Sir, when I spoke before this House last November, I called for a finer mesh for our social security net. It is necessary for me to now repeat that call, but with greater urgency.

There live in our midst today a small group of destitute people in prosperous Singapore, and we wonder how that could be so?

Well, you can bring the horse to water but you can’t get it to drink . For a special group of S’poreans, it isn’t just a case of not drinking the water – some don’t see the water even when they are standing at the edge; others suspect the water’s been poisoned so one sip would kill them; yet others believe that they would be severely punished by the Govt if they dare to take even a drop; another lot says if they don’t have their own water, they mustn’t drink what is offered…

This small group of people in Singapore are at the bottom of the bottom-most, not because there aren’t safety nets for people like them — there are aplenty but because of the way they are or have become wired, they are just unable to understand what is available, what is for their own good to accept and so continue to suffer the saddest deprivation in the midst of plenty when it is all so unnecessary.

This group falls out of reach of all the good Government intentions and facilities such as Workfare. Do we shrug our shoulders and say, “well, if they won’t accept public help, it is their right? This is just the cop-out way and must be eschewed.

When those rejecting help are so obviously in distress (and yet so obviously oblivious to the precipice), a caring community can and should devise ways to accommodate this group, which is probably more vulnerable than an underaged autistic kid. At least the kid would have the care of his parents. Not for adult underpriviledged.

Sir, I would like to cite a case — a family of three disabled siblings in their 50s supported by one sickly sister in her 50s. Two are mentally retarded and 1 other is both retarded and deformed. Another normal brother, faced with his own financial problems, has avoided visiting. My worry is whether this precariously poised group would one day slip through the net for lack of family support or mental capacity to make the wise choice, i.e. to go to a home when they are unable to look after themselves anymore.

I would like to ask our Prime Minister whether the Government would consider introducing laws to make such destitute and disabled persons wards of the court to be sent to homes for their own good?

How many of such cases are found in our midst? I would also like to plead that each constituency maintain a register of the poor so that they can be identified for counselling and support.

Mindset change

Sir, allow me to cite one more case. This one involves an aged lady. She is in her eighties and is wheelchair bound. She seeks regular treatment for Parkinson’s disease, thyroid and stroke at the hospital.

She was eligible for free Class A medical care until her husband, an ex-civil servant, passed away last year. In order to better support herself and to pay for her medical expenses, she had requested for her Class A status to be downgraded.

Sadly, her request was turned down on grounds of her registered Class A status and through a means test.

Her appeal for downgrading of her outpatient and inpatient status was to facilitate her to stretch her savings in case she needs more for medical treatment. She cannot be asked to sell her house because it would be too much of an adjustment for her.

There is no doubt that Means Test and Track Records are a good defence against abuse. But as in every rule, there are or can be exceptions.

Sir, I have brought up this case also to illustrate a more systemic problem in our public administration.

This lady failed in her appeal because the rules in force, viz the Means Test, have decreed that she does not qualify for downgrading. Never mind that she lives in a terrace house bought almost 50 years ago. Never mind that she’s alone with meagre savings.

Sir, our government, indeed any government, works through a system of rules and procedures that creates consistency and transparency in the provision of public services. But rules must also make allowance for exceptions. And handling exceptions often requires unconventional thinking, or thinking out of the box.

We need a more systemic change of mindset among our decision makers. Sim Wong Hoo said it aptly that we should be able to do anything unless there is a rule that says we can’t, rather than not do anything unless there is a rule that says we can. That mindset will enable us to achieve a lot more.

Sir, continuous improvement and making a quantum leap in service improvement often require radical changes in our mindset. That is also the essence of innovation, and I hope we can instil that as a culture within the civil service, if not the nation as a whole.

Managing expectations and exceptions
Sir, in conclusion, let me applaud the Government once again for its success in managing the many and divergent expectations of the people. This year’s Budget has certainly managed to please most of the people most of the time.

But I also ask the Government to think through our current systems of support and subsidies. The system works for the overwhelming majority, but we owe it to ourselves to ensure that just as “we will leave no one behind”, we will let no one fall through the cracks.

Managing exceptions may be just as challenging as managing expectations but die-die must be done.