On 6 March 2024, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, Community and Youth and Ministry of Social and Family Development Chua Swee Loong replied to Jalan Besar GRC MP Poon Lai Ping on the upgraded Community Links Programme (ComLink+) and the employment of people with disabilities.
Cai Ruilong
Pan Liping
The following is a translation of the Singapore Eye based on Parliamentary sources:
Ms Pan Liping (I): I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their comprehensive and thoughtful answers. I have two additional questions, mainly for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Chua Swee Lung.
The first question is related to the enhanced Community Liaison Station Program (ComLink+). I heard an almost complete narrative of the plan. It is believed that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is also experienced in this area, and there are indeed many challenges in providing services to the majority of families. I would like to reiterate the questions that were raised in my statement: how is the pilot progressing, what are the challenges, how do we intend to address them, how do other people and sectors, including governments, intend to work together to address this issue?
The second issue relates to the Disability Empowerment Program. I would like to ask again: first of all, this report is very good, and I very much agree with it. A lot of the reports are related to activities, which is a good way, but we need to link it to outputs. At the same time, we also want to make sure that the report is not outdated, and the 8-year master plan is a very important thing, and in this day and age, a lot of things have a short shelf life, so I think the 8-year master plan for the social services sector definitely needs to be updated regularly. So, could there be an organized formal review each year to ensure that these plans are updated? It also includes the hot topics that I shared about the need to include inclusive insurance, criminal justice, reviewing and strengthening appropriate adult programs, and integrating neurodiversity conditions such as ADHD and dyslexia into the master plan.
In addition, there are hot issues, such as the provision of daily activity centers for people with moderate and severe disabilities. I think we do need to think about a hybrid funding model, as we did for the Ministry of Social and Family Development many years ago under Minister Vivian, which is to have a universal core base and then dig and increase and subsidise the basic services so that at least the basic core costs of those models can be covered.
Mr. Chua Rui Lung: I would like to thank Ms. Pan Liping for her two very detailed questions. Hopefully, I will give as much detail as possible in my reply.
I agree with the MP that we do often have a lot of obstacles in terms of implementation, especially when we need partners to work together, especially when we try to get some flexibility when it comes to policy implementation. But rest assured, every social worker, family counsellor, senior civil servant and myself in the Community Liaison Plus programme has a very clear point of view, and we are really concerned about this situation, and I will elaborate on the various obstacles encountered in implementing it.
I would like to pledge to you that the officials of the Ministry of Social and Family Development, as well as the frontline staff, will be committed to helping every family served by the Ministry of Social and Family Development. So this is a very broad answer to Ms. Pan's first question.
With regard to the second question, I would like to thank her for her enthusiastic advocacy in this regard. I can assure this MP that we are not simply looking at the outputs of the master plan, but also at some specific indicators. So, for example, in terms of employment, the employment rate is 40 per cent. At the beginning of the launch of the Enabling 2030 Master Plan in 2022, we had an employment rate of around 30% to 31%. To make the leap from 30 to 40 percent, that means about 10,000 jobs need to be placed. We're talking about much more than placements, because we want people with disabilities to be able to keep their jobs and stay in employment. And employment isn't just about having a job and having a place to go from 9 to 6 every day, it's about personal empowerment and, in many cases, about self-fulfillment. So this is just one example of how we can focus on the results.
Other outcomes include a survey of people with disabilities conducted by the National Council of Social Service called the Disability and Inclusion Group Quality of Life Study. This survey is one of the proxy reports we refer to, conducted every two years to see how issues in this area are working. I would like Ms. Pan Liping to understand that the 2030 Master Plan is not a rigid plan, in fact, it is a very viable plan.
This does not mean that what we said in 2022 is the truth, and we are open to some policy adjustments. In fact, we've already noted in the master plan that we know things are changing, especially in terms of assistive technology and so on. We acknowledge this and welcome any suggestions you may have as you move towards 2030. I would like to add that 2030 is definitely not a full stop, but a comma in our journey to build Singapore into a more inclusive society. I hope that the above statement is sufficient to make a commitment to this Parliamentarian.
The following is the content of the question in English:
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you Minister, Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for your comprehensive and caring responses. I have two supplementary questions, mostly for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
3.45 pm
The first one has to do with ComLink+. I hear an almost picture-perfect narrative of what has happened. But I know and am sure the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also goes through quite a lot of this every day, that it is not picture-perfect and there are lots of challenges actually serving our families. And I just want to reiterate what I asked in my cut. How did the pilot go? What were the challenges? And how do we intend to solve this? And how do the rest of us, including the Government, plan to work at it together? That is my first supplementary question.
The second one has to do with the Enabling Plan for persons with disabilities. Again, I want to ask from my cut. First is that it is great and I am very thankful for the report that was made. A lot of these reports pertain to the outputs, activities, and that is a really good start as well. But we need to link it to outputs. At the same time, we also want to make sure that it is not outdated. Eight-year master plans are like really major things. Even in this time and age, a lot of things, shelf lives are very short. So, I really think that eight-year master plans in the social service sector definitely have to be updated. So, can I ask for a structured official review each year so that we can ensure that these plans are updated? Also include what I shared about the need to include hot topics like inclusive insurance, criminal justice, review and strengthen the appropriate adult scheme and also to include ADHD and dyslexia, such neurodiverse conditions into our master plan.
And also, the hot button issues, which are really the financial subsidies for essential services, such as daily activity centres for those with moderate to severe disabilities. I think we really need to consider a hybrid model of funding just like what we did many years ago, I think under Minister Vivian for MSF, where there is a universal core base and then you tap on, you add on, top up with means-tested subsidies so that at least the fundamental core expenses for such models can be covered.
Mr Eric Chua: I thank Ms Denise Phua for two very extensive clarifications. I will take the first clarification first. I am afraid I will not be able to give a very detailed reply.
I agree with the Member that in terms of implementation, in fact, oftentimes, we meet a lot of implementation roadblocks, especially where we need partners to work together, especially where we need perhaps to push for maybe some flexibility at the edges of our current day policies. But rest assured that there is a very intentional view right from the social service officers on the ground, the social service office’s general managers, as well as each of the SSO officers that are in touch with the ComLink+ families, the family coaches, right up to the senior public servants, as well as myself. We do take a very keen interest in what is going on on the ground. So, while I cannot — well, I can, but I would definitely use up all the clarification time, go through all the details of the various implementation bumps, if you will, that we have encountered.
But you have my commitment in this Chamber that MSF and our officers, right down the line to the SSOs on the ground, will commit to helping every single ComLink+ families that we are serving today. So, that is a very broad answer to Ms Denise Phua’s first question.
To the second question, I want to thank her for being a very passionate advocate in this space. And I assure the Member that we are not simply looking at output in the Enabling Masterplan. Some of the indicators that we look at pertains specifically to outcomes. So, for instance, in terms of employment, getting to 40% employment, and that translates, from when we first started in 2022, when the Enabling Masterplan 2030 was launched, we were at about 30%, 31%. And to make that leap from 30% to 40%, that translates to about 10,000 job placements. And we are talking about going way beyond placements, because we do want persons with disabilities to keep their jobs, to sustain employment. Because employment is not simply about having a job, having somewhere to go nine to six every day. It is also about personal empowerment. It is also about self-actualisation in many instances. So, that is but one example of how outcomes are also being attended to.
Other outcomes that we look at, NCSS conducts a quality of life survey of persons with disabilities and this is called the Disability and Inclusion Panel Study. And this is conducted once every two years. This is also one of those proxy reports that we refer to, to see how the needles are shifting in this space. And I really want to behoove Ms Denise Phua that the EMP 2030 Masterplan is not a dead plan. In fact, it is a very live plan. It does not mean that what we have said in 2022 is truth with a capital “T”. We are open to evolving some of the strategies; we are open to evolving some of the methods. In fact, we have stated in the Masterplan itself that we understand that things are changing, particularly in terms of, say, assistive technology. And we acknowledge that and we welcome any suggestions along the way as we get to 2030. And if I can add, 2030 is most definitely not a full stop. To me, it is the figurative comma in our journey towards making Singapore a more inclusive society. So, I hope that is sufficient assurance for the Member.
CF丨Editor
Edited by CF丨
Singapore Parliament丨Source
Singapore Parliament丨Source
1. The copyright of all works on this website that indicates the type of article as "original" belongs to Kannanyang and Singapore Eye. When reprinting and using by other media, websites or individuals, they must indicate: "Article source: Singapore Eye".
2. All works indicated on this website as "reprinted" and "compiled" are reprinted or compiled from other media, for the purpose of delivering more valuable information, and it does not mean that this official account agrees with its views and is responsible for its authenticity.