Sir, I stand in support of the proposed CPF (Amendment) Bill. As kindly pointed out by the Minister of State, one of the key provisions of the amendments – the Special Needs Savings Scheme (SNSS) – owes its origin to a 2006 Parents’ Workgroup on Enhancing the Financial Security of Persons with Special Needs. Thanks to the then MCYS Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, the workgroup which I led, spoke to close to 100 parents and consulted many experts in the field. Several interesting findings surfaced during the time. We found that parents were most worried about two things when they pass on. One, will there be sufficient money for their vulnerable children to live on when the parents die; and, two, will there be someone to care for their children when the parents are no longer alive to look out for them? I remember one parent wanting to make sure her disabled child dies first so that she herself can then die in peace. If the child does not, she sadly shared that she may need to kill him first. That was how desperate some of them were.

As a result of the work plan and other advocacies thereafter, MCYS – and I am grateful for that – adopted and implemented several recommendations to help the disabled over the last few years. Some of the key measures taken were the setting up of a one-stop disability help agency, the Centre for Enabled Living; the setting up of a Special Needs Trust Company to cater to the middle-income families who cannot afford a private trust; and now with the help of MOM, the amendment of the CPF Act to implement a Special Needs Savings Scheme.

The recommendation that led to this Bill was a response to the persistent calls by parents at that time for a safe and accepted Government-linked avenue for savings. The workgroup specifically then recommended the following:

(1) That all parents were allowed to open a CPF account for their child with special needs and to make voluntary contributions towards it;

(2) That tax relief be granted for these voluntary contributions;

(3) That the voluntary contributions attract an interest rate similar to that of the Medisave and the Special Account in order to encourage more savings. At the time of the 2006 recommendations, the Ordinary Account enjoyed an interest rate of 2.5% whilst those in Medisave and Special Accounts received an interest return of 4%; and

(4) That Government and donors can top up these accounts to further enhance the financial security of the adult children.

Those were the recommendations made in 2006. It is hence with deep gratitude that I thank MOM and MCYS in making the SNSS a reality.

Sir, to ensure that the spirit of the original recommendations is retained, I wish to raise several issues for consideration by MOM and MCYS. These can be broadly categorised into 3Es, namely, expand the scope; encourage savings; and effective education of the families.

First, expanding the scope. Sir, the first and biggest concern is related to the coverage of people with disabilities in the amendments. The amendments provided two specific criteria for eligibility.

To be eligible, the person with special needs has to either have attended or is attending a Special Education (SPED) school; or require assistance in at least one Activity of Daily Living (ADL), meaning he needs help in washing, bathing, feeding, toileting, transferring, dressing and mobility as assessed by a medical doctor.

Sir, it is important to note that this coverage is quite restrictive and will exclude many others for whom the recommendation was originally proposed. The first eligibility criterion excludes persons with special needs who have not attended any special schools. Sir, there are many of such persons in Singapore who attended or are attending mainstream schools which were willing to accommodate them. Through the charities that I help run, I personally know of students with special needs studying in such esteemed mainstream schools like NUS Maths and Science School and other mainstream schools. These are individuals who may be very strong academically but who may not be financially independent or financially proficient when they become adults. In addition, some people with special needs I know who have, for instance, Down Syndrome or celebral palsy who have never attended a special school all their lives, having been accepted in inclusive mainstream school in Singapore. They should not be excluded from the Scheme.

The second eligibility criterion in the amendment describes mainly disabilities that are fairly physical and severe. Many of us know of people with special needs who are able to wash themselves, clean themselves, move around and feed themselves. Some can even hold down specific types of jobs but they are individuals who too need guidance in money management, employment and need help in making higher order life decisions such as where to live, whom to contact when they are having health issues and even whom to trust.

I therefore seek MOM’s explicit clarification that the target beneficiaries of the SNSS will extend beyond those attending or have attended special schools or those who require help in one of the assisted living skills which are primarily physical. I propose that as long as there is professional assessment that the individuals would benefit from such a service, that these people be included. This will take a whole psychological load off the families and disability organisations who find the amendments a tad too restrictive.

Second, encouraging savings. Sir, in view of the fact that the intent of this initiative is to encourage parents and siblings and even other donors to save sufficiently for the financial security of the person with special needs, I urge the Government to consider a few suggestions:

(1) To remove the ceiling for the Minimum Sum topping up, as the people with special needs may require more to live on than the typical CPF member;

(2) To permit the prevailing rate for the Special Account (which is at a higher interest rate) to be extended to the entire sum set aside for the SNSS account;

(3) For the Government to commit to set aside sums from the budget surpluses to top up the SNSS accounts of the nominees who come from the lower-income groups;

(4) Instead of a drawdown scheme, to allow for the sum set aside in the SNSS for the purchase of a lifelong annuity, just like for the able-bodied CPF members; and

(5) To publicise and encourage the public, including philanthropic organisations and foundations to top up these SNSS accounts. I know of many lower-income families, for example, who have both elderly disabled parents and disabled adult children who would benefit from such top-ups.

In contrary to what hon. Member Mrs Lina Chiam shared, the CPF amendments this time precisely allow for Government and other donors to top up these accounts to help such families.

And, third, effective education of the families. Sir, six years on after the Parents’ Workgroup has completed its study, I found that the fears of many parents with special needs children still remain. I think these fears will always remain unless serious efforts are taken to reach out and educate them and nudge them to start taking actions to reduce these fears.

There is a strong need for MOM and especially MCYS to go beyond their administrative duties and ensure these new financial planning options are effectively communicated to the families as a package. From ground feedback, many families remain at the fear-and-anger stage and they have not progressed to taking action to improve the certainty of their own special needs children.

I urge MCYS to further resource the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL), the intended one-stop help agency, so that CEL can play a more effective role in being that one-stop centre to which such families can turn to for counselling and action. Aggressive and proactive outreach to these families must occur. Lay out all the financial planning options, what they are and what they are not and let parents make informed choices. Provide incentives for the early adopters. Communication is not completed until it reaches those who need to know. Most of the options today are not communicated in the language of the intended target audiences, many of whom are not proficient in the English Language nor Internet savvy. Communication must be done in the way that is most effective, in terms of outreach.

Let families know that there are now two options that the Government has provided – one, a no-frills CPF savings avenue in the form of SNSS; and, two, the more deluxe Special Needs Trust. It is time for families with children with special needs, young or old, to start learning and, most importantly, take tangible actions to participate in either one or both of these planning options. And also aggressively let potential donors know how they can top up the accounts of the lower income families who can benefit from such a scheme.

There is no need for the Special Needs Trust Company to restrict itself to its current scope, and claim it is superior to the SNSS. Both occupy different spaces. And by the way, both share the same surname – SNTC, SNSS – SN, for special needs. SNSS is a no-frills option for those who cannot even afford to put up a deposit for the modest trusts offered by SNTC. SNSS users will benefit from some of the current services that the Special Needs Trust Company can offer, such as financial planning, legal advice, and care planning templates and tips. I think they should avoid the silos and provide a total solution from the perspective of the family with special needs, advocating the option that best meets the families’ circumstances. Anything that is worth doing is worth doing it well.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to thank again, from the bottom of my heart, and commend MCYS and MOM for amending the CPF Act to provide a basic and safe savings avenue for families with special needs children in our country. I conducted a quick SMS poll of close to 20 families over the weekend and almost all of them said they would join the Scheme if it is attractive enough and they are very eager to find out more. I urge the Ministries to turn this positive desire to actual action that will then enhance the financial security of the people with special needs in our country. We need to help move families from fear to action. Only when action is taken, can the fear of the uncertain future of their special needs children be conquered.

Sir, as they always say, the maturity of the nation is reflected in how it takes care of those who are disadvantaged. This Bill is another clear step taken by the Government towards a more mature and progressive nation. Sir, I strongly support the Bill.