BEYOND ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS

3.19 pm

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before this House.

We have watched how the recent currency turmoil has raised unexpected speed to turn Asia's economic miracle into a meltdown. One consistent message has emerged from this mess - the need for good governance and good leaders acting in the best interest of the people.

I am grateful that Singapore has again demonstrated through this crisis that it has a government who knows how to manage its economic fundamentals. Yet it is not smugly complacent. Despite the turmoil in the region, it has set up five Singapore

21 Committees to identify more and new ways to strengthen a "heartware" society, as defined by the Prime Minister. That is a good word, Sir.

It is this commitment by the Government to listen to the people of Singapore which prompts me to rise to raise my concerns. I will raise five matters today: the need to prioritise social services, recognise the role of social service professionals, expand tertiary curriculum, encourage a culture of initiative and setting up Social Services 21.

Social Services as Priority Concern

While we build on our economic fundamentals, how are we strengthening our social fundamentals? My concern here is: how are we nurturing an effective human resource structure for our social service agencies which are vital agents in the exercise to forge unity of cohesion?

The process of fleshing out the vision of a `care and share' society certainly requires more than committee meetings, reports and national campaigns. Sir, in the realm of community services, we require a professional corps of "sharers and carers" - I mean the social service professionals - who would translate this vision by serving as a catalyst, the bridges and, by their own personal examples, as a role model of service to the needy.

Besides people, the way social services are organised to translate heartware into realisable components may require the same kind of detailed, cohesive and committed action plan which would be implemented if we were to achieve economic goals. At this point, allow me, Sir, to raise some priority issues. First, the need for relevant social service institutions and effective programmes which cut across Ministries. Second, the need for additional resources to expand and upgrade the skills of the social service professionals. Third, the need to develop a substantive understanding among social service providers on social issues and programme management. Fourth, the need for clearer role differentiation between Government and volunteer agencies. And, fifth, the need for service standards and audit procedures to guarantee best practices in our frontline service agencies.

I know the Ministry of Community Development must have deliberated these issues. Some Members have been invited to sit in committees to give feedback. As a result, working committees were formed, new agencies were set up, new courses were developed in NIE, NUS, NCSS, the Family Research and Training Centre (FRTC) and by select VWOs.

There remains a concern, however, about whether these assets were coordinated and integrated enough to provide a relevant continuum of services for our community, or whether they were ad hoc, sometimes fragmented, and stand-alone training modules, which lacked consistent therapy methodology.

Do we need generic services? Or do we need more specialised ones? Is 2% training budget sufficient for our VWOs to upgrade themselves annually? How are our services being prepared for many of the recovery programmes in abuse cases to support mandatory counselling court orders?

While recognising the complexity of these issues as there are no easy answers readily available, the social service community is anxious to hear from the Minister if there is a comprehensive policy for the delivery of social services and how the priority concerns mentioned will be translated and implemented in the next millennium.

Mindset Change

I am concerned that unless there is a mindset change about the proper role of social service professionals, even the best action plans will not be fully realised. These professionals are almost an invisible category in our community. Seen as quasi-volunteers, do-gooders, people with a kind and stalwart heart, and many volunteers have done outstanding charity work without regard, we overlook the need to promote a highly trained and well-paid corps of professionals to offer best practices in counselling, therapeutic and rehabilitation services.

Volunteers in community services are acknowledged through various public service medals. But full-time direct social service professionals who live with their clients' multiple family problems are not always recognised.

Other social service professionals who do not care about either money or recognition identify inadequate skills and resources as well as poor career development in the sector as major problems.

Yet others feel strongly about their sense of helplessness vis-a-vis Ministry administrators and frontline enforcement officers who are too over-worked and equally ill-equipped to facilitate the helping process.

It comes to no surprise then that against this backdrop of low morale, we face higher attrition rate among social work graduates. Minister Tarmugi reported in 1994 that since 1974, the university had trained an estimated 830 social workers. We are looking at 40 a year. In 1992, the Singapore Association of Social Workers conducted a study on the number of social workers in social work related jobs. The study found that over the years, half the university social work graduates of each cohort took up social work related jobs. Subsequently, only a third of the cohort remained in social work related jobs.

Sir, an overall 30% success rate is not a cost effective educational investment. Nor could it meet increasing service needs. The Government is now talking about developing more family service centres by the year 2000. Where do we get this manpower to run these centres? What kind of service do we offer to Singaporeans seeking therapeutic help? Do we risk the possibility of re-traumatising our clients due to poor service delivery? How many programmes were not implemented simply because we did not have the expertise to teach our young social workers? We are at a stage, Sir, when we need specialists, therapists and consultants for the sector.

Start with the University

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise that in the arena of human resource development, we need a long lead time to change mindset and upgrade existing skills. Even if we were to start in 1998 to increase our undergraduate and polytechnic student intakes into the Social Work Department and start to change our curriculum from a general one to a specialised one, we will only see the outcome in 2001. There is an urgency to attend to this matter now.

One idea related to manpower shortage was raised by the community, whether we could create opportunities for mature adults like home-makers or early retirees to train for a social work degree in the university. They could fill the manpower shortage in the sector and at the same time add value to the quality of service delivery by sharing their life experiences when they handle families with multiple problems.

Our young social workers, graduated at 21 or 22, find family therapy work overwhelming due to their youth and inexperiences. Importing foreign talent is obviously a short-term solution. But in the long run, Sir, we cannot have a society where the poor, the aged, the sick and the less fortunate are all cared for by foreigners while Singaporeans write the cheques for the carers and givers. If we are to build on the ethos of volunteerism and service excellence, then we must have a strong corps of grown decently paid and well-respected social service professionals.

To borrow an analogy. Even if a volunteer citizen army is to work, it must have a corps of highly motivated and trained professional officers. It is no different for social work.

Job Demoralisation: A national liability

But it is not just about the economics of manpower planning. When people are demoralised due to a perceived loss of personal relevance, it is the end of all motivation for change and improvement. This is a national liability because individuals in such mental state have lost the capacity and competence to be contributing citizens.

The situation may not only be applicable to the social service sector. Let me quote the survey on the General Health of the Singapore Population conducted in 1989. A minor psychiatric morbidity (MPM), which is an indicator for establishing the extent of our population at risk of mental health problems, was a high 18% compared to other countries in the region which ranged from 8% to 20%. MPM does not mean we are all mad. But it does mean that we are not all too well. And a subsequent report published by the IPS in 1991 indicated that, among other factors, low self-esteem, performance anxiety, stress, inadequate coping skills were some of the causes for MPM.

My concern is while our GDP may not be dramatically affected by a high MPM rate, it undermines our national sense of self and weakens our collective psyche. It may not prepare us to cope with the extraordinary stresses.

Culture of Anxiety

I am also concerned, Sir, that all our efforts to upgrade our heartware resources will come to nought if we do not rid ourselves of the culture of anxiety which infuses our system. I am not referring to the external stresses which are part of the human condition, ie, poverty, making ends meet, relating to life partner, and so on.

I refer to an anxiety syndrome within the Government service. The anxiety started at an early age where within the school system, young people are socialised into worrying how to get through the system without tripping up. They are driven by the fear of being wrong rather than the desire to be right. These are two different motivations. The first is inhibited and paralysing; the second, proactive and choice-focused.

I have worked with many police case officers, social service providers and other Ministry administrators, and invariably, a culture of anxiety is omni-present. Most of them are competent, dedicated, but they are afraid to make decisions for fear that they would be judged as wrong decisions. Therefore, it is better to dawdle, rather than make a decision, especially one which may break new ground. At other times, their hesitations were compounded by inadequate training, poor understanding of the standard operation procedures.

PM has spoken of the need to decentralise decision making so that we do not just have a top-down society, but a lateral society of interaction and dialogue. Sir, I think that if we are to achieve PM's vision, we must seriously tackle this fear of failure, culture of anxiety, whatever you call it, because it prevents the empowerment of Singaporeans at all levels. And in the arena of crisis intervention, when on-the-spot decisions have to be made to save lives, the failure by frontline officers to act could lead to disastrous outcomes. We do not need more weeny hose.

No one doubts that Singapore is where it is today because of our commitment to competition and meritocracy in all fields of our endeavours. But if we are, as PM has encouraged, to look at improving our society with no preconceptions, I urge that we look at how we can replace the culture of anxiety with a culture of initiative. By that, I mean, Sir, give people the freedom and the responsibility to choose the course of action and face the consequences, make the mistakes and learn from them without being judged too harshly. This open spirit and acquired confidence in making a right and good judgment can only enhance our commitment to competition and meritocracy.

Social Services 21

Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that a balanced development requires both economic and social help. In our efforts to create this care-and-share society, who do we see are the heartware specialists? Government sets the tone and provides the vision but the help will actually be delivered by grassroots advocates.

The creation of CDCs and their sincere attempts to partner with neighbourhood agencies are a welcome strategy to foster community building. Such cooperative involvement is what gives Singaporeans a sense of relevance and how we keep the daughters and sons of Singapore on this soil. The long-term return on investments for dollars spent on heartware resources is when a Singaporean will say, "I may not be rich but I am cared for, my work is relevant and being recognised, and I feel I belong." I hope the Government will see the social service community as one key partner in its vision of building a heartware society. We need a paradigm shift to see social welfare beyond handing out benefits here and there. Instead, welfare involves a focus on social services as a heartware fundamental, integral to any effort in governance to ensure social equity and the total wellness of Singaporeans.

In response, the social service community would like to help translate these tenets of a care and share Singapore 21 with a wish list. Our wish list comprises:

Career recognition;

Shared passion for social courses to be encouraged at all community and administrative levels;

Service with a clear mind and a trained skill;

A closer and trusted communication at all levels between institutions in the helping process;

Access to information and open exchanges of experiences;

Clearer protocols and procedures in case management to achieve an integrated approach; and

A sharing of responsibility by enforcement personnel across all Ministries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope the Ministers for Finance, Education and Community Development will give meaningful focus to this wish list for the social services in the Singapore 21 plan. The community would like to see a Social Services 21 Committee being set up whereby grassroots social service professionals could make recommendations and propose integrated programmes for the sector.

I would like to clarify that by proposing SS 21, I am not asking for more and more subsidies. I believe in the `many helping hands' principle, but I stress we also need many helping skills. Sir, we need a fresh mindset willing to recognise new priorities and change old cultures of organisations and work, if we are to reach beyond the already successful Singaporeans who touch the lives of the marginalised and the disadvantaged - I mean the underachievers, delinquents, children and families at risk, the aged, the disabled and the poor. We can certainly start by recognising that in today's affluent Singapore, we must move beyond economic fundamentals to address the equally important social fundamentals. [Applause].

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development (Mr Chan Soo Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I would like to thank the NMP Mdm Claire Chiang for her very comprehensive and eloquent speech. But before we go too much beyond economic fundamentals, let us get one thing straight. It is important first to get the economic fundamentals correct. Without a strong economy, we would not have the resources to deal with the social problems and to fund the meaningful social service programmes. We may also face more severe social problems when our economy weakens. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that she has put forward many good ideas and raised many pertinent and constructive points. The Ministry of Community Development together with other organisations which are in the social service sector will study her ideas. I may also seek further clarifications from her and to further the exchange of ideas. After all, social service is not the responsibility of Government alone. We look forward to participation of sincere and like-minded people. We also look forward to benefiting from their ideas.

Allow me to outline MCD's basic approach to the provision of social service - "Many Helping Hands". She has pointed this out in her speech and also mentioned that the hands need training of many useful skills too. Yes, this is what we have been doing and we want to do better. With many helping hands, the Government, the voluntary organisations, the community and, in particular, the more successful citizens can come together to help the less fortunate in the community. This enhances social cohesion. This approach has served Singapore well and this basic approach will continue. Whether we call it Social Service 21 or some other name, I believe we can decide later. It is important to know what is it that we want to do first. In fact, as we approach the 21st century, we will see more helping hands coming our way and, in a sense, also more useful skills. These come through from three directions. First, the increased involvement of local communities; second, the increase in volunteer participation; and, third, the development of human resources. I think the NMP has addressed all three.

Perhaps allow me to address them using my own frequency. First, involving the local communities. The involvement of the CDCs was indeed mentioned by the NMP. In fact, the voluntary organisations and the CDCs can synergise with each other. Voluntary welfare organisations have the professional knowledge and enthusiasm, while the CDCs have the local grassroots network and know the needs of the local community. By working together, they can reach out to more people, recruit more volunteers, raise more funds, and serve more residents and do it better. As a result, more residents will benefit from more resources and better services. We also bring the coordinator, namely, CDC, closer to the community, instead of being located far away in the Ministry of Community Development. That way, the helping hands are nearer.

Second, increase volunteer participation. We believe that through the involvement of local communities via the CDCs, more local residents will be willing to participate as volunteers. As they will see that they are helping a neighbour in need who is just perhaps not too far away, they will be more willing to come forward. Also, our students will be performing a minimum of six hours a year of compulsory community service. This is the initiative of the Ministry of Education, and this will be part of the school programme. Our young people will discover the joy of helping people who are in need. As they discover the pleasure, they grow up and become more conscious about the importance of social service. Many of them would join the rank of volunteers or social service professionals. As this programme is introduced to the young people, it can become a way of life and part of Singapore 21. With more volunteers, we have more helping hands. We can raise the level of volunteers' participation to a level nearer that of the developed countries. At the moment, I think we are about half. Some people have said, one-third of the volunteers' participation of developed countries. I think we should be able to catch up in the next few years.

The third area is developing human resources. I think the NMP has articulated many ideas in this direction, both for the social service professionals as well as for the social service volunteers. Like her, we attach much importance to the quality and commitment of the social service professionals.

I would like to assure the House and the NMP that much has been done to try to improve and assure the quality of social service professionals as well as the standard of the social work graduates. We do admit that sometimes we find rather inexperienced young graduates handling relatively difficult cases in some of the centres. But please see this in the context of the rapid growth of our social service sector in the last few years. The social service centres will ensure that these younger graduates are guided, supervised and they learn on the way.

The NMP mentioned the need to train a core of trained professional officers drawing on the analogy with the military. Let me assure her that the Ministry of Community Development and the NUS collectively plan for our officer cadet schools to train our officer cadets. We work closely with the Department of Social Work and Psychology of the NUS to plan student intakes, identify training needs and review the curriculum of NUS social work courses. I shall visit my distinguished colleague, Dr Vasoo, to find out what more we could do.

Those who want higher professional qualifications, the NUS also has a plan for a Masters degree and a Graduate Diploma in Social Work for graduates in social work. The Temasek Polytechnic has also launched its Graduate Specialist Diploma in Counselling and Guidance this year.

So those are the training courses for professional social workers. And to allow existing frontline workers including volunteers to upgrade their skills, MCD encouraged and facilitated the setting up of the Family Resource and Training Centre (FRTC) by the Singapore Association of Social Workers. The FRTC leads in specialised skills training in new areas of social service such as the management of juveniles as well as family violence cases. The NMP seems to have the impression that MCD has always been very stingy but we did provide $1.6 million since 1992 to set up and run the FRTC. We also set up a half a million dollar endowment fund for them to help them generate interest to fund some of the training programmes. I want to assure the NMP that more funds would be provided if more courses are identified and a need should arise. In addition, we also give business to FRTC. We commission FRTC as well as other agencies, like Counselling and Care Centre, to conduct specialised and skills enhancement workshops and courses. A total of 788 social workers from the various VWOs, police, medical and social work departments and MCD have attended these courses in the last two years. More such courses would be funded by MCD. Nine specialised courses a year in the areas of family violence, child abuse and juvenile delinquency will be conducted starting next year.

MCD is satisfied with the professional standard of our social work graduates as well as most of our social work para-professionals. MCD is also committed to their continued improvement. In fact, their quality of training and versatility may have contributed to the relatively high turnover. Let us face it. If I am no good, and nobody wants to employ me I cannot turn over. Perhaps our graduates are too good. As a result, they turn over rather faster than we wanted them. But this is no reason for us not to ensure that they are even better trained than now.

Ironically, our human resources in the social service sector are also particularly suitable for the HR sector in the private sector. Social workers, in fact, can make very good HR managers. Sometimes they get paid more. Social work also can be very stressful and can be very emotionally draining. A social work graduate who does not really have a heart for such work may find it more worthwhile to join the private sector. This is inevitable, but this may not be all bad. The private sector, with more staff with social work experience, can turn out to be some of our many helping hands, our hands and contacts in the business world.

I must also say that despite the high turnover we do have excellent professional social workers who have remained in the profession. They stay because they find satisfaction. They find that social work is work for the conscience and work for the heart. Of course, we must not take them for granted. MCD is working with NUS, NCSS and the Singapore Association of Social Workers to address the issue of greater recognition of professional social work.

The question having been proposed at Nineteen minutes past Three o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.