Speech by Mr. Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC at the Second Reading of the Vulnerable Adults Bill [Bill No. 20/2018]
- Date Introduced: 20.03.2018
- Date of 2nd Reading: 18.05.2018
- Date Passed: 18.05.2018
Sir, the Vulnerable Adults Bill has been a long time in the making, with the public consultation on a draft Bill having been conducted nearly two years ago. The Bill is a welcomed piece of legislation to protect some of the most vulnerable in society, but also raises difficult questions of the role the state should play in intervening in the most intimate of relationships, and in interfering with decisions and preferences of an adult on matters of their own care. The long period of gestation for the Bill reflects the delicate process of balancing protection and respect for individual autonomy and freedom.
I stand in support of the Bill and the principles set out under section 4, which articulates the restraint and proportionality that should guide the exercise of the extensive powers under this Bill.
I have a few points of clarification on the scope of protection offered by the Bill, the mechanisms for checks on the exercise of powers, and measures for protecting vulnerable adults beyond those set out under the Bill.
My first point really is what I started this speech with. Why did it take so long to introduce this Bill? What were the various considerations or challenges MSF faced in introducing this important Bill.
Next, under the Bill, a vulnerable adult is defined as an individual who is 18 years old or older. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for setting 18 years old as the lower age limit for a vulnerable adult? The Children and Young Persons Act protects individuals who are under 16 years old. What are the forms of equivalent legal protection and recourse available to those who are between 16 and 18 years old?
Next, sexual abuse is not listed as a type of abuse under section 2(1). Instead, “physical abuse” is defined to include coercion or attempts at coercing an individual to engage in sexual activity. This definition of sexual abuse as being a subset of physical abuse is too narrow because not all sexual harassment is physical. For instance, vulnerable adults may be subject to verbal sexual harassment not amounting to coercion in engaging sexual activities. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for subsuming sexual abuse under physical abuse, and also clarify how verbal sexual harassment will be dealt with under the Bill? Further, would the Minister consider introducing or including sexual abuse as an independent head of abuse?
Similarly, the definition of “abuse” under section 2(1) does not include financial abuse. There is also a lack of provisions in the Bill that address financial abuse of vulnerable adults. Financial abuse such as financial exploitation is a significant problem faced by vulnerable adults and is a form of elder abuse recognised by MSF. A 2014 survey conducted by TRANS Family found that 29% of elderly mistreatment in Singapore involves financial exploitation. There appears to be a gap in the current legal framework for addressing financial abuse and exploitation of vulnerable adults.
For instance, finance-related offences under the Penal Code such as theft, extortion, and cheating may not be sufficiently nuanced to address financial exploitation in the context of an existing relationship of trust or dependency. Protection orders under the Women’s Charter does not extend to financial abuse. The definition of ill-treatment under the Mental Capacity Act, which protects mentally incapacitated elders from ill-treatment by their care-giver or donee or deputy does not include financial abuse. Will the Minister consider extending the ambit of the Bill to protection against financial abuse in the future? What are the current legal protections available to vulnerable adults subject to financial abuse?
Next, the Director and protectors have extensive discretion and powers under the Bill. Care-givers may legitimately worry about disruption and interference in their lives such as the possibility of entry into their homes and premises. Excessive intervention may also further strain relationships between elderly parents and their children. These extensive state powers must thus be exercised with great restraint and proportionality. Can the Minister clarify what mechanisms exist for review and oversight of the powers granted to the Directors and protectors?
Would the Minister consider instituting a formal approval or reporting process for the most intrusive powers exercised by the Directors and protectors? This would include the powers to remove an individual for assessment without consent, to enter premise, to remove a vulnerable adult from their place of residence and to require medical treatment. Can the Minister also clarify the instances where the Director or protector need not seek a donee or deputy’s consent before assessing or removing a vulnerable adult under section 6(2) and section 10(2)?
Given that cases of abuse, neglect, or self-neglect often occur outside the public eye, effectiveness of the Bill, as Minister has mentioned, is contingent on detection and reporting of such cases. Will training be provided to front-line staff to sensitise them to indicators of abuse, neglect, or self-neglect? I understand that Social Services Offices and other community partners can call MSF to report cases of vulnerable adult abuse, but vulnerable adults who are not in contact with community partners may fall through the cracks. Would the Minister consider setting up a public hotline under the Adult Protective Services for reporting vulnerable adult abuse as has been done with MSF Child Protective Services Helpline?
Further, can the Minister clarify the ways in which the Adult Protective Services are similar or different from the Child Protective Services? Will every case of vulnerable adult abuse be reported to the police? There is an existing mechanism under Section 8 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act that allows a Magistrate to investigate a report from any person or police officer that a mentally disordered person is not under proper care and control or is ill-treated or neglected. Can the Minister clarify how this provision will operate in relation to the Bill?
Lastly, can the Minister also share the plans for ensuring successful reintegration and adequate care of vulnerable adults when they are returned to their homes from place of temporary care and protection?
Sir, clarifications and suggestions for Ministry’s consideration notwithstanding, I stand in support the Bill.
Mr Desmond Lee:
To Mr Louis Ng’s question on their training, MSF has established protocols and training platforms that equip them to handle and detect family violence. These include training modules at the Social Service Institute on identifying and managing vulnerable adults.
MSF is also building on our existing Integrated Family Violence Manual, which agencies rely on to guide their intervention into family violence. This manual will soon also cover the safety of vulnerable adult — so, work in progress. To more effectively identify and help vulnerable adults, MSF is currently working with our community partners to co-develop relevant Standard Operating Procedures and assessment guides.
Third, the Government must provide avenues for easy reporting, and react quickly to reports that come in. Ms K Thanaletchimi, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira asked about a public hotline where people can report abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults. Mr Louis Ng also asked if every case of vulnerable adult abuse will be reported to the Police for action.
So, who should the public call if they come across suspected cases? They can alert the nearest Family Service Centre, they can call any of the three Family Violent Specialist Centres set up by MSF, the numbers for both are available on our website, or they can call MSF’s ComCare Hotline at 1800-222-0000.
Where there are immediate safety concerns or danger to a vulnerable adult, the public can call the Police.
But not every case of harm to vulnerable adults may necessarily warrant Police involvement, at least from the get go. Where the safety concerns are not so clear or immediate, our Family Service Centres and Family Violent Service Centres will first look into the matter, and alert us at MSF if state intervention is necessary and then we will move it together.
[…]
Mr Louis Ng and Dr Daniel Goh asked why the Bill only protects vulnerable adults aged 18 years and older. How about legal protection for those above 16 but below 18 years old, since the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) only covers individuals below 16?
First, vulnerable individuals, aged 16 to 18, have some protection under existing legislation, such as the Women’s Charter. The Women’s Charter protects individuals, regardless of their gender and age, from family violence. A personal protection order (PPO) may be applied for under that Act on behalf of the vulnerable person.
Secondly, and could be more importantly, as I have mentioned in my earlier speech, we are reviewing the CYPA in order to extend the statutory protection to those above 16 but under 18 under the Child Protection Framework as opposed to the Vulnerable Adults Framework.
[…]
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Louis Ng have asked why it took three years for the Bill to be introduced. This Bill involves intrusive statutory intervention in the realm of family and personal matters, so we did not want to rush this. Indeed, as a Member has pointed out – was it Assoc Prof Daniel Goh – this Bill heralds more conversations in the future about the extent to which external State power should be brought into the realm of the family to enable, intervene and support. So, this is not just a Bill that involves operational details. It does involve quite a lot of that. But also very fundamental questions that we have to debate both internally and with our stakeholders. We had to consult our stakeholders extensively and review how past cases were handled to see where the law needed to come in. We also studied overseas jurisdictions.
In drawing up the Bill, we had detailed discussions with public agencies and community partners, such as our FVSCs, FSCs, Social Service Offices, hospitals, the Police, the Courts and so on, on implementation, on SOPs – and work is still in progress on that front – capabilities, resourcing and training, not to mention the philosophical discussions that we have to have with various partners who are concerned about whether the Bill was sufficiently interventionist or whether it is overly intrusive. And, of course, during all this time, it was not the case that vulnerable adults were not supported and abuse left unattended. Social work intervention by our FSCs, FVSCs, SSC Cluster support, our APS, RPG, OPG, AIC and police continue, as they have always been doing. With this Bill, we hope to be able to add on to that framework with the suite of powers that we are seeking your support on.
[End]
To search for my other PQs and speeches, do refer to my blog, Facebook page, or the Hansard.
Your Voices in Parliament 
Leave a comment