a walk-through of how a case could possibly find closure at the Tribunals. If the Bill is passed, time will be needed to work out the specialised rules for the Tribunals and to set up the infrastructure for the Tribunals to operate under the auspices of the State Courts. And we expect that the Tribunals will be able to start accepting cases in the second half of this year.

To sum up, this Bill provides legal recourse for community disputes and emphasises the priority of a conciliatory approach to resolving disputes, such as by providing for the Tribunals to have power to order mediation. Considering that individual ownership and community ownership is a key principle of this Framework, this Bill has also incorporated other elements, such as a compliance bond mechanism, to bring home the point that persons related to the wrongdoer should not cede responsibility to the state when it comes to correcting the behaviour of anti-social persons.

To reiterate our approach, we would like, first and foremost, to encourage and promote good neighbourliness. When differences arise, neighbours should try to resolve issues between themselves in the first instance and seek help from their grassroots leaders, through informal mediation or the CMC if external help is needed to formally mediate a solution.

To enhance ground response, Deputy Prime Minister Teo just announced just now that the Police will also be piloting the Community Wardens to assist the police in managing severe cases of noise nuisance.

And finally, the Tribunals will be an avenue of last resort to adjudicate long-standing, difficult disputes between neighbours where other efforts at resolution have failed. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Page: 73

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Over a short 50 years, Singaporeans and definitely our pioneer generation citizens have seen the dramatic transformation of our housing landscape from kampongs to urban living. Today, some 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats.

Our vertical community was designed with the common areas to promote social interaction. These common areas include void decks and common corridors. Whilst the intent of such spaces was to facilitate social interaction and cohesion among neighbours, it can also be a source of conflicts for others.

Our living spaces and homes are planned with good designs for aesthetics and efficiency. However, these aspects only concern the physical infrastructure. It takes hands to build a house, but only hearts can build a home. We can have the best architects and urban planners to build our communities but it is the people who live in them that give it the spirit – the kampong spirit.

As we live in close quarters to one another, sharing the same walls, ceilings and floors, it is inevitable that we are affected, sometime or another, by our neighbours' actions or their inaction. In the name of "Kampong Spirit", I am glad that in this Bill, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal has the power, under section 30, to compel parties in dispute to first try to resolve their differences amicably through mediation, before the Tribunal commences the formal process of adjudicating the dispute.

I am hopeful that the Tribunal will be generous in exercising its power under section 30, to refer cases for mediation. This compulsive power of the Tribunal gives it an important edge over other forms of community driven mediation for neighbourly disputes.

We have all too often heard of cases where one party in a dispute is more than willing to give mediation a fair chance, but all efforts to go for mediation are hampered by the stubbornness of the opposing party, who resists all attempts to bring the matter for mediation. This is even when grassroots leaders step in to try to encourage mediation or some form of resolution.

We, as a society, must not lose sight of the importance of first embracing socially responsible behaviour, adopt a give and take attitude, mutual consideration and tolerance. Neighbours must first try to negotiate and compromise when they encounter disagreements or conflicts.

Even with the existence of the Tribunal, should a conflict arise, neighbours should first try and resolve them amicably. We need to have community builders like grassroots

Page: 74

organisations, VWOs and residents themselves to promote good neighbourliness.

Mediation should continue to be the first port of call for residents to resolve disputes. We can and should do more to promote formal and informal community mediation. What I see lacking is the accessibility of trained community mediators with the right skills and temperament to handle difficult conflicts between neighbours.

More community leaders and volunteers can be roped in and trained to be mediators and be deployed on the ground to help mitigate conflicts, and prevent them from worsening. Mediation should be the bedrock of community dispute resolution so as to preserve community harmony and cohesion and making efficient use of public resources for conflict resolution. We should guard against the development of a climate of litigation, where people resort to the court to get things done, or to have trigger-happy and vindictive residents abusing the Tribunal to punish a neighbour.

In the spirit of this Bill, neighbours should use the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal as a measure of last resort, when all attempts for resolution fail. I am given to understand that the move for a Tribunal was partly prompted by the lack of success in resolving long outstanding disputes at the Community Mediation Centre. This is due to the high rate of no shows. The current no-show rate is 60% as attendance is not compulsory. As I have previously commented, the power of compulsion given to the Tribunal to ensure parties appear before the CMC for mediation should go a long way towards improving this statistic.

Madam, I would like to seek clarification on section 4 subsection 4 of the Bill, which provides that a neighbour is an individual who lawfully resides in a place of residence but does not include an individual who occupies the same place of residence as the respondent.

Madam, in the course of my Meet-the-People Sessions, I had encountered warring tenants living in the same flat, particularly singles sharing a flat under the Joint Singles Scheme. In many ways, they are effectively neighbours, even though they are living under the same address.

In one such instance, a tenant had to avoid his co-tenant's bullying antics, by spending each night at a 24-hour fast food restaurant before returning back home to his flat in the morning to sleep. A solution is needed to provide relief to the bullied. More can be done to allow such disputes to be mediated and when all else fails, the recalcitrant tenants can be brought before the Tribunal.

Page: 75

Such tenants, too, deserve protection from behaviour which causes unreasonable interference to their enjoyment or use their place of residence that the co-tenant resides in. Madam, may I ask if the Minister can consider including, in the definition of "neighbour", such co-tenants in flats. This would provide a measure of protection and an avenue of dispute resolution for such aggrieved tenants.

I gladly note that much effort has been put into the Bill to ensure equality of arms for parties appearing before the Tribunal. Section 29 mandates that all parties must present their own case, and only in narrow situations are another person possibly allowed to represent a party. Even more importantly, parties are not allowed to be represented by lawyers, unless all parties to the dispute agree and the Tribunal gives permission. In my view, this ensures that even if one party in the dispute has deep pockets or strong financial muscle, it would be difficult for him or her to over-awe the other side, or win the case through more skilful or persuasive presentation of a case by a trained professional.

Similarly, by providing, in section 23, that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence as to what it can take into account, such a step makes it much easier for parties to present their cases in person.

This is especially so if the parties have little or no understanding of the Courts, or are not familiar with how evidence should be presented in Court. Even more importantly, this section implicitly recognises the fact that Court proceedings, regardless of surroundings, are intimidating to the regular man on the street, and having more relaxed rules of procedures go a long way towards making things more comfortable for lay litigants.

I have but one concern about how these safeguards for lay litigants may be circumvented by parties who are bent on having a lawyer represent them, even in a neighbourly dispute. Such parties may exploit the limited jurisdiction given to the Tribunal in section 4, and the wide powers for transfer of cases from the Tribunal to the other Courts, but do not provide for corresponding transfer of cases back to the Tribunal.

Section 20 provides that when a claim or counterclaim is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, a party to the proceedings may have the matter transferred to a normal Court, where all the rules of procedure and legal representation would apply.

Given the restrictions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, I would not be surprised if parties may be able to transfer the case out of the Tribunal by lodging a counter-claim which the Tribunal cannot deal with.

Page: 76

Two examples come to mind. A defendant may claim that he was injured by unsafe conditions in the plaintiff's house, when the defendant had trespassed into the property, and thereby claim, whether with basis or not, for occupier's liability. Or two, a defendant who is a trespasser, may claim that he was injured by the plaintiff when the latter tried to evict him from the property, and lay a counterclaim for battery. In either case, the Tribunal appears to be unable to deal with the dispute and it has to be transferred to a normal Court.

In these examples I have cited, the defendant may be the one wishing to have a lawyer represent him, and uses such tactics to move the case out of the Tribunal, and into the regular Court system, where the plaintiff may have inequality of arms. This is especially so if the financial strength of the parties are unequal. After the case has been moved to the regular Courts, the defendant may then abandon his counterclaim, and the plaintiff does not appear to have any way to transfer the case back to the Tribunal.

In this regard, I would ask the Minister to consider including provisions for the corresponding transfer of cases from the normal Court system to the Tribunal, if and when the facts warrant it.

I would also ask the Minister to consider inserting, in section 18, the possibility for a case which had been commenced in the normal Court to be transferred to the Tribunal, if the facts or claim fit within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

This would help avoid situations where a party to a neighbourly dispute, who desires to engage a lawyer to represent him, rushes to commence a case in the normal Courts, before his neighbour can initiate a case before the Tribunal.

In summation, Mdm Speaker, that a law to ensure community harmony is only being tabled now is nothing short of amazing and speaks volumes about the community harmony that we have quietly enjoyed as a society over the years. We need to guard this harmony jealously.

While the setting up of a Tribunal and the provisions in this Bill are designed to provide more teeth to settle complex and recalcitrant disputes, with the Tribunal given powers to impose judgement and sanctions, the Tribunal can also order both parties to go for mediation. For a quarrel amongst neighbours to be brought before a state-sanctioned arbiter is not an ideal solution, regardless the outcome, as the relationship between neighbours thereafter may have been irreparably damaged. However, it does create the possibility of a state-sanctioned solution, should all other methods fail.

Page: 77

Mdm Speaker, if I may also urge the Minister to consider speeding up more CMCs and up-sizing the training of a pool of community mediators. They must be more accessible to residents, in order to help mediate community disputes before they escalate to the Tribunal as a last resort. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill

Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, mediation must involve parties coming forward willingly to participate and eventually strive for a desired outcome or resolution. Over time, as a society, we seem to be having more cases that need mediation and the case mix also appears to be of a more complex nature. Thus, referrals from mediations may increase. However, the no-show rate currently by one or more of the disputing parties is still very high. It is at about 60% today. This means that there are still many unhappy parties with unresolved issues.

Compulsory mediation will be useful for long-drawn recalcitrant cases with fixated mindsets over certain issues which, at times, surprisingly may be very petty in the eyes of others. The longer these cases drag on, the more entrenched they become and the chance of a successful resolution may get more remote. Education, advisories, counselling – all these do not seem to yield the much desired outcome in this area of dispute.

With the passing of this Bill to make attending compulsory community mediation sessions, I have the following queries.

Firstly, will the workload increase and what will be the projected figures for CMC? What is the average waiting time and how many cases can be handled every week, every month? Thirdly, will CMC be able to cope with the expected increase for mediations? Fourth, will CMC be getting more volunteer mediators and, if so, through what channels, bearing in mind that time is needed for training them as well? Fifth, what is the current workload of the mediators on average, and how many volunteer mediators do we have in the pool and how senior and what is the level of experience in conducting mediations independently? Will there be a higher level of training for the mediators to enhance their success rate with the passing of this Bill? After all, the quality, capability and experience of our mediators play a very important role as well.

Similarly, we need to prepare the framework and SOP for the working of the Tribunal and make this very clear as well. How many cases are pending currently at CMC? When the Bill kicks in, what will happen to these cases? Will they be automatically channelled towards compulsory mediation or will they be considered null and void and a fresh application will

Page: 78