Singapore

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.

Bus services rationalisation

The Public Transport Council’s latest annual customer satisfaction survey found that satisfaction with public transport services has fallen to its lowest level in six years. The survey showed that discontent with public bus services was a factor, with many commuters notably expressing dissatisfaction with bus waiting times.

These sentiments are similarly expressed by many of my residents living along Bedok Reservoir Road, where four bus services were cut or rerouted last December. This has resulted in my residents having to put up with longer waiting times, crowded buses and losing direct routes to their destinations.

Before removing or rerouting bus services, LTA should conduct public consultations with affected residents. If bus services are being rationalised due to low ridership, I would like to suggest that LTA first consider switching to smaller buses or extending their headways.

If bus services must be removed, the frequency of the remaining feeder services to bus interchanges or MRT stations should be increased to make up for them. Commuters should not have to wait more than 5 minutes during peak hours or 10 minutes during off-peak hours for feeder buses.

LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services. These serve many elderly and disabled residents who have trouble walking between bus stops or transferring from bus to MRT. Many of them do not mind longer bus rides if that allows them to walk less.

While LTA and the public transport operators strive towards efficiency, they must pay closer attention to the comfort and convenience of commuters. LTA should proactively monitor public feedback and be open to bringing back bus services if there is strong commuter demand.

This was my speech during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of Transport, 8 Mar 2022.

Bird population control

My residents in Bedok Reservoir and Hougang have given me feedback on the nuisance caused by pigeons, crows, mynahs and even koels around their housing estates. The proliferation of the bird population is often a public hygiene, and in the case of crows, a safety issue, which worries residents.

The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) has been doing its part to combat this problem. AHTC puts up banners to caution residents against bird feeding and works with residents to identify and report feeders. It advises food stall operators on proper food waste disposal methods, and our conservancy workers regularly remove unattended food sources. The Town Council also conducts regular tree pruning and, as a last resort, pigeon culling.

Despite all these efforts, the bird nuisance problem has persisted. NParks occasionally sets up crow traps, but these are rather ineffective as crows are intelligent creatures and tend not to fall for these traps.

I believe this problem is not unique to Aljunied-Hougang town. A national level effort by MND and its agencies may be needed to combat it. This may include more public education to discourage bird feeding, setting up CCTV monitoring and stepping up enforcement actions against bird feeders.

It would be helpful if NParks could regularly share with Town Councils its research and recommendations on best practices for controlling the population of various bird species. It could step up efforts to trap and relocate birds in areas where they are causing a nuisance to the public.

Together with the efforts of Town Councils, MND’s stepped up involvement could help residents and our avian friends to co-exist more peacefully in our urban environment.

Speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development on 8 Mar 2022.

Town improvement costs

Construction costs have skyrocketed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The price of materials has shot up, wages have increased and the cost of bringing in foreign workers is also elevated. The construction industry’s confidence has been shaken of late, resulting in shorter payment terms and demands for higher upfront payments.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that recent bid prices for town improvement projects, like the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), are up to 50% higher than pre-tender estimates. Yet HDB’s grants to town councils have not kept up with these price increases.

Some may suggest that town councils’ existing funds can be used to cover the cost increases. However, doing so will be unfair to the majority of residents, as each project mainly benefits residents living in a particular precinct. It is also unfair for residents in those precincts if the new projects are pared down to meet the original budget.

I have three suggestions.

First, can HDB temporarily increase its NRP grants to town councils to cover these short-term cost increases?

Second, can HDB provide contractors and subcontractors for town improvement projects some price protection for raw materials like steel and concrete, similar to that of HDB’s BTO projects. This will better ensure residents receive comparable amenities regardless of market conditions at the time of tendering.

Third, can the Ministry explore more measures to restore confidence among construction firms so as to ameliorate the need for onerous upfront payment terms. This could help to temper price increases across the industry.

This is a “cut” I made for the Ministry of National Development’s Committee of Supply debate on 8 Mar 2022.

Interim rental housing

There are many residents who have approached me to request assistance in appealing to HDB for subsidised rental housing. Some have to sell their flats after a divorce or they have to move out of their current homes due to family issues. Most cannot afford to buy flats and face being homeless. The Minister said previously that “the overall stock of rental flats is sufficient to meet demand”. Unfortunately, problems remain.

First, some residents exceed the Public Rental Scheme income threshold but do not earn enough to afford rent in the open market. Others may be single unwed parents who do not qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme.

Second, applicants who qualify for public rental housing may still have to wait for between three to eight months before they can collect their keys. Many need a place to stay urgently as they don’t have family or friends who can take them in.

Could the Minister share, since 2020, the number of applications HDB received for rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme, the Interim Rental Housing Scheme and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme? How many approvals were granted under each scheme and what were the main reasons for approvals or rejections under each scheme?

I urge the HDB to increase the number of flats supplied under the Interim Rental Housing scheme. The HDB could offer tiered rental rates that are higher than Public Rental Scheme rates but lower than open market prices. This will help the many families and individuals that fail the strict means test of the current rental schemes but are not earning enough to rent in the open market, yet need housing urgently to avoid being left homeless.

This is a “cut” I delivered during the Committee of Supply debate for the Ministry of National Development, on 8 Mar 2022.

Special needs education

Parents of children with special needs face a complex dilemma when making educational choices for their children.

A wide range of services is available at various price points, but parents are largely left on their own to identify the optimal ones. Could ECDA provide more one-stop advisory services for parents? This will help to ease the anxiety that many parents of special needs children feel.

For children who require medium to high levels of early intervention support, such services can be prohibitively expensive. While ECDA does provide subsidised support through the EIPIC programme, EIPIC centres have wait times ranging from three to 18 months and most provide a limited number of hours of intervention a week. This requires parents to turn to additional services that can cost thousands more every month.

Can ECDA work with EIPIC providers to increase the capacity and range of services provided so that children can receive all the early intervention support they require from the same centre? A centralised provision of early intervention services will bring economies of scale, which can reduce costs for parents.

Children who require lower levels of early intervention support can attend mainstream primary schools, but may still require supplementary support services like occupational therapy. Can MOE provide an integrated special needs support programme at mainstream schools? This will enable children with special needs to thrive in such environments and reduce the costs and inconvenience borne by parents for external support services?

I delivered this speech in Parliament during the Committee of Supply debate on the budget of the Ministry of Education, on 7 Mar 2022.