Gerald Giam

Increase the frequency of feeder buses

The convenience and comfort of public transport is an important factor that commuters consider before going “car lite”. Fewer private cars on the road reduces both traffic congestion and carbon emissions. Conversely, inconvenient public transport can have the opposite effect of encouraging more driving or riding of private vehicles. Most residents, however, have no choice but to take public transport as cars in Singapore are unaffordable for them.

Many of my residents, especially those living along Bedok Reservoir Road, continue to voice their dissatisfaction to me about the Government’s decision last December to reduce the number of bus services plying routes to nearby bus interchanges and MRT stations, as well as trunk routes to other parts of the island. This represents an overall reduction in public transport convenience for them, particularly since the frequency of bus 228, which takes them to and from Bedok Interchange, has not increased enough to make up for their loss of bus service 66. The frequency of feeder bus services like bus 228 should be increased further, to make public transport a more attractive option for Singaporeans.

During the 9 May 2022 sitting of Parliament, I asked the Minister for Transport what percentage of bus services operate with frequencies (technical term: headways) of no more than five minutes during peak hours and 10 minutes during off-peak hours. This is the Minister’s reply:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport in the last six months, what percentage of (i) all public bus services and (ii) feeder bus services, operated with headways of no more than five minutes during morning and evening peak hours, and no more than 10 minutes during off-peak hours, respectively.

Mr S Iswaran: LTA monitors the performance of our bus operators against the standards stipulated under the Bus Contracting Model (BCM).

Under BCM, basic bus services have scheduled headways of 15 minutes or less during the morning and evening peak periods. At least half of these services are required to have scheduled headways of 10 minutes or less. Feeder services run at shorter intervals, with scheduled headways of no more than eight minutes during peak periods. In the last six months, bus operators have adhered to the standards set by LTA.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Read Land Transport Guru’s in-depth analysis of the bus service changes in Bedok Reservoir.

Cost of running General Elections

Elections are expensive, not just for the candidates and political parties, but also for the taxpayer. I asked a Parliamentary question on 9 May 2022 to obtain the breakdown of the amount spent organising and running each of the last three General Elections (GEs). Responding on behalf of the Prime Minister, Minister Chan Chun Sing revealed that the Election Department’s expenditure for the GEs increased from $13.5 million in 2011 to $30.3 million in 2020. This likely excludes the additional spending on security, which would be under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ budget.

In Singapore, elections are required by law to be held approximately once every five years, but can be called much earlier if the incumbent PM so chooses. This may confer an advantage on the incumbent, who can call elections when the ground is “sweet” for his or her own party. Be that as it may, an incumbent PM will do well to have an eye on the costs of organising and running an election, should he or she decide to call early elections.

Here is the full answer to my PQ:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister how much is the Government’s spending on organising and running the General Elections in 2011, 2015 and 2020 respectively, including but not limited to the cost of manpower, security, publicity and materials.

Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The expenditures incurred by the Elections Department (ELD) for the 2011, 2015 and 2020 General Elections were $13.5 million, $23.2 million and $30.3 million respectively.

Across elections, expenditure will fluctuate depending on manpower, info-communications technology, transport, and other logistical needs. For example, GE2015 was fully contested unlike GE2011, and more election officials were deployed. Higher logistics costs were also incurred as election equipment such as polling booths and counting tables were due for replacement. In GE2020, which was held during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost $8 million were spent on safe management measures.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Doctors’ access to National Electronic Health Records

During the 9 May 2022 sitting of Parliament, I asked the Minister for Health what percentage of polyclinics and GP clinics are currently able to access the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system. I also asked whether this access will be extended under the proposed Healthier SG initiative. His answer is below:

PERCENTAGE OF POLYCLINICS AND GP CLINICS ABLE TO ACCESS AND INPUT INTO NATIONAL ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SYSTEM

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what percentage of polyclinics and general practitioner clinics (GP) are currently able to access the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system; and (b) to what extent will polyclinics and GPs be able to access and input details of outpatient consultations for their patients under the proposed Healthier SG initiative.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of April 2022, all polyclinics and close to 60% of private medical clinics have access to the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR). All healthcare professionals who are involved in direct patient care can apply to access NEHR.

To support the outcomes of the Healthier SG programme, care providers will be able to access patients’ medical records, track their patients’ conditions and progress over time, and share the records with other healthcare providers, using the NEHR. To govern these processes and to ensure secure data sharing, we intend to table a Health Information Bill.

Source: Parliament Hansard

Criteria for selection of SERS blocks

Four blocks on Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 were recently selected for SERS (Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme). Why were these flats selected for SERS when they are only 43 years old? This was one of the questions I asked the Minister for National Development on 9 May 2022. Here is the full question and the Minister’s answer:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) in selecting precincts for the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), what are the weights given to (i) the age of the blocks (ii) their redevelopment potential (iii) the availability of suitable replacement sites (iv) the Government’s financial resources and (v) other factors; and (b) what are the reasons for selecting the four HDB blocks in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 for SERS despite them being only 43 years old.

Mr Desmond Lee: SERS was introduced in 1995 as part of our estate renewal strategy for older HDB estates. It allows us to optimise land through the redevelopment of selected HDB precincts which have high development value.

SERS involves compulsory acquisition and is therefore highly selective. The identification of suitable sites and the pace of SERS require careful site-by-site evaluation of various factors, including the redevelopment potential of the site, the availability of suitable replacement sites to rehouse the flat owners involved, and the Government’s financial resources. While the age of the precinct is a consideration, there is no fixed age criteria to determine if a precinct is suitable for SERS.

Countering Misinformation

In an increasingly digital world riven with military conflicts and great power rivalries, it is important for Singaporeans to be equipped with modern media literacy skills. We need to view all news reports, whether on television or on Telegram, with a critical eye and take the effort to check the facts before forming our own opinions, lest we fall victim to misinformation campaigns.

On 4 Apr 2022, I raised three questions in Parliament on countering misinformation. Read my full Parliamentary Questions and the answers here:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how does the Government intend to respond to Singaporean key opinion leaders who express or transmit partly false information that can potentially undermine Singapore’s foreign policy positions.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In this digital age, the spread of misinformation that sows fear, suspicion and discord in a population is a clear and present danger. All of us should exercise discretion and not share anything unless we are certain of its veracity. This responsibility to avoid disseminating misinformation applies particularly to public figures and opinion leaders.

A Singaporean public that is well-informed, that recognises the geostrategic forces at play and understands our national interests, is essential for our defence against misinformation and disinformation campaigns. We encourage the public to verify information with official sources, and apply a critical mind to what you read and share.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is being done to increase public education and enhance awareness of Singapore’s national interests with regard to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Singapore’s relations with the US and China; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered (i) pushing out factual information on the situation through messaging apps and social media and (ii) providing information about independent fact-checking websites which the public can use to counter misinformation.

Mrs Josephine Teo: The Member asked what is being done to increase public awareness and understanding of Singapore’s national interest in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. He also asked what we are doing to put out accurate information on the conflict.

First, understanding Singapore’s position on the conflict: The Government has taken a strong and unambiguous position, starting with the ministerial statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in February. Government agencies and their community partners have explained this position on a wide range of platforms – not only on social media and messaging platforms, but also in print and broadcast media, as well as directly to schools, business associations, grassroots organisations, to youth and public officers, national servicemen, as well as the general public. It is of the utmost importance that Singaporeans know the national position, the principles at stake for Singapore, why the Government has taken certain actions as a result, and why our position has nothing to do with taking sides.

Most Singaporeans understand, and agree. A publicly available poll conducted by Blackbox Research found last month that 95 per cent of Singaporeans supported or sympathised with Ukraine. Almost 70 per cent blamed Russia for the conflict; 60 per cent supported Singapore’s sanctions on Russia; while 35 per cent said they were unsure or had no opinion.

We accept that there are some differences in views and opinions among Singaporeans. That is understandable in any country. The Government will continue to communicate our position clearly as the situation develops, and counter whatever misinformation there might be about our position.

But as for pushing out factual information on the conflict itself, this cannot be the Singapore Government’s responsibility. We are in no position to independently verify the truth or otherwise of every report, image, photograph, video or post emanating from or on Ukraine. For the most part, we are dependent on the international media, including our own, to vet this avalanche of information. The National Library Board has published a set of third-party fact-checking resources about the conflict on its website. We urge all Singaporeans to exercise caution and apply a critical eye to all that they read and view on the conflict.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education to what extent are teachers engaging students to discuss with them, in age-appropriate ways, the positions Singapore has taken on complex foreign policy and security issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Singapore’s relations with the US and China and hostile information campaigns targeted at Singapore’s population.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: In schools, issues relating to international relations and geopolitics are discussed in subjects like History, Social Studies, General Paper and Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). At the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), students also take modules and courses that help them make sense of key issues affecting Singapore and the world.

In the classroom, teachers use real-world case studies, including recent incidents, to help students understand complex issues concerning security and international relations, and Singapore’s role and perspectives on these issues. For example, in secondary and pre-university History, students examine how countries’ relations with each other evolve over time and the role of regional and international organisations like ASEAN and the UN in dealing with conflicts and promoting cooperation. In Secondary Social Studies, students learn about transnational terrorism, cyber security challenges and Singapore’s responses to these challenges. In General Paper, teachers engage pre-university students in discussions anchored on current affairs about foreign policy and security issues from different perspectives, while guiding them to understand Singapore’s context and positions.

Through CCE lessons and talks by invited speakers, secondary and pre-university students learn about Singapore’s strengths and vulnerabilities as a small country and the key principles of Singapore’s foreign policy that keep our nation safe. The commemoration of International Friendship Day and Total Defence Day is another avenue. This year, these sessions will offer insights on the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the importance of a rules-based international order, and discuss how Singapore upholds our national sovereignty through diplomacy and strong military defence.

To facilitate such discussions in age-appropriate ways, teachers receive specialised training, including workshops and talks by subject matter experts such as diplomats, academics, and policy makers.

The IHLs similarly engage students on contemporary global issues. The LifeSkills curricula in the IHLs emphasise the importance of critical thinking, global perspectives, and responsibility to the community, nation and the world. Through relevant LifeSkills modules, IHL students engage with educators and peers on current affairs, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and distil insights for Singapore’s context. Beyond this, they have access to external resources that provide insight on Singapore’s place in the world.

Given the proliferation of information, schools and IHLs also equip students with information and media literacy skills. Through the curriculum, students are taught to critically evaluate different sources of information, distinguishing fact from opinion, applying logic and verifying the authority of sources. This is part of a wider education efforts to guard against the dangers of fake news and develop in our students the ability to discern misinformation campaigns.

Sharing the caregiver’s burden

Whenever I visit the funeral wakes of my constituents, I try to speak with their caregiver to offer them comfort and find out how I can provide assistance to them and their families. As I listen to them relate how they looked after their loved ones in their final years, I am filled with admiration for their immense dedication and sacrifice.

I have spoken to an elderly wife who changed the stoma bags of her husband, who was a cancer patient, for a period of time until he passed on. I have conversed with a son in his 50s, who changed his elderly mother’s soiled diapers several times a day, in a reversal of parent-child roles. I have a 72-year old resident who continues to juggle her roles working as a cleaner and the sole caregiver to her disabled adult son and mentally incapacitated husband.

These unsung heroes press on out of filial devotion to parents, duty to spouses, responsibility to their adult children and, most importantly, love for their family members.

Unlike caregivers of young children, caregivers of elderly or disabled persons face a heavier load over time as the health of their loved ones deteriorates. They do not experience the same delight of young parents watching their children growing up. Their care recipients may not be able to express their appreciation well, or may even inadvertently make hurtful remarks due to conditions like dementia.

For caregivers, every day brings new challenges and new heartaches, until that inevitable day when they see their loved ones pass on. Caregivers of children with disabilities face an additional stressor of worrying about who will care for their children if they outlive them.

It is a very heavy burden to carry. We, as a nation, society and community, can and should do much more to share some of the weight on caregivers’ shoulders.

In 2010, approximately 8% of residents aged between 18 and 69 years provided regular care to a friend or family member, with 37% of caregivers reporting that they had been providing care for over a decade. These percentages have surely gone up since then, and will likely increase further, given our ageing population.

In my speech today, I will focus on Area 2 of the White Paper – the caregiving aspect. While caregivers in Singapore are more often women than men, I will not take a gender-specific approach to the problems or solutions. The role of caregiving does not solely apply to any gender and most certainly should not be borne only by women.

The costs of informal care

Unpaid caregiving of family members incurs substantial direct expenses and opportunity costs.

According to a 2019 answer by the Minister for Health to a PQ by then-NMP Anthea Ong, about 6% of Singapore residents — male and female — cited caregiving to family members as the main reason for leaving their jobs or not looking for one. The majority were women aged 40 and above.

In a reply by MOS Gan Siow Huang to PQs by Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Joan Pereira earlier this year, 15% of women aged 25 to 64 cited family-related responsibilities as their main reason for being outside the labour force in 2020, while 6% worked part-time due to family or personal commitments.

In his paper published in Insights in Public Health Journal, Dr Wayne Chong pointed out that unpaid informal caregivers of older adults not only pay the lion’s share of the mental, emotional, social and financial costs of care, they also fork out non-trivial opportunity costs associated with caregiving, including lost wages, personal freedom and aspirations.

These are enormous sacrifices. It is time for Singapore to provide a more comprehensive package of financial support and compensation to caregivers for their economic and social contributions to the nation.

I would like to discuss seven ways our nation can share our caregivers’ burdens, many of which have been touched on in the White Paper.

Flexible work arrangements

First, employers play a big part in creating a society that values the contributions of caregivers and shares some of their burdens. All employers should provide flexible work arrangements, or FWAs, for their staff to better balance work and caregiving responsibilities. Managers should be given training to have a greater understanding of the unpredictable nature of caregiving so they can be more empathetic towards their staff.

The White Paper states that the Government will introduce a new set of Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs by 2024, which will require employers to “consider FWA requests from employees fairly and properly”. The Government aims to create a workplace norm where employees “feel it is acceptable to request for FWAs, while maintaining employers’ prerogative to accept or reject requests taking into account their business needs.”

Can the Minister for Manpower clarify if this means that employers can reject FWA requests without providing valid reasons? If so, it will give employers an escape clause from their FWA obligations.

I repeat the call in the Workers’ Party’s 2020 Manifesto that all informal caregivers of elderly or disabled family members should be entitled to ask for FWAs that are feasible for their line of work and fair to both the employer and employee. Employers should be required to provide reasons if the request cannot be met.

It is in the interest of all organisations, large and small, to have meaningful FWAs in place. Employers which fail to do so may lose capable employees to competitors. In fact, having good FWAs can be a company’s competitive advantage in attracting talent. The underlying premise is the basic principle that “a happy worker is a productive worker”.

Family Care Leave

Second, we need to legislate Family Care Leave. Most caregivers remain in paid employment, which places extremely heavy demands on their time. The demands of both work and caregiving responsibilities are often concurrent, making it difficult to set aside one to handle the other.

Civil servants are currently eligible for two days of parent-care leave per year. However, according to an MOM survey, only 20% of private companies offered such leave benefits in 2018.

There have been many calls for the legislation of Family Care Leave by MPs from WP and PAP, NMPs, as well as AWARE and the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing, among others.

The Government should legislate Family Care Leave soon. This will help in recognising that caregivers’ contributions are on par with that of parents with young children.

Family care leave can supersede the current Childcare Leave. As a start, all Singaporean employees should be granted up to six days of leave to look after their young children or immediate family members with long-term illnesses or disabilities. The first three days should be paid by the employer, with the remaining days paid by the Government.

An additional two days should be granted if the employee has more than one care recipient. This means that if an employee has one child and one parent to care for, he or she will be entitled to eight days of paid Family Care Leave, of which three days are paid for by their employer and five days by the Government.

The Government rejected previous calls to legislate eldercare leave, citing business cost concerns by employers, manpower constraints and the employability of caregivers. Having the Government bear more costs of Family Care Leave will limit the financial strain on employers and minimise any employment discrimination against caregivers.

Recognising caregivers’ work experience

Third, we should recognise the skills and work experience of caregivers. During the caregiving years, a caregiver gains important skills such as people management, negotiation, conflict resolution and budgeting, as well as domain knowledge such as healthcare, food and nutrition knowledge.

Employers should consider caregiving experience as work experience, just like the Civil Service does for National Service, with corresponding salary increments. Recognising caregivers’ skills and experience could also open up employment opportunities for them in the care sector, which in turn can contribute much-needed manpower to our health and social care system as our society ages.

The Public Service should take the lead to steer this mindset shift, and the Government should encourage the private sector to do likewise. Such a paradigm shift will signal that caregiving is indeed valued by our society.

Support and compensation for caregivers

Fourth, we need to adjust our approach to financial support and compensation for caregivers.

Caregivers should be provided more financial support to offset the costs of home-based caregiving. This support should aim to match the subsidy given to patients in long-term care facilities.

The White Paper stated that the Home Caregiving Grant (HCG) quantum will be increased next year from $200 to up to $400 per month for low-income households residing in HDB flats. To qualify, care recipients must require assistance to perform three or more Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), such as eating, bathing, dressing or toileting.

I would like to ask the Minister for Health what was the basis for arriving at $400 per month for low-income families and $250 for low-to-middle-income ones?

I am also concerned that some patients with dementia may not qualify for the HCG. This is because the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, such as forgetting, impulsivity, wandering and getting lost, are different from the ambulatory and dexterity competencies of ADLs. Can the Minister clarify if dementia sufferers can claim the HCG?

The HCG is meant to defray the cost of caregiving expenses rather than to financially compensate caregivers. Currently, any financial compensation schemes in place are mainly through family members, such as the Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme.

Over and above financial support, family caregivers should receive some form of financial compensation for their caregiving work. This would mean allowing them to claim a modest allowance on top of the HCG so that they have more savings for their retirement.

If the caregiver and their family members are lower income earners, the Government should step in to top up their CPF Special Accounts or Retirement Accounts, without a need for a matching contribution by family members.

Home-based caregiving services

Fifth, home-based caregiving services must be made more accessible to all households, especially lower-income ones. The White Paper proposes broadening the Household Services Scheme (HSS) to include basic child- and elder-minding services.

However, the HSS is currently not subsidised by the Government, even though households likely to benefit most are those without the means to employ a live-in domestic worker. At $20 per hour or more, the cost of home-based caregiving services is a stretch for many such households.

MSF should extend means-tested subsidies to Singaporean families who procure home-based caregiving services for their elderly or disabled family members, if those members are not able to attend centre-based programmes.

By caring for their loved ones at home, caregivers save the Government subsidies it would otherwise disburse to care centres. Some of these savings can be passed on to families by increasing subsidies for home-based care.

Respite care

Sixth, short-term and ad hoc respite care services will allow caregivers to run errands, respond to unexpected developments or just get a short break from caregiving.

All full-time caregivers deserve an option to take a day off a week, where they can draw on a shared pool of suitably-qualified respite home care workers or place their loved ones in care centres during their day-off. Full government subsidies should be made available to those from lower income households.

Currently, respite care services are provided at some senior care centres and nursing homes. As at end December 2021, there were over 450 respite care places, according to the Minister for Health in response to a PQ by Ms Nadia Samdin. This is a very small number considering there are some 210,000 caregivers in Singapore.

How many requests for respite care did the Agency for Integrated Care receive in 2021? Is there sufficient public awareness of the availability of respite care services? What plans does the Government have to expand the availability and accessibility of respite care?

Long-term residential care facilities

Finally, long-term residential care facilities may be the only option for many families. Some elderly caregivers lack the strength to lift their disabled spouses or adult children to bathe or transfer them. Some elderly care recipients are single, with no children to care for them.

I am not suggesting that everyone rushes to put their parents in nursing homes. However, the reality is that with longer lifespans, fewer children and more Singaporeans working overseas, we can expect an increasing demand for long term residential care for elders and the disabled.

There continues to be high demand for nursing homes and adult disability home places. As of end-2020, 90% of the 16,300 nursing home beds were utilised, up from 85% in June 2019.

Can MOH and MSF elaborate on their plans to expand nursing homes and adult disability homes up to 2030? How much of our population’s future demand will this expansion meet? What are the Ministries doing to ensure that care homes are able to attract enough qualified professionals, including Singaporeans?

Conclusion

Caregiving is a huge weight for any individual to bear, and caregivers have made a lot of economic and social sacrifices. Yet they continue to press on, out of love and duty to their family.

As a nation, we will need a paradigm shift in our thinking towards caregivers and share some of their burdens. With the support of the Government, businesses, community and Singaporeans, we can strive to be a more inclusive society and better recognise the sacrifices of our caregivers.

I support the Motion.

This was a speech I made during the debate on the White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development in Parliament on 5 Apr 2022.

Helping Singaporeans cope with price increases

I filed several questions during the sitting of Parliament from 4-5 Apr 2022 to ask the Government how it is ensuring the affordability of daily necessities, goods and fuel, and helping Singaporeans to cope. I also asked the Government to consider a special additional tranche of U-Save utility rebates to help Singaporeans cope with electricity price hikes.

These are the Parliamentary Questions I filed:

To ask the Minister for Finance what studies has the Ministry conducted so far to examine how the costs of daily necessities and goods in Singapore will be impacted by recent global events such as rising commodity prices, rising global inflation, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the COVID-19 pandemic.

To ask the Minister for Finance apart from the Assurance Package for the GST increase, what else will the Government be doing to assist needy Singaporeans to cope with the rising cost of daily necessities and goods which are non-GST related.

To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Committee Against Profiteering will address concerns that businesses could use reasons, other than the rise in GST, as a pretext to make unjustified price increases on essential products and services; (b) whether the Committee will publish a list of essential products and services that fall under its ambit; and (c) what actions are the Committee or the Government empowered to take against businesses engaged in profiteering.

To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) has found any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour among fuel retailers to raise prices in the past two months; (b) what actions will the Government take against fuel retailers found to have engaged in anti-competitive behaviour; and (c) whether the Government has considered tapping on its petroleum reserves to ease the fuel supply crunch triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and moderate pump prices.

To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether Singapore has petroleum reserves; (b) if so, how long will our petroleum reserves last in the event of a supply cut; (c) what are the considerations for tapping on these petroleum reserves; and (d) whether the Government will consider tapping on its petroleum reserves in the event of an extended fuel supply crunch precipitated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong and Second Minister for Trade and Industry Tan See Leng delivered Ministerial Statements on Inflation and Business Costs on 4 Apr. After the Ministerial Statements, I sought clarifications from the Ministers:

Since the Budget Statement, SP Group has announced that the electricity tariff for Apr to Jun will rise by almost 10%. With this new development, could the Government consider a special additional tranche of U-Save rebates to help Singaporeans cope with the coming electricity price hike?

I understand from the MOF Budget website that the Jan 2023 U-Save rebate is part of the Assurance Package (AP) to soften the impact of the upcoming GST hike, while the first three tranches of U-Save in 2022 are part of the Household Support Package (HSP). However, now in this handout, the Jan 2023 U-Save rebate is listed as part of the Support for Households. Can I clarify if the Jan 2023 U-Save is now part of the HSP and not the AP, and if so, shouldn’t there be an additional U-save rebate for the AP?

The full text of the exchange will be published in the Parliament Hansard within two weeks.

Preventing youth gambling

This was a speech I made during the debate on the Gambling Control Bill and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill on 11 Mar 2022 in Parliament.

As Parliament sits today to debate the Gambling Control Bill and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Bill, a fact that should be at the forefront of our minds is this: Gambling may seem like harmless fun for many people, but it can be a scourge on families impacted by problem gambling.

The National Council for Problem Gambling’s 2020 survey found that almost half of Singapore residents aged 18 and above participate in gambling activities, with 6% reporting that they lack self control when gambling.

The survey found that gamblers with poorer self-control are more likely to regret the way they have gambled, have emotional problems and have family quarrels. Worryingly, 37% of Singapore residents with no income reported participating in gambling.

Regrettably, the avenues for Singaporeans to gamble have expanded over the years. Two casinos were opened in 2010 and in 2019 the Government raised the cap on the number of slot machines allowed and increased the floor space allocated to gambling. In 2016, Singapore Pools and the Turf Club were allowed to operate online gambling services, including sports betting. This remains a concern as, according to the NCPG survey, 23% of gamblers who participated in sports betting reported poor self-control.

With this mind, I would like to sound a note of caution about any further expansion of the space for gambling in Singapore.

Social Gambling

Social gambling is not disallowed by current legislation. This Bill explicitly legalises social gambling in Singapore.

On the one hand, the Government has said in the past that the law can and should reflect social norms and attitudes. As a matter of logical consistency, then, should the Government not be cautious about making social gambling explicitly legal, so as to avoid being seen to be issuing an official stamp of approval to gambling?

On the other hand, as a practical matter, since social gambling has never been illegal, what is the concrete policy gain in providing this inadvertent signal of acceptability?

I would therefore like to understand the Government’s reasons for explicitly legalising social gambling.

Gambling Among Minors

The Bill also does not proscribe social gambling by minors. May I ask the Minister of State why there will be no restrictions on minors engaging in social gambling? I hope this does not mean that the Government condones gambling by minors.

How does the Government intend to communicate to children, adolescents and their parents that it discourages gambling by minors?

I am also concerned about how explicitly permitting gambling for children could provide a gateway to more problem gambling habits later in their lives.

Current policy to prevent gambling by minors is inconsistent. While the minimum age is set at 18 for certain types of gambling such as 4D, TOTO or placing horse racing bets, it is set at 21 for casino gambling.

In recent years, the Government has raised the minimum smoking age from 18 to 21 so as to denormalise the use of cigarettes amongst adolescent youths, especially since most cultivate the habit between the ages of 18 and 21.

The NCPG survey similarly found that 35% of Singapore residents had their first gambling experience between the ages of 18 and 24 — the highest amongst all age groups. With this evidence in mind, can MHA consider taking the same approach as with smoking, and harmonise the minimum gambling age to 21 all across the board? This could ameliorate its pernicious effects of gambling on not just young people but also on their families and society.

Loot Boxes

I would now like to discuss a particularly challenging issue with respect to combating gambling by minors — loot boxes. Loot boxes are virtual items within games that can be purchased and redeemed to receive another random, desirable virtual item. Gaming companies have been pushing loot boxes in their games — especially in mobile games — leading to increased gaming spending and debt.

Many consumers of loot boxes are children. Research from the United Kingdom has found that of the 93% of children who play video games, 25 to 40% have made loot box purchases. Other research has found — consistently and unambiguously — a link between loot boxes and problem gambling.

This being so, I would like to ask the Minister of State as to how the GC Bill intends to regulate loot boxes in online games. Clause 9 of the GC Bill defines a lottery as a scheme to distribute prizes based on luck — and prizes here refer to money or money equivalent or any “thing of value”. Can I ask the Minister whether the GC Bill considers such virtual rewards to be “things of value” even when they cannot be monetised, such that operating any loot box system would be considered operating a lottery? If so, what will the regulatory regime for online game operators be like?

Several other countries have already sought to regulate or restrict loot boxes in online games. Belgium’s Gaming Commission has declared loot boxes to be gambling and hence illegal. The Netherlands Gaming Authority issued a legal opinion that some loot box systems contravened the Dutch Betting and Gambling Act, hence requiring the relevant game developers to change their mechanics, or face fines or even game prohibition.

In Asia, China has imposed daily limits on the number of purchased loot boxes that a player can open, while Japan has banned “complete gacha”, which is a system that offers rare prizes to players who successfully obtain a complete set of items through random draws.

Of course, game developers can and do find ways to circumvent these restrictions, but this is no reason to do nothing. The Government will just have to ensure regulation is sufficiently nimble to keep up with technology.

Education

I have spoken of law and policy thus far — but no amount of regulations and restrictions will be able to completely eliminate gambling activities in Singapore. In fact, one argument against prohibition is that it might drive gambling activities underground. We therefore need active educational efforts to discourage gambling among our population. With the introduction of the GC Bill, will there be greater educational efforts to discourage Singaporeans, particularly young people, from participating in gambling activities and delaying their first gambling experience?

I am glad to know that schools have, since 2021, been trying to teach students about the ills of loot boxes. I would urge MOE to continue to assess the efficacy of such programmes. Have such educational efforts been found to genuinely reduce loot box use amongst youth, and if not, how can such outreach be improved?

Conclusion

I understand that many Singaporeans gamble on occasion. However, the risk of problem and pathological gambling, and its often-accompanying financial ruin, is very real. On balance, the job of public policy in the area of gambling is to maintain moderation – to allow responsible adults to take part in this activity, but not so much that they ruin themselves, and to discourage impressionable children from taking up the habit in the first place.

In summary, I would like to call on the Government to reassess its position on social gambling and to take a strong hand against gambling by children, especially in the area of loot boxes. We should complement policy levers with better education against gambling. More generally, I call on Parliament to take a stronger stance against gambling.

I hope the Minister of State will be able to address the concerns I have raised on the Bills. Notwithstanding these concerns, I support the Bills.

Community Dispute Management Framework

I would like to seek the Minister’s update on the review of the Community Dispute Management Framework, which commenced before last year’s COS.

Can the Minister share who the members of the inter-agency committee conducting this review are, and when the review will be completed?

How many mediators does the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) currently have and is this sufficient to manage their workload?

I have met residents who have a vexing dispute with their neighbours but are unwilling to let me refer them for mediation, because they know their neighbour will not turn up for the session. Of the average of 735 cases per year registered at the CMC, 70% did not progress to mediation, mainly because one or both parties declined or did not respond to the invitation to mediate.

To improve the take up rate of mediation, could the Ministry consider these suggestions:

First, once the CMC assesses a case to be suitable for mediation, can the attendance of both parties be made compulsory?

Second, if the dispute eventually goes to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT), can the Tribunal be allowed to draw an adverse inference from their non-attendance? This potential penalty should be made clear to respondents when the invitation to CMC is served.

Next, I have received feedback from residents about the difficulty they face in filing CDRT evidence. For example, they need to save their audio or video recordings on a CD-ROM or DVD. Most people nowadays don’t have a CD-ROM burner in their home.

Can the CDRT update its processes to allow evidence to be uploaded on a web portal instead and to make the whole process more user friendly for the layman?

My final “cut” for the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, on 10 Mar 2022.

Adult disability care

Many residents with moderate to severe disabilities require care provided for by adult disability care facilities like Day Activity Centres, Adult Disability Homes, Adult Disability Hostels and Sheltered Workshops.

May I ask the Minister what is the current utilisation rate among each of these facilities and what are their staff-client ratios? How many individuals are on the waiting list for these centres currently?

Based on publicly available information, I understand the waiting times, depending on centres, can vary from three months to two years.

If there is insufficient capacity and inadequate staffing at these facilities, this can create a cliff effect for those with special needs. They would have been receiving care from special education (SPED) schools but have difficulty finding the same level of support after leaving school. As a result, their ageing parents often have to bear the full weight of caregiving, and many worry about how their children will be cared for after they pass on.

I would like to call for MSF to enhance its funding and support for adult disability care facilities to be at least on par with what SPED schools receive.

Such funding can help expand the capacity of care facilities and reduce their long waitlists. It can also go towards hiring and retaining more good staff, including Singaporeans, with better pay and working conditions.

All this will enable the centres to conduct more meaningful and effective engagement and training activities for their clients, and lighten the worries of their caregivers.

Besides improving the welfare of their clients, it will also give caregivers much-needed respite and allow them to be economically active if they choose to. This will produce both tangible and intangible returns for families, our society and our economy.

This was my “cut” during the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Committee of Supply debate on 9 Mar 2022.