Enabling Masterplan 3 (2017)
Sir, the recently concluded third Enabling Masterplan (EM) is a testament to the Singapore Government's commitment to build an inclusive country in which the potential of persons with special needs can be maximised.
I want to thank the Minister, the Ministry, the Steering Committee chaired by Ms Anita Fam and my fellow Steering Committee members and all who made this possible.
The Masterplan is an important milestone for our nation-building because Singapore is neither just an economy nor a corporation. If Singapore is to be a home worth defending, then every citizen born to it is worth valuing, regardless of race, religion or abilities. I would like to make six suggestions as the Ministry coordinates the roll-out of this Masterplan in the next five years.
Suggestion one − set up an Enabling Masterplan Rollout Committee. The EM3 was intentionally broad in its directions and recommendations. There is more to be uncovered, more to be added, especially in the light of a need for a 21st century social services sector in an age of digitalisation, disruption and sea changes in demographics.
To me, leaving the EM3 plan to be interpreted and rolled out solely by Government, seeking inputs and reporting only when it wishes, is not a wise and progressive strategy. This self-check and self-reporting mode will reduce the transparency and trust that the Ministry has diligently built up in the last decade. Of course, who would want to install a body to check on itself but this is a Government Ministry, more than many other Ministries, this is a Ministry that needs to rely on the ideas, the trust and the volunteerism of many stakeholders to create accurate, out-of-the-box and impactful social solutions.
I, therefore, propose that an EM3 Rollout Committee be set up and headed by Minister himself or someone appointed by Minister, no less. This Committee should comprise key members of the EM3 Steering Committee representing the key disability groups and representatives from other EM3-Implementing Ministries and agencies. Its mission will be to provide inputs to an Implementation Plan; and to track and report on the progress of the EM3 over the next five years.
Suggestion two − encourage mini Enabling Plans by disability groups so that there is more ownership by them. Just as there is a strong need for self-driven and innovative enterprises and learners in the economy of the future, so should the social service of the future start to transform itself. There will never be sufficient public resources to meet the needs of all the disability groups, in the face of so many competing demands of the displaced, the rapidly ageing and other disadvantaged. We need to enable, recognise and nurture self-driven and innovative disability groups.
The Ministry should encourage the key disability groups to start developing their own Enabling Plans so that their highest priority needs can be identified, implemented with support from parties which do not only include Government. These mini plans are not mere inputs of the randomly assembled focus groups, their content will provide good inputs to the accurate and impactful rollout of the Enabling Masterplan in the next five years.
Suggestion three − develop a more comprehensive profiling of care-givers and needs.
Care-giver needs differ, depending on the age of child, age of parents, education level, interest, disability and age of the charges. The history of care-giver support in the disability sector has been dotted with centralisation and decentralisation, with the DIRC, Centre for Enabled Living, SG Enable and also the whole Caregiver Support Centre networks, in for example, Asian Women's Welfare Association (AWWA) and Rainbow Centre.
I feel strongly the need for care-giver needs to be more carefully analysed and segmented according to demographic and disability profiles. We should not spend resources setting up yet another Care-giver Centre or Village. Existing hubs such as the SG Enable can coordinate and equip current centres and increase more accessible touch-points at the hospitals, schools, VWOs and even SSOs and community centres.
Suggestion four − develop a more systematic and structured way to rope in community helpers. There ought to be a more structured and effective way to organise a stronger and more consistent community volunteer and help network, involving neighbouring schools, corporations, grassroots and residents in the precinct. To me, a vast resource to tap on. People want to do good.
Suggestion five − conduct review of the school-to-work scheme. I suggest that the school-to-work scheme be independently reviewed to determine its strengths and areas of weaknesses. I understand that the scheme has strong merit because it is well resourced and has the ability to tap on a network of corporate partners. However, I hear it needs to be improved because of a less than structured support and follow-up. There is room for MOE, MSF and SG Enable to tap on the current job assessment and placement centres with MINDS, Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and Autism Resource Centre (ARC) so that there can be more structure, streamlining and continuity after the students graduate.
For the more severe trainees, there is also a strong merit for the Ministry and its agents to bring back a more updated version of sheltered enterprises that could create piece-meal paid work so that those with moderate to severe needs need not adopt the more costly options of staying at home or using a day care service. I have personally witnessed programmes like these which are very successful, and I am sure we can scale some of these models for this target group.
Suggestion six − take a deep dive review of the real needs of adults with moderate to severe needs. This is the most challenging of the groups that we have to support in the disability sector. It is important that the various options for adults with moderate to severe needs be studied carefully in areas of work, care-giving and residential living. In residential living, for instance, there is sufficient literature to look at a continuum of living models. We need not only look at institutionalised built-up options. There are more community-based models of partially supported living elsewhere in the world.
Conclusion − finally Sir, the clarion call in the digital economy of the future is just as loud for the special needs, for the social service sector. For a sector with many diverse needs with limited resources, the need to deep-dive, to innovate, to pioneer, to scale and to persuade other people to join us in solving the many challenges is very necessary. I recently came across an Australian competition in which start-up digital firms pitched their digital ideas to find innovations that will revolutionalise the lives of people with disabilities − 3-D printed prosthetic limbs; one-stop-shop that store all the forms the community will ever need in a smart phone.
Sir, these are exciting times for the special needs sector. We must take heed to not populate the EM3 with last-century mind sets, tools and solutions, otherwise, we will be throwing good money after bad, and we will be pouring old wine into new wine skin, causing the wine skin to burst.
Nonetheless, I am very grateful that Singapore has our own Masterplan and that I am able to share my proposals for Minister's consideration.