Hansard, Wednesday, 4 September 2019

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the income criterion for citizens seeking pro-bono legal services from the Legal Aid Bureau; (b) what are the avenues by which average-income families can access legal services at an affordable cost especially if they do not qualify for the pro-bono legal services; and (c) whether the Ministry can communicate these avenues of access to all citizens.

Mr Deputy Speaker, an applicant must be a Citizen or a Permanent Resident of Singapore to qualify for civil legal aid. The qualifying criteria for legal aid are two-fold. First, the applicant must satisfy the means test. Second, the applicant must show that he or she has a good reason to bring or defend the case under the law, otherwise known as the merits test.

To pass the current means test, an applicant’s disposable income cannot be more than S$10,000 per year and his disposal capital cannot be more than S$10,000.

Last November, Parliament passed the Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill. MinLaw intends to adopt the Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) and the Annual Value of the applicant’s residence, savings and investments, as the new criteria to replace disposable income and disposable capital. The changes will simplify the means test, align the criteria with those under other social support schemes and shorten the application process time. There will be no material impact on the number of households eligible for legal aid provided by the Legal Aid Bureau. The Bill also gives us greater flexibility to help applicants with extenuating circumstances. So, there is an element of discretion that is built into the amendment Bill, as the Member might recall from the debate. We target to announce the detailed means criteria and effect the changes by the end of this year.

Applicants who fail the means test may seek help from the Law Society Pro Bono Services, the Community Justice Centre and more than 50 other legal clinics run by various community, religious and voluntary welfare organisations.

The Ministry provides applicants who do not qualify for the means test, as well as members of the public who enquire about avenues of legal assistance, with a list of legal clinics and online resources which the applicants may use to find a suitable lawyer.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response and for being always very helpful when we write in for such support. My question is this: the current access to legal aid seems to be very limited for many of our residents, especially for those who are not wealthy. Those who are very low-income have better access. Those who are wealthy probably do not need so much of this aid. But for those who are in the average income band, this is not so.

I want to know if MinLaw would be able to provide even more details on how it will assist families with such needs, especially in areas like the Letter of Administration that is required when somebody passes away. Things like Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and so forth. Is there a way, as technology advances, that we can offer more DIY help so that "mortals" like us can actually help them sign up for some of the required legal documentation?

I thank the Member for the comments. On the first point, certainly, with the advent of the amendments and the criteria that we will use, we expect that the process will be easier to use, simplified. And we believe also that with the discretion portion, that there will be a more judicious use of that discretion to apply to needy cases. So, there is a bit more latitude.

We expect, on our estimate, that with the new amendments, looking at the PCHI and the other criterion, that approximately 25% of all households in Singapore would qualify under that criteria. So, there is a fair breadth of coverage with the new means test in place.

On the Member's second point, I agree. And I think we previously said in this House that matters such as estate administration, especially for smaller estates where the value is not significant, sometimes, the cost of having to apply for the Letter of Administration outweighs the benefits. So, as I have said previously in this House, we are looking at ways of simplifying estate management and administration, including making the process a lot more straightforward. I am not sure if it can be DIY, but it will be a lot more straightforward so that it will be easier to manage, easier to navigate, and one does not have to incur significant resources to spend on getting the Letter of Administration.

We are also looking at how to help families upstream in terms of the estate planning, upfront, before we even get to the stage. I have also previously announced that we have a Moments of Life portal. The beta version of that will be launched at the end of this year. There will be a lot more assistance and it is a lot more intuitive use of the portal to help families to navigate this process and also to make planning ahead of the End of Life moment.

I just want to clarify – does the assistance rendered by the Legal Aid Bureau also extend to various miscellaneous administrative fees? For example, with certain court fees, does the Legal Aid Bureau extend financial aid to cover those fees as well? And if not, what avenues can the applicants go to, to get aid for those fees?

The Legal Aid Bureau looks at each case on its own merits. As I mentioned earlier, the criteria are set out there. We look at it in terms of valuing legal services, deciding what is the right kind of lawyer or legal assistance that is needed and this may on occasion also extend to the fees that are necessary. The bigger chunk of the resourcing that is needed, which Legal Aid Bureau helps with, would be the cost of the legal service as legal representation itself.

2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of workers in the online food delivery industry who are foreigners; (b) how do the foreigners qualify to work in this industry; and (c) whether the Ministry will take steps to ensure that these jobs in the delivery services are restricted to only Singaporeans.

Deputy Speaker, it is illegal for foreigners to work as self-employed delivery riders for food delivery applications such as Deliveroo, Food Panda and Grab Food.

MOM has taken action against social visit pass holders working illegally as self-employed food delivery riders. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, they can be fined a maximum of $20,000, or subjected to imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Anyone with information on such illegal workers should report this to MOM.

I would like to ask the Minister of State, during the last three years, how many get caught? The second question is, my residents told me that quite often, they see persons on Malaysia-registered motorcycles delivering food. So, it looks like we need to step up enforcement. Because they are competing with our Singaporeans who are earning pocket money and those are our jobs. We do not need them to come here to moonlight or do things that are illegal. So, I would like to know how many have been caught and if residents see them delivering food, what can the public do? How can they report? And what actions will the Ministry take?

Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. In April this year, we caught two Malaysians who were working for the food delivery business. Both are being investigated, not prosecuted yet. So, I cannot give too much details of the cases. At the same time, regarding the Member's concerns, we need more people to report. If her residents come to know of such cases, please ask them to report to MOM. We will take action.

As I mentioned earlier, those who are caught under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will face a $20,000 fine, or an imprisonment of two years. If the person is also abetting – as a Singaporean, allowing them to use your accounts – you can also be prosecuted and be fined a maximum of $20,000 as well as be subject to imprisonment of up to two years or both. Both offences carry the same terms.

Perhaps the Minister of State can take this opportunity to advertise the telephone number to call.

I think the Member can come to our website to find the number to call.

3 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider making it mandatory for all bicycles and PMDs to be fitted with laser lights which project a symbol of a bicycle or PMD on to the path five metres ahead, to warn pedestrians that there is a cyclist or PMD approaching them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we require all bicycles and personal mobility devices (PMDs) that are used at night to display a white light in front and a red light at the back. If the rider of the PMD is unable to fit such lights onto the device, the requisite lights would have to be worn by the person. The purpose is to increase visibility of the rider to other path users.

We will study the practicality and effectiveness of the suggestion of using laser lights, bearing in mind the costs and safety implications.

Sir, I do understand the cost implications. But I am just wondering whether we could start this with the delivery drivers. Because at night, the bulk of the PMDs on our paths are the delivery drivers when there is an increase in the number of food orders. A lot of the issues are with the delivery drivers. So, maybe, we can start with them, where the food delivery companies will bear some of the cost of installing these laser lights. I understand the white light as well, but that can only be seen when you are facing the PMD. What I am suggesting is the laser light, which means that even if the PMD is behind you, you can actually see your path, in front of you, that there is a PMD about to approach.

I actually experienced this in London, where it was very useful. All the time, I could see that there was going to be a bicycle that was approaching me and I can then take whatever necessary action to make sure that I do not get hit.

I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng for the suggestion to extend that requirement, firstly, to a particular group of PMD users. Just to share with Mr Louis Ng, we did look at the initiatives that were implemented in London. We understand that the key benefit of the laser projection light is to aid on road cyclists, in their interactions with other motor vehicles that may have blind spots. In the context of Singapore, there are key considerations that we have to look into.

First, there really has not been any conclusive study about laser projection lights' visibility and effectiveness on shared paths and footpaths. Bear in mind that what was done in London was actually on roads shared with motor vehicles.

Secondly, because Singapore is generally quite brightly lit, whether the laser projection light will be sufficiently visible and provide that kind of effectiveness to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, is also something that we have to study carefully.

Thirdly, the glare from the laser beam. As we know, the laser beam is a Class 3A or 3R laser. There is a certain element of risk when it is shone into the eye. This could potentially harm path users, especially children who may be at that particular eye level with the laser projection.

We will definitely look at the suggestion and see whether it is indeed effective and worth implementing.

4 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what proportion of Government documents that are more than 25 years old and hence are part of the public archives are contained in the publicly accessible NAS Archives Online; and (b) what proportion of Government documents declassified each year for the past five years have become part of the publicly accessible NAS Archives Online.

Currently, the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) has about 2 million Government records in its custody that are more than 25 years old and are deemed as public archives. Not all Government records can be released for open access, especially those that relate to our national defence, foreign relations and internal security, as well as documents which may be bound by confidentiality obligations or personal privacy reasons.

At present, the metadata of 160,000 records are publicly accessible on the NAS Archives Online portal. This number will grow as we work with Government agencies to progressively declassify Government records. All declassified records are publicly searchable on the Online portal.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, when records that are declassified – and here, I am also referring to the answer that the Senior Minister of State gave previously to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Kok Heng Leun and that was also helpful – and released into the NAS, I understand the agencies would have already gone through a process to make sure that they can be released into the NAS, as opposed to there being sensitive information that would prohibit that. So, when the record is already on the NAS, I would like to ask if the Government can consider making it available to everyone on the NAS Online. I understand right now that there are still some conditions or restrictions. People have to write in, people have to seek approval. That approval is sometimes conditionally given on the basis of whether they are using it for research, on the basis of whether they are publishing it or just using it for personal reference. Can documents that have already been declassified – presumably, those sensitivities are not there or there has been redaction – can those be made more freely available to everyone who would like to view it on the NAS Online?

My second supplementary question relates to a time frame. I believe that after 25 years, these documents are released and they go through a process of review for whether they can be released. At the point of 25 years, there could be certain personal sensitivities, confidentiality obligations but is there a process to review documents further down the line? Because those personal sensitivities may not be there, say 50 years, down the line. Is there a process to review documents which have been held back from the NAS Online, but perhaps, if there were reviewed again further down the line, they could be released, say, in 50 years' time?

My last supplementary question is on the definition of researcher. I think some of the access is given on the basis of whether you are doing research, whether you are a researcher. I would like to ask what is the operating definition of that? Does one have to be a faculty member in a relevant discipline at a university or can one be, for example, a private citizen, who has an interest in the matter who wishes to write a book on the matter? Can one be an undergraduate or a graduate student? What is the operating definition of "researcher" that is used to give access in cases where access is given only for research purposes?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First, to the question about – if I understand it correctly – he is referring to whether more declassified documents can be made viewable to everyone on the online portal. In fact, on the online portal, if you do a search, you will find that there are quite a number of documents there that are already viewable in full and they can also be seen in PDF form. Our intention is to make more of these available.

To the Member's question on time frame, if I understand him correctly, what he means is that: for even older documents, will there be a review process to look at those that have not at first been deemed suitable for public access and then to re-look at them again. I should explain to the Member that our priority is to declassify – I have shared the numbers just now. So, there is quite a lot of work to go through for the current number of records that are 25 years and older. I think, we will take his suggestion into consideration but really, the priority is to declassify as many documents as we can and to encourage our agencies to do so and to help us in doing that. In fact, we have in recent years, sent 750 officers from different Government agencies for basic declassification training in the hope that this will help more officers understand the importance of declassification, and to do it well and to do it quicker.

In terms of definition of researchers, this is based on our common understanding of what they do. This is also explained in our NLB Act.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Just one supplementary question. In relation to my first supplementary question, actually my question was on those documents that have been declassified and released already on to the NAS Online. I think there are 160,000 of 2 million. For those documents that have already been declassified and already on the NAS Online platform, can they be made available more freely? Because, from what I understand, when you go online to this platform, you can view documents and if you click on it, you will not actually get the document. In some cases, you have to ask for written permission and in some cases, conditional permission is given. Not all the documents are actually made freely available on the NAS Online – there is 160,000 or so - without conditions to everyone who just wants to access it online. So, can that be considered?

Sir, to answer the Member, we hope to make as many documents and records publicly viewable and also searchable as possible. So, all this is on-going work. Also, to add on to my reply to his earlier question, Members of the public can also make requests for these information and our National Archives staff will also facilitate.

5 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures are in place to detect, minimise and combat bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, at educational institutions; (b) whether these measures differ by the level of the educational institution, from Secondary schools through post-Secondary institutions; and (c) whether teachers, staff and administrators receive training to handle such incidents sensitively.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, MOE takes a serious view on bullying. We have zero tolerance for bullying in any form and every student has a right to feel safe and secure in all our schools and post-Secondary educational institutions (PSEIs). While students generally get along well with one another, there are incidents of bullying in our schools and PSEIs from time to time. When such cases are reported, they are promptly investigated and followed up with counselling support for victims and appropriate disciplinary action against the perpetrators.

It is also very important for parents to reinforce the same values and expectations on their children's behaviour. Therefore, schools also work closely with parents to help the perpetrators take responsibility for their actions and restore relationships with whom they have hurt. We have professional counsellors and also trained teachers, academic mentors and peer helpers, trained to look out for students in distress and be proactive in attending to and also addressing all hurtful behaviour, including acts directed against students due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

In their school curriculum, and especially through Character and Citizenship Education and subjects such as Social Studies, students are also taught the importance of respect and empathy for others. Students are also taught to speak up against and report bullying to school authorities. These education efforts are continued in the PSEIs which create and raise anti-bullying awareness with modules such as teaching lifeskills, lunchtime talks and also student outreach initiatives.

Instilling good values in our students is a shared responsibility between parents, schools and the community. It is therefore imperative that we work in partnership to develop sound values and good character in our young.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. The reason why I am asking the question is that, the NGO Sayoni has documented bullying against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youths in the schools. This bullying often takes the form of humiliation, punishments when youths do not conform to gender stereotypes. Such youths are isolated at an early age because of their sexual orientation and stigmatised by society. What I am worried about is that teachers and staff, sometimes, inadvertently, reinforce the bullying by requiring youths to conform to stereotypes or by disclosing their stigmatised identity to the parents or the peers.

I just have two supplementary questions. First, are there plan to develop any initiatives to combat gender stereotypes and roles in both our educational curriculum as well as in anti-bullying measures? Second, are there plans to develop anti-bullying guidelines or programmes including sensitivity training for staff and teachers that specifically addresses this type of sexual orientation or gender role identity kind of bullying.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for his views and questions. I want to assure the Member that, no bullying of any form is tolerated at any time in our schools and PSEIs. Bullying is a school offence and it comes with very serious consequences for the perpetrators.

Allow me to talk about what happens when the counsellors work with students with sexuality-related issues. When working with students with sexuality-related issues, our school counsellors understand the sensitivity and they adopt an objective approach to ensure the overall best interest of the students. At the heart of everything, it is the interest of the students.

We know, sometimes, they do not feel that they are ready to share their inclination with their parents as yet. So, the counsellors provide a safe environment – the word here is a "safe environment" – for the students to discuss their experiences, to receive support regarding social and emotional issues. Maybe they are at an age where they are processing it themselves, they are not quite clear; and also issues related to communications with parents and lack of understanding from peers.

The counsellors support the students by equipping them with problem solving skills, emotional regulation skills and also normalising help-seeking – that it is all right to seek help. School counsellors also facilitate school and – where relevant and when the timing is right – family support for the students, which will help to prevent the students from being ostracised in a social context or even prevent further mental health issues from emerging. When these parents are eventually engaged, the school counsellors also facilitate discussions that enhance the parents' understanding of the students' concern and issues. The counsellors, where relevant, will also share suggestions to help the parents to talk to and also better support their children.

So, I want to assure the Member that MOE, our schools and PSEIs are committed to very high standards of discipline and we have put in place systems and a series of measures to create a safe, secure and conducive learning environment for our students. Teachers are given very extensive training. For example, teachers are trained to handle bullying. Teachers are also equipped with the strategies to address actions that are mean or hurtful. They are also trained to manage behaviour such as those targeting gender identity or sexual orientation. The teachers are also taught in NIE, how to foster a positive classroom culture without imposing their own prejudice. Such training is actually core in all the teachers' preparation programme in NIE.

Furthermore, the teachers are also supported in student management matters by senior school staff and also very experienced educators. For example, the Year Head will facilitate holistic development and also encourage peer support amongst students. In the PSEIs and schools, we have now percolated the Peer Support Group because sometimes, it takes the best friend or close friend to approach the teacher and share observations that their friend is suffering, not behaving in a normal way and may need some help. In so doing, the teacher will make sure they protect the identity of the student who came forward to share the information.

MOE also provides schools and teachers with resources and information on how to instil good character and discipline. So, I want to assure the Member that MOE will continue to look at how we can improve our systems and measures to make sure that we provide a safe, secure and conducive learning environment for all our students.

6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures are being taken to nurture local start-ups and talent in electronic game development and E-sports; and (b) what results have been associated with these efforts to date.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, video games and e-sports are rapidly growing industries. They generated over US$140 billion globally in 2018, of which almost half was from the Asia Pacific region. In Singapore, the development and distribution of video games contributed S$1.95 billion in 2017. This includes activities by foreign companies with operations in Singapore, such as Ubisoft and Bandai Namco, as well as local firms such as Sea and GoGame. On the community engagement front, events such as e-sports tournaments have also been organised in the heartlands to bring our youths together. An example is the "Yio Game On" event, that was organised at Yio Chu Kang Community Club in May this year, which was well received.

Government agencies have been supporting local start-ups and companies in this space. Sea, formerly known as Garena, is one of Singapore's unicorns and first made its mark through its platform for video games. The games industry has also catalysed the growth of other companies in the eco-system, such as Razer and Secretlab, which are globally prominent lifestyle brands amongst gamers today.

We are building on such successes through several approaches. First, we are helping our companies to grow. Launched in 2017, the Startup SG initiative provides local companies a range of financial and non-financial support such as mentorship and start-up capital support through the Startup SG Founder programme. In addition, companies can leverage sector-specific initiatives such as the IMDA's PIXEL innovation space, which offers incubation and co-working spaces for digital start-ups so they can develop their projects with the right technical and business support.

Second, we are deepening capabilities. We are building a robust talent pipeline for the video games industry. Local game schools such as DigiPen Institute and Nanyang Polytechnic offer courses for aspiring game designers and artists to develop their skills. IMDA also works with EDB to attract internationally-acclaimed studios, providing a platform for our entrepreneurs to gain valuable experience before starting their own studios.

Third, we are building a vibrant and enabling eco-system. For example, game engine company Unity Technologies has been supporting gaming startups at PIXEL with mentorship, workshops, and technical support since 2018. This ecosystem has supported companies like BattleBrew Productions, founded by a DigiPen graduate, and whose first mobile game IP won the Visitor’s Choice Award at the GameStart Asia 2018 convention.

Finally, we are building international mindshare. During our ASEAN Chairmanship last year, the first ASEAN e-sports and music festival, Hyperplay, was held in Singapore. The event was well-attended by over 8,000 youths of different backgrounds and featured the first League of Legends ASEAN tournament. Singapore will also host the first Asian edition of Gamescom in 2020. Gamescom is the world’s largest video games industry event and business platform. The Singapore edition will also let our video games companies showcase their capabilities and connect with prospective investors, collaborators and buyers. STB will continue to be on the look-out for other major events which can be hosted in Singapore, to further augment our position as a video games and e-sports hub in the region.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions in relation to electronic game development and e-sports.

Firstly, I understand that there are graduate courses, diploma courses such as DigiPen, as the Minister mentioned. What avenues and platforms are available for Singaporeans to get post-graduate training? Because in order to develop sophisticated and successful games, post-graduate training in the necessary skills should be available. I know some big multinational companies do provide training. I believe that, in general, this training is provided to their own employees and it is not open-sourced and available to everyone. So, what are the avenues that are available for post-graduate training?

Secondly, does IMDA or other Government agencies still provide start-up grants to electronic game development start-ups or e-sports start-ups in Singapore? If so, what has been the trend in the grants given and what has been the success associated with that?

Thirdly and lastly, is support given to game developers to market their own games directly to customers independently of a publisher? I ask this because a game development company can go through a publisher in order to market their game, and the publisher then takes a large part of the margin. That is value that otherwise the game development company could capture. Is support given to game development companies and, if necessary, grants? Are they given without requiring them to be allied to a publisher, to be endorsed by a publisher, to work with the publisher, but instead just encourage them to actually market their games directly to customers through platforms like Steam or App Store, or so on, and, therefore, capture a lot more value and become more financially self-sustaining?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the three questions in more generic terms of how we spend money and when we spend money.

First, on the issue of post-graduate training. Whether we start any post-graduate course, whether for e-sports or any other thing, depends on the demand for the course and curriculum. In today's world, the mental model of just going for post-graduate courses is a bit passé. In many of these areas that are fast evolving, the best training is not in a post-graduate course. The best training and the best exposure is actually with the leading edge companies.

So, while post-graduate courses are important, we will continue to monitor whether we need to start a post-graduate course and have the critical mass to do so, and if there is a market demand to do so. At this point in time, it is still early days. But what we should really do is to make sure that our aspiring e-sports gamers, designers or developers have the best opportunities to work with the best around the world. So, getting them into companies to have the necessary exposure is important.

The Member's second and third questions are related to how should the Government spend grants and who do we give the grants to, and should we interfere in the commercial arrangements between developers and some of these gaming houses?

In general, I would state this: we are using public money, we are not in the business of choosing winners and losers, and that is not the way we develop our industries. Any entrepreneur who wants to start up a new business can obviously get various forms of help from the Government, but it will not be the appropriate role for the Government to pick and say that this is better done than another thing. In fact, actually the best test of where to apply the funds will certainly be the markets. A good idea will always have opportunities with the venture capitalists and so forth.

Whenever we spend Government money, which is actually the public's money, then we have to be very careful and ask ourselves this question: where is the market failure that we are trying to address? The Government agencies and the taxpayers' money should not be used to displace the market mechanism and the general workings of the market.

So, anybody, be it in this particular sector or any other sector, if they would like to get help from the economic agencies, they can always contact Enterprise Singapore, they can always look at the various schemes that the Government has to help our companies to grow.

As to your third question, that is best left to the commercial arrangements. It is not possible, and neither do I think is right, for the Government to intervene in the commercial arrangements between different companies and different games developers.

I understand where the Member is coming from but I think there is a market mechanism that can work and I will be very careful to intervene, to disrupt or displace the market mechanism.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Minister was sharing about how we are developing the e-sports market, it is very exciting, but I cannot help but also worry about the announcement that WHO made last year that has classified gaming disorder as a disease. I am just wondering, just like the way we were developing the casinos, what are we doing here in terms of combating gaming disorders and addiction, as we alongside develop this e-sports area?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with any new technology, any new games, as Ms Anthea Ong said, it comes with associated dangers and there will always be a certain, albeit small proportion who might get addicted to such things.

So, this is where MSF together with the National Addictions Management Service or what we call NAMS, is working closely to monitor this issue. It is not exactly the same as the e-sports that we are talking about. We are talking about another part of the spectrum, which, of course, we are concerned about if there are such things. There are help channels available. We are also working with the schools to make sure that people who get involved in electronic games are properly guided and they maintain a certain sense of discipline, so that they do not get into trouble at all.

Like many of these addictions, the best thing for us is to invest our resources in prevention rather than just post-issue management.

7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government's procurement process has criteria to encourage businesses to undertake environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices and, if so, what are they; (b) whether there is a national framework for businesses to track and measure the performance of businesses in ESG practices and, if not, whether there is consideration for one; and (c) what are the tax and non-tax incentives and schemes for businesses to undertake ESG practices such as inclusive hiring of persons with special needs, rental of premises to conduct social businesses, capital investment improving ESG practices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's public procurement processes seek to encourage environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices amongst businesses. For example, Government agencies practise green procurement by purchasing ICT equipment and electrical appliances that meet energy efficiency standards, and printing paper that are environmentally friendly; they are certified with the Singapore Green Label. In addition, events and functions organised by public sector agencies are to be held in venues with at least a Green Mark Certified rating, unless there are specific reasons why this is not possible.

All new public sector buildings with more than 5,000 sqm of air-conditioned floor area are required to attain Green Mark Platinum standards. The criteria for the awarding of construction contracts for these building and other infrastructure projects includes the use of productive construction methods which are typically also more sustainable.

Besides procurement, there are various national frameworks in place for ESG practices in the private sector. Large industrial energy consumers are required to track and report their energy usage, including greenhouse gas emissions annually. Similarly, industrial and business water consumers need to track and report their water usage annually and submit Water Efficiency Management Plans.

MTI's Business Excellence programme, through the Singapore Quality Award (SQA) and the Singapore Quality Class (SQC) requires awarded organisations to have well-defined corporate governance systems to ensure business continuity and risk management, as well as accountability and transparency that are consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements. They are also required to have well-defined policies and programmes to contribute to the sustainable development of the community and environment which they operate in. So, ESG criteria are embedded within the SQA and SQC criteria. Enterprise Singapore also actively promotes ISO standards related to ESG practices for the industry to adopt.

Since 2016, the SGX has implemented sustainability reporting for all publicly-listed companies on a "comply or explain" basis, and it has a number of sustainability indices to guide listed companies. We welcome other non-listed companies to consider and model their corporate practices on this guidance. In addition, there are various industry-led standards and certifications related to ESG practices, where companies are required to consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community and the environment.

Finally, we also have various government incentives and schemes to encourage ESG practices in companies, which the Member has asked about. Let me cite several examples.

MAS and MEWR have been working on green financing initiatives to encourage the Financial Institutions to adopt more ESG considerations in their lending and investment decisions.

URA provides additional bonus GFA when commercial building owners set aside space for community and sports use.

The Special Employment Credit supports inclusive hiring of Persons with Disabilities, through offsetting their wages.

New and existing social enterprises benefit from Government grants when starting up or expanding their operations.

The Business and IPC Partnership Scheme encourages employee volunteerism through the provision of 250% tax deduction on qualifying expenditure for businesses.

So, these are just examples of the various incentive programmes that we have in place. The Government will continue to review these schemes and encourage firms and employees to make full use of them to strengthen their ESG practices.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [3 September 2019], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development]. (proc text)]

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare my interest as a member of the Media Literacy Council. I stand in staunch support of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill. I especially welcome the provisions to further protect the identity of the child.

As it stands, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) restricts the publication and broadcast of any information relating to Court proceedings involving children and young people aged 16 and below that reveals their names, images, addresses, schools or other particulars. With the change, this protection will be extended to children aged 17 and 18.

In so doing, we can, therefore, insulate our young people a little longer from media coverage of their offences and our efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate them will be far more effective.

How so? Research from the US shows that media coverage of juvenile offences that fails to protect the identities of young offenders can have various detrimental consequences.

First, the public shaming of young offenders can heighten tensions within their families and fracture the very unit of society that can play a pivotal role in these youths’ rehabilitation.

Second, media coverage can lead these youths to be ostracised by their peers and teachers, thus crippling community-based rehabilitation measures.

Third, negative media coverage can also lend offenders a semblance of celebrity status. In an era where it seems to be cool to go viral whatever the reason, media coverage of juvenile offences may encourage the tendency to re-offend and, possibly, influence other youths to commit similar crimes to attain notoriety and peer affirmation.

Indeed, my own research on the social media practices of juvenile offenders in Singapore reveals an interest among some youths to project a cool and tough image online by boasting of their misdemeanours on social media. One boy in my study had even shared a newspaper report of his crime on his social media accounts until his social worker cautioned him that it was very foolish to do so.

Finally, public records of these offences severely compromise these youths’ future chances for education and employment. Indeed, given the replicability and durability of online images and reports, it is extremely difficult to “rewrite” one’s personal history.

Extending identity protection to the age of 18 is, therefore, a timely and enlightened move, given that our public identities assume an oversized importance in our digitally-connected society as we concluded in our debate on the Protection from Online Harassment Act in May. With two additional years of confidentiality for young offenders, we can derive considerable social and developmental returns in our Internet-saturated society.

Indeed, given our society’s growing technologisation, I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the digital rights of children. At first blush, you may find it laughable to speak about digital rights for young people in Singapore since, wherever we turn, it seems like every toddler, teen and young adult seems to be attached to a digital device of their own. Access is clearly not the issue here. In fact, a Google survey found that Singaporean children get their first Internet-connected device at the age of eight, below the global average of 10, making them among the youngest in the world to go online.

What is of urgent import is that children be accorded rights to the necessary protections in a rapidly and ferociously digitalising world. By that, I refer to how young people are increasingly the target of commercial exploitation in the online world. Principally, our society needs to ensure that children enjoy rights to privacy and not have their data harvested and mined for profit. The same Google survey found that teachers here are more worried than parents about cyber bullying, while parents are most concerned about their children’s privacy and security online.

Children’s privacy and security online are, indeed, a matter that requires closer attention. Take the example of the Internet of Toys. In January 2018, American electronic toy company VTech was fined $650,000 by the US Federal Trade Commission for failing to protect the privacy of children using its gadgets. Children use the company's Kids Connect app in conjunction with these electronic toys. Through this app, VTech collected a vast trove of information, including children’s names, contact information, photographs and audio files, without seeking consent from parents or even informing them. A security breach revealed that the company had failed to secure their young users’ data, allowing hackers untrammelled access.

As children are using digital devices at ever younger ages, we need to hold companies to task for their data collection processes, especially those pertaining to children, by introducing requirements for greater care and transparency in their practices. Companies must also be urged to present their terms and conditions in a far more child-friendly and accessible manner so that young people know what they are signing up for when they use online services.

Even for companies that do have adequate data protection measures, we must consider how such data is used to develop algorithms to create or serve up more content targeted at children. Gaming, online shopping, content sharing and social media platforms profit significantly from the digital native market. However, the companies behind them often fail to take into account the responsibilities they have towards these young users and simply find more ways to engage them, for longer periods and with ever more alluring content that resonates with their interests. Young people then find themselves irresistibility drawn to these platforms, often using their digital devices excessively. The burden is then shifted to schools and parents who must persuade or even coerce young people to better manage their use of digital media.

In such a climate, we must exhort technology companies to do more to create a safe and edifying digital environment for young people. In February this year, Instagram head Adam Mosseri met with the British Health Secretary Matt Hancock to discuss new measures the company would introduce to handle content promoting self-harm and suicide. This meeting arose in part from the suicide of 14-year-old British teenager Molly Russell. Her family believed she took her own life because her Instagram account was replete with material about depression, self-harm and suicide. Instagram has since pledged to better identify content relating to self-harm and hide it behind "sensitivity screens". Closer to home, a survey by international research agency YouGov found that a third of young adults here have self-harmed, with one in 10 doing so frequently. So, young Singaporeans' exposure to such content and their effects should also be more closely investigated.

When our children go online, they are, indeed, vulnerable to risks – risks of commercial exploitation, exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying and online sexual abuse, and we must do our best to shield them from these dangers. Thankfully, Singapore has not experienced such high profile incidents relating to the breach of children’s digital privacy or adverse exposure to online harms.

As avid users of technology however, young people in Singapore are susceptible to such risks, even as we embrace the distinct benefits they can gain from the digital world. Another key tranche to young people’s digital rights must, therefore, be ensuring access to digital literacy education to empower them with the skills to minimise digital risks and maximise gains. In this regard, Singapore has done well through efforts by the MOE, MCI, IMDA, NLB and the Media Literacy Council. I urge technology companies to do even more to support these public education efforts and consider the duty of care they owe to their young users.

Mr Speaker, our children are born into a heavily digitalised environment. Many have a digital footprint even before they have sprung from their mothers’ wombs, with their ultrasound images being shared on social media. That is but the beginning of their digital journey.

In light of this prevailing reality, we must take concerted steps towards ensuring that children's digital rights are respected, supported and championed. In 2014, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child held a Day of General Discussion on digital media and children’s rights. It concluded that: "States should adopt a national coordinating framework with a clear mandate and sufficient authority to coordinate all activities related to children’s rights and digital media and ICTs at cross-sectoral, national, regional and local levels and facilitate international cooperation."

Given our whole-of-Government approach to tackling our national priorities, I believe that protecting and advancing children’s digital rights with a national coordinating framework are a task Singapore should actively undertake. Indeed, given our extensive experience with digitalisation, Singapore can also be a key advocate of this movement on the world stage. Such efforts will be in the best interests of the healthy and positive development of children in Singapore and beyond.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I stand in support of this Bill, which seeks to provide more extensive protection and better and fairer provisions for young persons up to the age of 18 years, in their best interests.

First, I would like to speak on clause 4 which amends section 4 of the Act. I support replacing "emotional injury" with "emotional harm". "Injury" tends to suggest that the abuse is rather tangible or explicit and is visible, while "harm" is more all-encompassing and suggests that while it may not necessarily be visible, the damage the abuse has caused is much more far-reaching and may manifest itself in ways other than that which is visible.

There are cases where parents or guardians, in their fervour to bring out the best in their children, end up subjecting the child to emotional abuse or acts of degradation that erode the child’s feeling of self-worth, self-esteem or overall well-being.

Some parents see their scoldings and nagging or even acts of punishment as necessary acts of discipline for their children. Where and how do we draw the line? And when do the authorities step in? Do we intervene when a member of public complains? Or do we wait until a significant adult in the child’s life, such as a school teacher or an adult relative, takes notice and informs the authorities? Or do we need to wait until the child who is a victim of emotional or mental abuse speaks up or seeks help?

I seek clarification from the Ministry as to where and how do we draw the line with regard to a child or young person being in need of care or protection, as well as when do the authorities step in?

I am a parent, too, and I do understand the expectations some parents have on their children, in wanting them to realise their full potential and do well in school and later on in life. But we should not condone authoritarian or even authoritative parenting that revolves around scoldings or punishments or persistent nagging or acts of degradation, which are, essentially, abuse towards the child. As a parent, love should always be the basis of our care and discipline towards our children. We can certainly discipline our children and be firm with them in order to instil good values, but this should be done on the basis of love and care, and not on the basis of hate or wanting to inflict fear or pain.

Some children do suffer as a result of their parents' style of parenting. Some suffer in silence while some start to develop a facade of indifference, while some of these emotionally or physically abused children would, in turn, inflict pain on others who are in a position more vulnerable than they are, such as a younger sibling or a classmate or schoolmate.

Hence, I support the amendments to section 4 to expand and set out the circumstances in which a child or young person may be regarded as being subject to emotional or psychological abuse and would need care or protection beyond that which can be given by their biological parents or legal guardians. With these amendments, I hope more protection and the necessary care can be extended to the children or young persons who have otherwise been subject to abuse or harm by those who should have been protecting them.

Next, I would like to speak on the fostering of young persons. I am supportive of the formation of the Committee on Fostering. I believe this will help provide a more objective and fairer platform for the review of foster care to be provided to young persons who have to be removed from the care of their biological parents, or even foster parents.

Within the last one year, I have had two families living within my constituency who came to seek help regarding their foster care arrangements. One of them, a couple with grandchildren, had been foster parents to a young girl since she was only a few weeks old. The gentleman of this couple who are foster parents – let us call him Mr C – had alleged that MSF had acted in a biased and unfair manner towards him and his wife, and had, what he claimed, listened to and sided unfairly with the girl's biological father. As a result, the girl was taken away from their foster care to be reunited with her biological father.

As expected, Mr C was furious. He claimed that MSF had taken decisions on the matter "with no regard to the child's well-being". I had asked MSF to review the appeal made by Mr C to return the girl to his and his wife’s foster care. MSF had reviewed the case extensively and I learnt that it was Mr C's wife who had decided to discontinue care as a foster parent to the child in the first place.

Another couple, Mr S and his wife, have been foster parents with MSF for about nine years. They have cared for three children since then, with two of them still living in their care. A third child, the youngest of the three, was under their care for about six years, until he was removed from their care recently.

Mr S and his wife were distraught and claimed that MSF had taken the boy from their care with little notice and without considering their inputs and views on the matter. They also claimed that the boy did not want to return to his biological mother who had recently been released from prison. Again, as expected, Mr S and his wife blamed MSF and claimed MSF had acted unfairly and did not consider the best interests of the child.

In both instances, I can fully understand the feelings of the foster parents. They had given their time, care and love towards the child they had fostered and cared for over several years. And, inevitably, a strong emotional bond would have been formed between the foster parents and the child over those years. To let go of the child once their foster care is no longer needed is not an easy thing to do. At the same time, I must state my support for the work that MSF does. As a Ministry, it has to look at each and every foster care case with objectivity and fairness, and in the best interest of the child in question.

It is unfortunate that when a foster care case does not turn out the way that the foster parents or even biological parents expect, it is somehow expedient to blame the MSF and the MSF officers working on the case for it. This is very unfortunate and unfair, indeed.

Hence, I feel that the insertion of clause 23 in the Bill to include a new Part IIA on Fostering will be useful in delineating the rules and provisions for fostering, particularly in setting up a Committee on Fostering made up of individuals appointed by the Minister who may be able to provide inputs and opinions from a seemingly more neutral and balance perspective.

If possible, I would propose that the Minister include relevant professionals who would be able to provide significant inputs on the well-being of the child. These relevant professionals could be medical psychiatrists, clinical or child psychologists, school counsellors and educational professionals, among others.

I would also propose that this Committee consider for each foster case that is being contested or disputed, to interview the foster parents, the child or young person in question and biological parents to better understand their motivation for wanting a particular outcome pertaining to the foster case – even while they consider the report and recommendations made by MSF. Eventually, these different inputs of important information can be put up as recommendations to the court dealing with the particular foster case if need be.

Likewise, I would propose that where an order is made by a Youth Court, this Committee on Fostering is able to make recommendations to the Director-General of Social Welfare in deciding on any category 1, 2 or 3 matters relating to the child or young person, including the identification of a fit person to which the care of the child or young person is assigned.

Here, I would like to state my support for childcare leave, extended childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave to be extended to foster parents who have opened up their hearts and homes to these vulnerable children and young persons in need of love and care. Our foster parents also need the parental-related leave to care for their foster children.

One aspect of this Bill that I would like to seek clarifications on is clause 48 with the introduction of section 68A. I am somewhat concerned with the provision to allow the person-in-charge of any home for children and young persons, or any other authorised persons in that home, to use a mechanical restraint on a person detained in the home, called a detainee, in order to prevent the detainee from escaping from custody, or to prevent the detainee from inflicting any bodily injury on themselves or on others. What forms of "mechanical restraints" are allowed to be used? To what extent are these mechanical restraints used? And what if the mechanical restraints used inflict even more injury on the detainee than that it was first meant to prevent in the first place?

Hence, while I understand the need for restraints for violent or hostile behaviour, how does the Ministry decide, on a balance of probabilities and outcomes, when and what forms of mechanical restraints are to be used? At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The challenges and issues faced by our community should not be taken lightly or are easily resolved. Various factors can give rise to certain challenges or issues that affect a family, and its solutions can also include various factors and types of assistance. There is still room to further strengthen these solutions.

Even so, we should acknowledge that various initiatives have been implemented by the Government to overcome the community’s challenges or issues, such as the establishment of M3 (M to the power of 3) which involves the combination of efforts, manpower and also funds from MUIS, MENDAKI and MESRA, which comprise grassroots organisations and efforts by volunteers. M3 was established to specifically help families within our Malay/Muslim community and this also involves a collaboration with MSF. This is a good initiative that has an encouraging and positive effect in strengthening our families, enhancing our skills and job opportunities, improving access to quality and affordable education, as well as rolling out initiatives that focus on our children’s well-being. We must continue to support the Government’s objectives and initiatives like the M3.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the care of children and young persons who are removed from the care of their biological parents or from their foster parents, will always be a sensitive and emotive matter. And where emotions run high, rationality and judgement may be clouded. I do not envy the work of MSF in dealing with such sensitivities and I hope the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act will strengthen the provisions to be made, and for fairness and objectivity to prevail, in ensuring the best interest of each child or young person in question. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought earlier, I support this Bill.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to applaud MSF for the thorough and thoughtful consultation process in drafting the Bill. MSF consulted over 300 stakeholders in the children and youth services sector and considered over 40 written responses during the public consultation.

Sir, I support the move towards a more rehabilitative regime by raising the maximum age of a "young person" from below 16 years to below 18 years. This is a step in the right direction.

I also applaud the extension of childcare leave to foster parents and urge parents to step forward to serve as foster parents. While our VWOs do their best in providing children who come through their doors with the best care possible, there is no substitute for a stable family environment.

Foster parents give children the stability, individual care and personal affection that they need and I hope more people will step forward to become foster parents.

Sir, I would like to cover two areas in my speech. I will focus on our children homes, which have been designated as a "place of safety" and our boys' home and girls' home. Unfortunately, I have some residents who have placed in a "place of safety", some of whom are only in Primary school.

My resident Allie, not her real name, has spent the last three years in a "place of safety". I have visited her there and I have to be honest that it was heartbreaking seeing her there. When I visited, a little boy was scaling the walls and the barb wires, trying to escape from the "place of safety". The VWO was doing their absolute best in very difficult circumstances.

I used take Allie out and she was a bubbly little girl, always running around and always with a big heart. I used to take her out with my daughter and I remember seeing her giving my daughter her black toy car. They say those with the least give the most and this is so true. Allie lived in a rental flat and did not have much but she gave a lot, not just material gifts. But she is someone who is so caring. I remember my daughter coughing once and almost instinctively, Allie would pat my daughter's back to make her feel better.

A few months after Allie was sent to a "place of safety", the Allie I knew vanished and was replaced with a quiet reserved girl who barely spoke a word. This was despite all the hard work the social workers and case manager had put in to help her. She changed completely and I could see why. She was taken away from her house, her siblings, her family and even her school. Everything she knew of and was used to, was removed from her.

I know we do this to protect her, to help her but we need to start questioning whether this works. Again, let me put on record that I commend the VWOs for doing a very admirable job of caring for the children with limited resources. At the same time, I believe we can and we have to do more for children like Allie and her siblings who just need a nurturing environment to grow and blossom.

In the spirit of protecting and rehabilitating our vulnerable children, I have the following questions and recommendations on helping VWOs who run "places of safety".

Sir, I believe one of the problems of the "places of safety" is the group setting with too few staff members. We place all the children together, all of whom are angry, sad, lost, frustrated, disappointed and I do not think it helps when they are placed together with insufficient support.

I understand that staff and resource constraints are a perpetual problem that VWOs have to grapple with. I had the same problem too when running my VWO. But in the best interest of our children, we should ensure that our VWOs are adequately staffed and have the resources they need to do their work. Can the Minister share what the current staff to children ratio is at the "place of safety"? What was it in the past? Has it improved over the years? Can the Minister share if MSF has studied the optimum staff to children ratio? Are there plans to further reduce the current ratio to ensure that each child has sufficient individualised care and attention? Does MSF have plans to provide more funding to VWOs running a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie and her two siblings were housed in "places of safety". They were sent there on the same day but were separated as the "place of safety" Allie was sent to, did not have a place for her two brothers.

While I understand the logistical constraints, it brings about acute stress for a child to be separated from siblings, especially when they have already lost their parents. Children in crisis are at their most vulnerable. They feel fear, confusion, abandonment, worry and sadness. It is essential that they receive quick support and care, in stable conditions they can feel comfortable in. Keeping Allie and her siblings together is the least we could do to create stability under such turbulent circumstances. This will help the VWOs running our "places of safety" as well.

In determining custody, and care and control of the children in divorce cases, the Court has stated that siblings should not be separated as far as possible. The Court considers this to be a factor in considering the welfare of the children. Will the Minister consider adopting the same policy position that siblings should not be separated where possible when making decisions about where children go when sent to a "place of safety"?

Next, Allie was also removed from her school as they wanted to send her to a school nearer to the "place of safety". Again, I understand the logistical constraints but I hope that we can allow a child to remain in his or her school after they have been sent to a "place of safety". I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for Allie to go to a new Primary school, try to make new friends, maybe even answer questions by her classmates on why she is there and I hope not but maybe even be laughed at.

I hope that MSF will consider this recommendation positively.

Next, inter-generational patterns of incarceration is a recognised phenomenon. Breaking this vicious cycle has been included as a goal in many efforts to support inmates and ex-offenders in Singapore. For example, addressing the inter-generational offending cycle is a key objective of Family Resource Centres, which support inmates' families.

This pattern of incarceration can start at an early age. Whilst children homes are intended to be safe places for the protection of vulnerable children, the roots of inter-generational incarceration may also begin here. We will not know until we have studied this problem. Can the Ministry share if it collects data on how many children who enter a "place of safety" later enter the boys' or girls' homes, and later on even prisons?

Sir, I started my speech with Allie's story and I wish to end this part of the speech with her story too. In putting Allie in a "place of safety", we took her away from her home, her siblings and everything that she was used to. We put her in a dormitory and expect her to be rehabilitated and helped in the process. Do we know whether doing this will lead to better outcomes for the children? I have seen how Allie has changed from her time at the "place of safety" and it breaks my heart. And I know this has not worked for her brother. While in a "place of safety", he was caught housebreaking and was sent to a boys' home.

I urge the Ministry to track and study the effectiveness of our "place of safety". We need data to measure the effectiveness of our programmes and ensure that our policies work and work well. We need to provide more help to the VWOs who run our "places of safety".

Lastly, the new section 68A allows persons-in-charge of homes for children and young persons to use mechanical restraints such as handcuffs. I understand this is intended to prevent children in the homes from escaping custody or inflicting bodily injury on themselves. This seems incompatible with our shift to a more rehabilitative approach. I understand that there might be circumstances where there is a genuine need to physically restrain the children. Our children's homes are already staffed by auxiliary officers. They are in a better position to step in, if necessary. There should be a clear distinction between the roles of the staff and auxiliary officers. Staff of the children's homes should be nurturing figures who are there to protect, not restraint the children. Imagine the psychology effect on children to see the staff using handcuffs on them and their friends. Can we maintain this separation by increasing the number of auxiliary officers if necessary so that the MSF staff do not have to take on this role?

Sir, it is often said that our children are our hope for the future. Children who are put in "places of safety" because of circumstances beyond their control have the same potential as any other child, and are no less deserving of care and attention. Let us make sure that we can give them the safe environment to break free of their unfortunate circumstances and to grow into their full potential. Let us make sure we help the children and also improve support and resources provided to the VWOs running our "places of safety".

Notwithstanding the above queries and recommendations, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. First off, on behalf of foster parents, I would like to thank MSF for allowing foster parents to benefit from childcare leave. This is something that many in the VWO space, including myself, have asked for. Second, over the years, we are aware of good progress that MSF and our VWOs have made to resource our home that serves our vulnerable children and youth.

As such, I would like MSF to comment on the current state of affairs. Can MSF share on the progress made? On average, how many of our children are currently based in the home-based care, such as Government and VWO-based orphanage, as well as and boys' and girls' homes? Have we seen a decrease over the years?

Most of us will agree that family-based care is a better model compared to home-based care for child and youth, as long as the foster or adopted parents have the means and the care and concern for them. Therefore, can MSF share whether we have been able to put more of these children and youth into family-based care situations such as through adopted and foster parents?

Thirdly, can MSF share on how more we can encourage more people to move forward as foster parents? I understand that there is a certain number of Singaporeans who would like to adopt children. Is there room for us to encourage them to consider fostering instead?

Next, is there a way for us to streamline the adoption process so as to reduce the cost of adoption? For the needy, there is of course the free legal aid. But adoption cost goes into thousands of dollars and this is a big cost to the sandwich class who are trying to adopt. And on the ground, I see some cases of grandparents from the sandwich class who want to adopt their grandchildren because the parents are not able or available to provide care. And the legal cost takes precious resources away from the grandparents.

Lastly, under CYPA, we have expanded on the definition of "emotional harm" to include "danger to oneself or to other persons", and "severely withdrawn, anxious or depressed". I welcome this move. In this context, there is one particular group of children and youth I would like to take about – those with extreme online addiction that has handicapped their ability to cope with life.

On the ground, I have seen a few of these cases who suffered such situations. Recently, I had a distressed parent coming in regarding this person's son who has suffered severe online addiction issues. The Secondary school youth has stopped going to school, has gone beyond parental control and has started exhibiting violent behaviour. The youth's school and parents were not able to persuade this youth to go back to school. Yet because this youth has not committed a crime, has not yet done something that is deemed as traditionally high risk, the mandatory intervention mechanism could not kick in. In this case, for this resident what I did was we brought in a volunteer who was a game developer and we tried to go in and persuade this person that if he likes to game, maybe he can a game developer one day and from then on we try to encourage him to go back to school. We are making some progress but I would like to see whether there is a systematic way where we can deal with this emerging issue.

Therefore, I hope that MSF and the compulsory education unit within MOE can work together to explore whether, in extreme and only extreme circumstances, can we put the children and our youth into mandatory therapy to deal with this online addiction? In all likelihood, the online addiction may be rooted or compounded by other behaviours, emotional or even mental issues. But a mandatory therapy will give us a chance to diagnose the situation and do the necessary course correction. One may argue that this may not constitute as severe self-harm in the traditional sense. But in this day and age, if a child or young person is not able even complete his basic education due to online addiction, in my view, I believe his or her future will be seriously compromised.

In conclusion, based on the feedback that I hear from various VWOs, this Bill is progressive and balanced. I would also like to thank MSF and the officers from the various VWOs for their tireless work to care for our vulnerable children and youth. With that, I support the Bill.

Sir, I rise in support of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill or the CYPA Bill. This is an important Bill because it sets the framework to better provide for the welfare, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons, or CYPs, at risk in our midst.

I draw my suggestions from my co-labourers and volunteers, and my experience serving the CYPs in my constituency, district and in the special needs sector

I have three areas to the Ministry to consider further strengthening in order to reap better outcomes. First, to strengthen the coordination and integration of care for these children; second, to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons; and third, to strengthen the foster parents scheme.

First, strengthening the coordination and integration of care. Despite the immense many efforts by volunteers and agency staff, I found the outcomes for these children at risk and young persons at risk are often still less than ideal. It is definitely not for lack of heart and hands because I know how much each volunteer and staff care and put in. These partners on the ground have told me the following needs that, if better addressed, would surely improve the life outcomes for the young people they care for.

These needs are: one, the need for a safe environment where children feel secure; where they can learn and even rest without a constant heightened feeling of fear, anxiety and disruption. Such an environment can be found in both mainstream and special schools; but much depends on the kindness of the adults in charge. In the mainstream First Toa Payoh Primary School, there is a programme called Home @ School to provide such a safe environment for after-school. In the special school Pathlight where I volunteer, the OHANA after-school programme offers such a safe setting.

The second need is for the need for a constant and familiar adult supervision which can come in the form of teachers, youth workers, social workers or foster parents. One of the key challenges to track and address, for instance, is the turnover of such adult supervisors in the lives of these children and young persons causing further disruptions in their lives.

The third is the need for The need for better and constant access to needed community and healthcare including mental health care services.

And, fourthly, and and most important of all, the need for an integrated 'turnkey' solution properly coordinated by an appointed lead case manager – a solution integrator of sorts that all relevant parties helping the children and these young persons, the relevant parties, can turn to.

In many instances, the different help agencies and staff hardly have time to meet physically nor update regularly and communicate with each other until something happens in the life of these young persons. Each of them working within their own scope of duty and doing their very best – the youth worker taking care of the youth services for the young; the drug counsellor taking care of a parent; the social service officers delivering financial assistance. Without an appointed solution integrator to deliver more effective case management, I fear that the lives of the children and young persons will experience spiral downwards.

One young boy I know has already turned to smoking and dating at Primary 6 after losing both parents. Another young girl I know whose mother is in remand for drug offences became worse off when there was no effective hand-shake between her counsellors as she transited from Primary to Secondary school. One student with special needs I know very well is facing transition challenges and he is preparing to leave school after special school. As his foster mother ages and is having cancer, there is not enough confidence amongst all the parties working with him that there is a good transition and handshake. Hence, I feel there is a strong need to invest more resources to MSF to strengthen the coordination and integration of care.

The second need is this: to strengthen the voice of the children and young persons. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have mixed feelings as I go through the Bill. On one hand, it is a comprehensive one covering many needed gaps. On the other hand, I cannot help but feel that in our efforts to protect the child, we are seeing things a lot through the lenses of the adult and not enough through the eyes of the children and young persons we are trying to help.

How do we incorporate the voice of these young people whose lives we attempt to shape for the better? In matters that impact them such as the change of school; admission into children’s homes or foster homes; in identifying their adult supervisors, are there measures installed to take into account the feelings and preferences of these young persons? How can the long and onerous process of gathering evidence, determination and implementation of Court orders for children caught in parental disputes, the process be improved so that their feelings are considered? In the new section 68(A), for instance, that authorises the use of "mechanical restraint" such as handcuffs or leg braces on a child or young person, how do we ensure that the least damage is done on them? Are affected children and young persons involved in the numerous decisions made for them incorporated in this Bill?

I therefore seek clarification from the Ministry on how the voice of these young persons can be sought and strengthened in this Bill.

Third, on strengthening the foster parents scheme. I am pleased that foster parents are officially added in this Bill as key partners to support children and young persons in need of protection and rehabilitation. Foster parents, if properly selected and trained, provide a more natural and desirable setting than a group home for these young people. I have studied the Ministry’s Fostering Scheme and found it to be useful and structured. I have a few suggestions for Ministry to consider to strengthen this important scheme.

One, to cast the net wider to attract more suitable and interested foster parent candidates; two, to involve them more in the case management process so as to better integrate the care across schools, foster home and other areas; and three, to put in more resources to train, to skill and support the foster parents so that they can more effectively care for their charges – more so if the children have special needs that require specialised knowledge.

In conclusion, Sir, the CYPA is an important Bill and is overdue. In its implementation, there is a need to especially strengthen the coordination and integration of care to ensure the children and young persons receive the better outcomes they deserve. The mission of ensuring a better life for them, however, cannot be left only to the Government and the social service agencies. Those of us in the rest of society, whether as neighbours or relatives or volunteers, must join in the efforts to support this effort. Sir, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the move to extend the legal protection to our young under the Bill before the House. This is especially with regard to raising the age limit for protection from abuse or neglect from the age of below 16 years to below 18 years. Those who are within this age group can be very impressionistic and be quite easily swayed by adults. Sometimes, they are unable to comprehend the wider implications of their decisions which may result in their underestimating the risks of their actions or behaviours. And, this group of our young can be exploited by criminals and we have also seen how girls and boys alike have fallen victim to sexual predators.

With the extension of the age to below 18 years, could the Minister share with the House how many more welfare officers or probation officers would be required to cope with the rise in the number of cases to handle such cases? What is the current ratio of officers to youth at risk? Is there an ideal ratio from the professional standpoint?

Also, under the Enhanced Care and Protection Order (ECPO), a Court order may authorise a person other than the child's natural parents or guardians to care and make decisions for the child. As the Order will provide the care-givers with powers to make decisions for the child which would otherwise require parental consent, who are the care-givers that the Ministry has on its list, and would this be expanded further? Would the passage of this Bill require a new team to be set up within the Ministry to handle such cases? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Another point that I wish to raise is whether the Ministry would ensure that the person under the caregiver would not be coerced, for instance, to convert to a particular religion. This is important especially in multi-racial Singapore, because there may be caregivers who are over-enthusiastic in trying to promote their own religion, and perhaps this is done with good intentions, but they should respect the fact that the child should be allowed to make his/her own decision after reaching 18 years of age.

Having spoken to people in the relevant field of work like welfare, I also note that differing values and certain biases are among some factors that could lead to unfair implementation of the ECPO or the possibility that it will not be used.

My other concern is that we could compromise the structure and integrity of families by being over-zealous in interfering with the discipline and care of children.

What does taking an 18-year-old away from his/her parents say about or have a negative impact on their worth as parents?

What does it tell the youth about his relationship with his parents? Can he still respect his parents after that? Are we sowing the seeds of rebellion against his parents in the future?

Or is there something about the parent-child relationship that should be protected regardless how bad the parents are at parenting? At the very least, we should have some mechanism or provision to show that we value the rights of the parents. We do not want to cultivate a parenting culture that is afraid to discipline their children when the need arises. I hope that we can focus more on counselling both children and parents, and that taking away parents’ rights should only be the last resort, or if their actions endanger the child's life or has lasting severe impact on the child. I would believe that in such cases, the parent would be facing criminal charges.

I would like to know how the ECPO would be applied, the grounds for applying ECPO, the reasons the judge will consider in granting ECPO, and most importantly how would the parents challenge such an application in Court? Are they properly represented in Court? Are they aware that their rights as a parent are being taken away in their case? How might they mount a defence against the implied charge that they are incompetent and incapable parents? So, all these things I said are meant to protect parents for certain cases in the future under this Bill.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, in English, please. I would also like to propose that the Probation Service provide a summary of the demographics of anonymised potential over-aged probationers that the ECPO would have applied in the last 12 to 24 months. Areas of interest would include household income, family structure, primary care-giver, ethnicity and so on, so that we have greater insights on possible factors that cause the issues between parent and child, and we can then tackle the issues more appropriately.

Can the Minister share what is in place in the system to ensure that there is no clash of cultural values?

While thus far we are addressing the issue of protection, I hope attention would also be given to counselling these young persons to help them cope emotionally with their circumstances when the Ministry intervenes. Often, the circumstances under which the young are facing, especially in the case of parents who are estranged and divorced, can be a trauma.

Next, I would like to touch on the care-givers for the young, especially when they are under the charge of grandparents who may not only be aged but may not have a good grasp of the English language to be able to give appropriate guidance to those under their charge. So, when it comes to making decisions especially on educational matters, the aged grandparents may not be able to make that value-added decision. Additionally, the grandparents may also not have the financial resources to support the young to pay for the courses that they think best suit the child. How would the Ministry assist such care-givers in the given circumstances, from giving guidance to financial support?

I am pleased to note that childcare leave would now be extended to foster parents, as after all this group of people are playing the similar role as the parents. However, may I ask if the Ministry would consider extending to this group the income tax and other benefits that are currently available to the parents? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, children and young persons (CYPs) are among the most vulnerable in our society. Although 17- or 18-year olds are likely to possess the intellectual capabilities of making informed decisions, this does not mean that they possess the same level of emotional and psychological maturity as an adult to make those decisions. And I am sure that there are many parents of such young people who would agree with me. As such, the question is whether or not 17- and 18-year-olds should be treated as an adult when decisions need to be made regarding their safety and welfare are highly pertinent ones.

Indeed, research has shown that while youths and adults may possess almost the same level of intellectual capabilities, youths are, however, less able than adults to make mature decisions that may have important outcomes in their lives.

In this regard, the amendments to the Act that extend coverage to those under 18 is a positive step and will ensure that a greater number of youth are supported and protected.

One aspect of increasing the age of protection would be the need to extend a duty of care to a greater number of older youths who are sent to Government homes for various reasons. Physically, these older youths may be of the same physical build of adults but they will likely lack the emotional and mental maturity of adults.

I would thus like to ask what are some of the measures that the Government could put in place to ensure that the mental and emotional well-being of these older youths are taken care of?

Also, would Government-run homes have the necessary incident management SOPs to manage older youths, as they would likely require a different set of management procedures when they get into incidents as compared to younger children who might get into similar incidents during their stay at the homes.

Emotional and psychological abuse have long-term impact on individuals and the extent of the harm caused by psychological and emotional trauma is arguably more significant and last longer than physical abuse. One could recover from the pain of physical abuse yet carries the scar of psychological and emotional trauma for their entire lives.

It is heartening to know that the bill now provides more comprehensive coverage to protect victims of emotional and psychological abuse. Changing the term from "injury" to "harm" may seem lexically trivial but it underlies an important shift in how interventions and care could be given.

As compared to an "injury" which requires perhaps professional assessments and objective evidence to substantiate that victims have suffered from hurt or trauma, "harm" seems to suggest a lower establishment threshold before interventions can be implemented.

This begets the question of who will determine whether or not children are at risk of harm and to what extent "harm" must be proven before interventions can be implemented? With the potential expansion in the level of intervention that needs to be implemented, does the Government possess sufficient resources to ensure that all victims of emotional and psychological harm are thus provided with sufficient level of support to avert the long-term impact of such harm?

I would like to touch on resources and staffing now.

With the increased need to provide step-up care to a larger number of children and youths, and the demand for greater resources to support more victims of abuse and harm, it seems likely that the Government will need to increase staff resources to ensure that there are sufficient number of professionals who can provide interventions to children.

I would thus like to urge the Government to concurrently enhance the capabilities of staff who are already working in Government-run homes for children and strengthen the capabilities of those homes to provide holistic care. As such, could the Government consider reviewing the knowledge, skills, abilities and other competencies of professionals who are working with children, enhance the career prospects of the profession and perhaps even reconsider the remuneration and benefits of these professionals to attract a larger number – especially potential mid-career switchers – to enter this field.

Mr Deputy Speaker, working with children and at-risk youth is meaningful and important work because it impacts the next generation of Singaporeans. We need to ensure that we are able to entice and retain and more people with the right passion to enter this field. The Government could also perhaps consider tapping on those looking for re-employment – perhaps full-time parents or even grandparents who are looking to return to the workforce. If these happen to be parents or grandparents of children and youths of a similar age, they could likely have the aptitude and skill-sets to successfully work with these children and at-risk youths.