Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as an Office of the Public Guardian pro bono deputy appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act. I welcome the amendment Bill.

One of the main amendments is to set up the new Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) electronic system. I agree that there are many benefits to be gained from the digitalisation of the processes for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). In addition to greater convenience, the new system is more efficient and precious time can be saved with faster transactional time. As the OPGO system will be housed under the Government Commercial Cloud, I am sure that the system will be secured by the same standard of cybersecurity measures as for all other data and information held by the Government.

I am glad to note that for those who are less digitally savvy, they will be able to arrange for personalised consultations by making appointment at the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and seek help at Citizen Connect Centres located at community centres nationwide. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to ask the Ministry if the planned roadshows to boost public awareness of LPAs will be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Is there any possibility of bundling workshops on LPAs with the Singapore Digital Office's courses to improve our elderly's digital literacy, thereby killing two birds with one stone? For those with mobility problems and who do not know how to go online, will the Ministry assist them by sending a roving team to their homes to help them register LPAs, much like MOH roving vaccination team?

(In English): Next, I would like to share my concerns about the additional safeguards for donors. I am worried that such safeguards are not sufficient. How can we ensure that elderly, in particular, those who are less educated, will not be cheated? This is particularly a concern where the donors and donees are not related. Donees have control over the financial assets of the donor. If they siphon away such resources for themselves, ultimately, the other family members or the Government will have to pick up the tab or pay for the care of the donors.

With the increasing number of singles and our rapidly ageing population, the number of such vulnerable, and usually elderly, donors is likely to increase. We have already had cases of opportunistic donees in the past.

There is certainly no lack of predatory scammers looking to gain the trust of lonely elderly persons to take advantage of them. I appeal to the Ministry to consider implementing additional measures to screen potential donees for the protection of donors. Would the Ministry share with the House if it had checked with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) on the number of cases involving the defrauding of donors to date?

Finally, I have a request based upon my experience as a pro bono deputy with the OPG. Medical diagnosis has to be submitted when applying for a Court order to appoint a pro bono donee, in order to help a client who has lost his or her mental capacity.

Assuming the client has an existing medical record which states that he has lost his mental capacity and the record is stored in the National Electronic Healthcare Record. Instead of asking the aged home or caregiver to make an appointment to see the regular doctor for the sake of retrieving the medical record a few months later, would it not be much faster if the information can be shared between the Government restructured hospitals, including IMH, with OPG in a secured manner? This current process is time-consuming and does no service to the patient. For the case which I had handled, I prayed that my client was able to outlive the Court order. Therefore, would the Government restructured hospitals, IMH, MSF, MOH as well as OPG work out a new framework to expedite this process? Notwithstanding the above-mentioned queries, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start by saying that everyone – everyone – should pay attention to this Bill. Because this Bill matters, and should matter, to each one of us.

The Mental Capacity Act has come a long way, since it was passed in Parliament in 2008 and came into effect in 2010.

In the last 10 odd years, attitudes and mindsets on mental capacity have shifted in the right direction. More people are open to contemplating and planning for morbidity, and indeed, mortality. In other words, planning for disease, dying and death.

Yet, it is estimated that one in 10 in Singapore aged 60 and above may get dementia.

In advanced stages of the disease, a patient will lose the ability to make decisions for him- or herself, on his or her personal welfare, property, money and other affairs. And as our population ages, there will be more and more of such patients. The key point is, it can happen to any senior.

And it is not just about seniors. It can happen to younger adults too. An unfortunate accident, for example, or a stroke, can rob a person of his or her ability to decide and act for him- or herself.

And, so, loss of mental capacity can really happen to any one of us. Luck of the draw. Not a pleasant thought, but a necessary one. And, so, this is why every one of us should think about and plan for the loss of our own mental capacity.

And after 11 years of the Mental Capacity Act being in force, I believe it is time for the practice and the implementation of the Act to move into a new phase, shift to a higher gear, and gather even more momentum. Therefore, the proposed amendments to this Act are very timely and I stand in full support of the Bill.

The move to make the LPA application and registration process electronic by default is a very significant move, a major shift from the practice today. I believe it will bring much more convenience to both donors and donees. And with the shift to digital, LPAs can be registered in just eight working days, compared to the more than three weeks currently. So, slightly half the time needed. No more wet ink signatures, no more multiple changing of hands of hard copy application forms.

The proposed move is also in line with our broader digital Government strategy, allowing for much more frictionless transactions between citizen and Government at different stages in life, and for different life cycle needs.

There may be concerns that the shift to electronic LPA making could inadvertently exclude the very seniors for whom this move is intended to bring convenience to, because our seniors might not be digitally savvy.

On this, I am confident that the Government has created sufficient touchpoints and resources in the community, to make sure that seniors who need help with electronic LPA making, in particular, and digital transactions with the Government in general, will get the help that they need.

In MSF’s public consultation exercise, I saw a suggestion to remove the need for in-person attendance before the Certificate Issuer (CI), in order to make the process even more convenient. In other words, make the process completely electronic, just between man and the system.

The Bill has, however, retained the in-person attendance before a CI as a critical safeguard and I support this, as it would preserve confidence in the revamped process. But, more importantly, I think the feedback brings into focus a larger point that convenience needs to be seen against the other dimension of importance and I will explain this.

I know of seniors who have 10, 15, 20 appointments with doctors each year. Almost all of these are attendances in person, although tele-consults are becoming more common. And yet, seniors do not find these in-person attendances with doctors excessively inconvenient because, ultimately, these are about their health and health is, of course, important; and so it should be with LPAs.

The general point is this: while the Bill seeks to make the LPA-making process as convenient as possible, ultimately, our attitudes towards an LPA, the importance that we attach to an LPA, must really move to a higher plane. An LPA should be as important as good health, because having an LPA is part of planning well and living well. And having an LPA is part of overall good health and well-being. And so, just like good health, we need LPA adoption in Singapore to be much more widespread.

Going forward, MSF expects a transaction volume of around 30,000 LPAs to be made a year, based on pre-COVID-19 trends. I think this is far too low a level of adoption. Thus, I would like to ask how is MSF planning to encourage much wider adoption of LPAs? How can we get many more to be aware of LPA, to be aware of mental capacity issues in the first instance, and how can we get many more to then recognise its due importance and actually take action to make an LPA?

I have four suggestions.

First, I would like to suggest that MSF partners with healthcare providers to open up a whole new frontier of LPA touchpoints in the community. I believe that every patient passing through the doors of our polyclinics should be screened for LPA coverage, and for those that are not covered, the correct care planning conversations should take place in the polyclinic, there and then.

I believe the same screening should happen in our Specialist Outpatient Clinics and even the wards in public hospitals. The screening should take place in our day care and senior activity centres across the island.

I think we ought to incorporate LPAs as part of standard health and care protocol for our seniors, going forward. And I hope that healthcare settings will get the right resources, for example, special LPA Ambassadors and/or training for existing staff, to carry out the right conversations.

Second, I suggest that we leverage the Silver Generation Office to promote LPAs door-to-door, engage and spread the message door-to-door, just like how we did for COVID-19 vaccination. The need for inoculation against poor planning or no planning ought to be as important as the need for inoculation against disease.

Third, to better reach out to potential donees – youths, young adults, even middle-aged citizens – and encourage them to broach these conversations with their parents, grandparents, loved ones, we should utilise various channels, online and offline, again to reach out to these potential donees and get the message across.

Fourth and, finally, IMDA has been training thousands of seniors in a range of digital skills like Singpass, WhatsApp and e-payment, through the Seniors Go Digital programme. It is a very successful programme. I hope that MSF can work with IMDA to incorporate LPAs and make it a standard offering in the Seniors Go Digital Programme, going forward.

To conclude, in fact, we need seniors to adopt not just LPA, but also Advance Care Planning (ACP), make a Will and make a CPF Nomination, as part of a comprehensive plan to live well and eventually leave well, for the benefit of themselves and their loved ones. Every senior – an LPA, an ACP, a Will, a CPF Nomination. That should be our overarching goal, to ensure that all bases are covered for our seniors. This Bill is the first of many steps that we would need to take in that direction. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MSF introduced the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill to digitise the process of making a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Hence, the time taken to register an LPA will be shortened from three weeks to an average of eight working days, which is about half the current time needed, and the LPA itself will become an electronic document. At the same time, the new process will not be at the expense of donor protection. This approach is not only in line with the Government's vision of digital transformation in the public sector, but will also bring greater convenience to members of the public who are interested to be a donor or a donee.

Some people, especially the elderly, are worried that they do not know how to use computers or online platforms. I am confident that the Government has provided sufficient service centres and resources within the community to help the public in need. Notwithstanding the details of the amendment Bill, I feel that the fundamental significance of the Bill lies in wider public awareness of LPA and its importance. In this respect, we still have a lot to do because too few Singaporeans have done an LPA.

Surveys have shown that even a large proportion of healthcare workers have not prepared for death-related matters, including making an LPA. The LPA allows us to designate a donee whom we trust to decide and execute matters pertaining to our welfare, property and finance on our behalf after we lose our mental capacity.

In other words, making an LPA is a precaution. If we lose mental capacity, the donee will become somebody we can fall back on. "If I were to lose mental capacity" may not be a phrase that sounds very pleasant, but it should still be addressed while we can. In fact, the probability of getting dementia is not one in 10,000 but closer to one in 10 after the age of 60. Therefore, we should all have an LPA.

With this, I hope that MSF will work with medical institutions to open up more LPA touchpoints. After all, the elderly in polyclinics, public hospitals or day centres should be screened to see if they have an LPA. If we notice that the elderly has no LPA, then the staff or volunteer should immediately have a conversation with the elderly and explain what an LPA is about.

Next, we should also tap on the Silver Generation Ambassadors and the Silver Generation Office (SGO) to do house visits just as how we promote the COVID-19 vaccination, because a comprehensive life plan is as important as vaccination.

We should also make use of all the online and offline channels to encourage more young and middle-aged persons to discuss LPA matters with their parents, grandparents and loved ones. Looking ahead, I hope that every senior citizen will not only have an LPA, but also have an Advance Care Plan, a Will as well as a CPF nomination. I hope that we can move towards this goal step by step.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Amendment Bill. I will first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and the co-chairperson of the Law Society's Pro Bono Services' Community Legal Clinic Committee.

For the past few years, as part of the effort to increase community law awareness, I have been going on radio talk shows on a monthly basis. The topic mainly surrounds estate planning, in particular, the importance of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). And as part of our Woodgrove's GEL mission where L pertains to law awareness, out of the six law awareness talks organised for the past one year in Woodgrove, four sessions have been focused on sharing with our Woodgrove residents on the importance of estate planning.

Many people often think that estate planning is something only wealthy individuals would consider doing. In actual fact, it is equally important, if not more important, for people of lesser means in our society. Take, for example, an elderly couple who only has each other to depend on, relying only on their retirement savings and their HDB asset. What happens if the husband suddenly becomes comatose as a result of a severe stroke? Will the wife be able to sell or rent out their HDB flat in order to raise funds for payment of her husband's hefty medical expenses? Can she withdraw monies out from her husband's fixed deposit account to purchase necessary medical equipment required now by her bedridden husband?

The answer to both of these questions is likely to be no, unless the husband had already executed the LPA and appointed his wife as his intended donee prior to becoming mentally incapacitated, or if the wife applies now to the Court to be officially appointed as her husband's deputy.

While both options will allow her to manage her bedridden husband's personal welfare, property and affairs, the second one is often considered, as what my parliamentary colleague, Mr Patrick Tay, mentioned in his speech yesterday, a cumbersome and costly process, notwithstanding the fact that most Court applications for appointment of the deputy takes around three to four months to complete for a straightforward case. The medical report required as part of the application process, as Mr Don Wee had shared earlier, would itself require at least another one to three months to obtain.

As such, during my past 10 years of serving in the community, I have been a strong advocate of educating the public on the importance of doing an LPA, especially amongst our senior citizens. Doing so will enable the applicant to have peace of mind while providing clarity and certainty to the applicants' families on who take up the role of donee should the applicant ever lose his mental capacity.

I, therefore, applaud the latest move by MSF to establish an electronic transaction system to create new LPAs, as I believe that any reviews to make the process of registering an LPA more accessible and affordable are always welcome.

In fact, during the Parliament Sitting in October last year, I had posed a question to MSF, enquiring whether the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has plans to implement online registrations for LPAs.

Amidst this COVID-19 pandemic, we have begun to see more people, including lawyers, working from home. Interviews with clients are conducted most of the time through virtual platforms. This prevents the spread of the virus and enables those who are physically disabled and/or residing overseas to stay connected and run their errands without stepping out of the house.

It has always been my hope that through digitalisation, the process of registering an LPA will be simplified in the perspective of the donors and the donees, thereby encouraging more people, especially those with mobility issues, to sign up for one.

With that said, just like what several of my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me have raised, I likewise envisage that there will be two issues that may occur when we move the registration of LPA onto an electronic transaction system.

Firstly, does one know how to access the Internet and log into the electronic transaction system? As mentioned by Mayor Denise Phua and Mr Louis Ng yesterday, as well as Ms Ng Ling Ling a moment ago, I concur that the elderly and the vulnerable groups in our community will require more assistance to access the Internet and navigate the online system. I wish to elaborate on this issue in Mandarin please, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill is passed, Singaporeans will be able to register an LPA online through the new online service offered by the Office of the Public Guardian.

To encourage more people to do an LPA while they are mentally sound, besides making the application process faster and more convenient, I think we must first ensure that both the donor and the donee, who is required to provide his or her consent, are able to access the internet and log into the relevant portal easily, especially those who may not be digitally savvy.

Whilst I note that the relevant agency intends to reach out to use community touchpoints, such as the Citizen Connect Centres in the Community Centres islandwide and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub, to assist people with digital needs to use the online service, I think that the relevant agency should also consider training our Silver Generation Officers and social workers who conduct regular house visits to seniors’ residences. As they would often bring along their tablets while doing their rounds, they would be well-suited to provide assistance in terms of internet access, especially for those with mobility issues.

(In English): The second issue pertains to whether one knows how to fill up the e-form and understand the legal consequences of each option selected. For example, when the donor selects the option to empower the donee to give or refuse consent to start or continue with healthcare and medical treatments, are they both aware that such empowerment does not mean that the donee will be able to make a decision on whether to provide extraordinary life sustaining treatment to prolong the donor's life? This can only be done if the donor signs a separate legal instrument called the Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and many people often misunderstood the meaning behind this.

While I note that the staff at these community touchpoints will be trained to help those who have difficulties using the OPG portal to make their LPA electronically, it is my humble opinion that the services to be provided should only pertain to assisting them with the technical issues on assessing the portal. For example, how to log on and sign electronically.

The LPA is, after all, a legal instrument and it is best that the donor and donee understand the legal consequences before signing their names. In this regard, I propose that the portal should have a feature where a virtual meeting can be conducted, where the donor, donee and Certificate Issuer log in at the same time. The Certificate Issuer will take parties through the e-form and ensure that both the donor and donee understand the content and e-sign at the same instance.

During the course of the meeting, the Certificate Issuer should also be using a standard due diligence framework checklist that is to be created by the OPG, to ascertain whether parties have the mental capacity to execute such a legal instrument.

Lastly, this virtual meeting should be recorded and stored in the portal database. These recorded footage may come in useful when the Public Guardian is ascertaining, subsequently, whether the donor had previously been induced into executing the LPA.

As mentioned earlier, an LPA is just one component of estate planning. During the Budget debate earlier this year, I suggested that we consider setting up an estate planning portal online with support from multiple Ministries to start educating households on the essential legal knowledge and encourage them to begin estate planning for contingencies.

This portal will be dedicated to administrative matters, such as CPF nominations, lodging of LPA applications, AMDs, as well as the registering of Wills. One can even consider setting out their funeral arrangement plans through this portal. Upon the passing of a loved one, the next of kin can assist to notify through this portal and extract the necessary information required to kickstart the administration of the estate.

This portal can also provide further value by collaborating with the Law Society, which can assist to devise a way for the platform to dispense legal advice virtually.

I was heartened to learn that as part of the LifeSG initiative and to encourage more people to begin their end-of-life planning comprehensively, MOH, Public Service Division and the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group have launched the My Legacy portal last year. The portal, currently still in beta testing, has a My Legacy vault feature, which is accessible using Singpass, that allows users to plan, store and share legal, healthcare and estate matters securely with the people they trust.

I trust that OPG is in touch and in the midst of collaborating with the abovementioned agencies to ensure that the registration of LPA through My Legacy portal will be seamless and I am hopeful that the portal incorporates the features which I have recommended above.

Lastly, I wish to seek clarification on the cost of registering the LPA. Presently, the $75 application fee waiver for LPA Form 1 for Singaporeans has been extended to 31 March 2023, so as to encourage more Singaporeans to plan ahead and apply for an LPA. This is actually the fourth extension granted by the OPG since its first extension in 2016 and we would often see an influx in take-up rates when the waiver deadline draws close; this would inevitably cause the OPG backend to be stretched in terms of manpower while processing these new LPAs. In light that the LPAs will now be digitalised, would the Ministry consider removing the registration fees for LPA Form 1 entirely? I believe this would further motivate fellow Singaporeans to apply and subscribe to LPA Form 1 soon.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my requests for clarification and suggestions, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the plans to digitalise and simplify the procedures for the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). However, digital systems, records and transactions have vulnerabilities as they require electricity and Internet access. I am worried about eventualities such as power outages, system malfunctions and cyberattacks. Would the Ministry share in greater detail what measures are in place to mitigate such risks and what back-up plans are in place? Do we have foolproof back-up for all information in the databases?

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

The other issue is the possibility of disputes when LPAs have been changed, particularly just before the donors lose their mental capacity. In some cases, relationships among donors, donees and family members may be complicated and even acrimonious. Is there any simplified processes in place to bring about expeditious resolution for such cases?

Finally, I would like to ask if there is any recourse for donors or those acting on their behalf, in the event of mismanagement by appointed donees or breach of trust, which does not require going to Court? Can some sort of insurance be arranged to protect donors? On the other hand, donees also face risks of legal suits and, hence, can they protect themselves with a form of professional indemnity insurance? I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the amendments and support the Bill. An electronic transaction system will allow for faster and more secure registration for donors' benefit. This will also reduce the possibility of errors. However, I would like to introduce several proposals, to further safeguard the interests of all parties involved and, at the same time, to protect the reputation and integrity of the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) system. I am speaking from my own experiences as a pro bono lawyer helping laypersons make and file their LPAs.

Firstly, on protection for donors. Currently, donees make an online declaration not equivalent to a Statutory Declaration, before submitting information to third parties. I would like to ask whether it is necessary for the donees to produce medical reports which certify that donors have lost their mental capacities first before they can exercise powers under the LPAs? If the medical report is not mandatory, I would like to propose to make it a requirement for donees to inform OPG and produce medical reports which certify that the donors have lost their mental capacities before the donees exercise the powers under the LPAs.

Bodies like the Association of Banks Singapore and Council for Estate Agencies already require donees to first produce medical reports, which show that the donor has lost his or her mental capacity. This is a requirement before he or she can exercise the powers under the LPA. Alternatively, the donee can be required to submit a Statutory Declaration to confirm that the donor has been certified by a doctor to lack mental capacity. Perhaps, it is useful to have such a general requirement and to make it mandatory for banks and real estate firms, who handle LPA-related transactions, to keep OPG or their regulators informed once a request to exercise LPA is made by a donee.

Secondly, on protection for certificate issuers. I agree with MSF's retention of requirement for a donor to visit the LPA Certificate Issuer (CI) in person because this will ensure the donor understands the scope and purpose of the LPA. However, I think it is equally important that the CI meets the donee as well.

I would like to propose to make it a requirement for the CI to meet the donee, to ascertain if the donee himself or herself is a person who has mental capacity to carry out the said powers on behalf of the donor. Furthermore, by having the CI meet the donee, this will also help the CI to flag to OPG if the donee already is a donee on other LPAs.

I agree with and understand MSF's reasoning to protect confidentiality and only disclose the number of LPAs on which the donee has been appointed, and that the choice is, ultimately, up to the donor. However, the capability and adequacy of the donee in exercising such powers may be limited if he or she is to administer various matters on behalf of several donors who have lost their mental capacity at the same time.

Surely, there is a limit to human abilities and dedication of time. It would, thus, be useful to consider a requirement for the CI to highlight to OPG when facing donees who are multiple donees. OPG can then subsequently follow up and advise the donor that the chosen donee is a multiple donee, and if they want, they can make his or her informed choice. In this regard, perhaps, it would be useful to consider a limit on the maximum number of LPAs on which someone can be appointed as a donee.

Another aspect to look out for is the relationship between the donor and the donee or the lack of one. Having donees who are non-family members, or who are no longer directly related by virtue of a divorce or a re-marriage, may give rise to potential misunderstandings or conflicts in the future. In this regard, it would be useful to consider requiring CIs to meet potential donees in person too and not just the donors. Not only can the CIs ascertain the mental capacity of the donees but they can also raise the red flag to OPG if the donee to be appointed is a non-family member or if there is anything amiss.

It would also be useful if OPG is updated when there has been a change in the relationship between the donor and the donee. In this regard, may I ask if there is a database or system for OPG to be updated once the donee on an LPA ceases to be a family member, by virtue of divorce or has predeceased the donor?

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications, I support this Bill as it is a step in the right direction to greater access and protection for donors.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enable the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be made electronically.

Madam, the LPA is an important legal instrument that safeguards the interests of those who lose their mental capacity. Once we reach the age of 21, anyone of us can become a donor and appoint one or more persons whom we trust to become a donee to make decisions on our behalf in the unfortunate event that we lose our mental faculties.

According to data from the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), the number of LPAs registered has been on an upward trend. In 2016, there were only about 8,000 LPAs registered. But in just the first three months of 2021, we have seen over 9,000 LPAs registered and MSF expects more than 40,000 LPAs to be registered by the end of this year. The proposed amendments in the Bill are, therefore, timely as an online system will allow the Ministry to cater to a higher volume of LPA applications.

While it is encouraging to seeing an increasing number of LPA applications in recent years, we need to be aware that those who have registered as a doner remains a very small minority in our society and more must be done to address the stigma that comes associated with conversations about LPA.

It is common to hear our loved ones, especially our parents and grandparents, dismiss discussions about registering an LPA with words like "touch wood", or more colloquially, "choy!" and, unfortunately, the conversation does not progress past this stage. Amongst the young, many simply think that this is something for our seniors to do. Can the Ministry provide a demographic breakdown of applicants that have become donors in the past five years and share its plans to destigmatise the topic of LPA and encourage adoption especially among our seniors?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the shift to digitalise LPA applications means that we need to put in place robust safeguards to prevent fraudulent applications. Under the Bill, the electronic copy of a registered LPA will be treated as free from error if individuals do not notify the OPG of any rectification within 90 days. I am particularly concerned about this. How would someone know that someone else has impersonated them either as a donor or a donee? How will OPG know if fraud or undue pressure was used to induce a donor to make an LPA or appoint a particular person to be their donee?

I would also like to ask if there had been instances of a donee being appointed by multiple donors and whether this would be a key factor in determining fraudulent digital LPA applications.

Lastly, I would like to echo what several Members have raised yesterday and today, about the importance of ensuring that digital LPA applications remain accessible to the less tech-savvy, particularly our seniors. While I am glad to hear that MSF plans to leverage community touchpoints like the Citizen Connect Centres at our Community Centres, to aid those who need help, I believe that more can be done to assist our seniors at the hubs that they frequent.

I would like to, therefore, suggest working with Senior Activity Centres, which are based in out heartlands, to assist their members with the digital LPA applications. We can also consider using the regional Social Service Office to be used as another channel to outreach to vulnerable Singaporeans?

Madam, in conclusion, the shift to digitalise the LPA is an important step in making it more accessible to every segment of our population. But we need to ensure that the less tech-savvy have easy access to the process and there must be robust safeguards to prevent fraud. With that, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank all 19 Members who have spoken earnestly on the Bill, reflecting on the importance they place on pre-planning for peace of mind and for their support of this Bill.

Members' comments fall into five broad themes, namely: (a) support for those who need help navigating online services; (b) clarifications regarding the electronic transaction system OPGO; (c) cybersecurity; (d) protection of donors, donees and third parties; and (e) future developments in the mental capacity landscape. Let me address each theme in turn.

Many Members, such as Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Don Wee, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Yip Hon Weng have raised concerns about supporting those who need help navigating digital services. With the support of many community partners, we will endeavour to leave no one behind in this digitalisation journey.

For the elderly with family, we encourage their family members to assist them and leverage Singpass' multi-user SMS Two-Factor Authentication (2FA).

I would like to assure Ms Hany Soh and Mr Patrick Tay that tool tips on OPGO will explain the legal terms. Mr Louis Chua would also be pleased to know that instructions on making the LPA in OPGO will be made available in the vernacular languages. I thank Mr Seah Kian Peng for his suggestion to create a checklist for donors to track their progress. Further, the Office of the Public Guardian, or OPG, will train Certificate Issuers to navigate LPA applications on OPGO so that they, too, may support their clients. We will also offer one-on-one consultation at OPG's physical office.

Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Xie Yao Quan would be glad to know that OPG is working with Silver Generation Ambassadors to connect seniors keen to make their LPAs, especially those living alone, with their nearest community touchpoints. Citizen Connect Centres and Public Service Centre staff will be trained to help seniors make their LPAs or access LPA-related transactions online.

Ms Soh may be assured that the staff will not be advising on the appointments or the powers to be granted. As for Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion to leverage Senior Activity Centres and regional social service agencies, OPG will work with them to direct their clients to the nearest touchpoint.

I also thank Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Patrick Tay for their suggestions on other potential partnerships to ensure accessibility.

For donors with mobility issues, such as physical disability or incarceration, LPA Certificate Issuers may visit them to certify their LPAs. OPG representatives can also assist the physically disabled with their LPA applications at their homes. For the visually impaired, OPGO will include text-to-speech functions to guide them in completing their LPAs online. Digital fingerprints, as suggested by Mr Yip Hon Weng, however, may not be necessary as we have replaced wet ink signatures with digital ones.

A parallel hard copy system for the majority, as suggested by Ms Denise Phua and Mr Louis Chua, would not be necessary but, as mentioned in my opening speech, we will allow hard copy submissions under exceptional circumstances.

Next, let me address some queries regarding OPGO.

Miss Cheryl Chan noted that errors in hard copy LPAs would be rectified on the electronic copy under clause 9 of the Bill and asked whether these hard copy LPAs containing errors would be superseded by the electronic copies on OPGO. Let me clarify that clause 9 is intended to cover errors arising from the conversion of the hard copy LPA into the electronic LPAs, not errors within the hard copy LPAs. I note Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Louis Ng's concern on whether transactions may rely on hard copy LPAs containing errors and would like to assure that these errors, such as repeated page numbers, are highly unlikely. OPG has checked through all scanned copies of existing registered LPAs to minimise any risk of errors.

As to whether the electronic copies will supersede the hard copy LPAs, the hard copy LPA will no longer be treated by the law as the LPA after the electronic copy is treated by the operation of law as such. Therefore, while donees and third parties are not prevented from referencing the hard copy LPAs, the superseded hard copy LPA should not be relied upon for transactions. This is because any note on the occurrence of certain important events will only be attached to the electronic LPA henceforth. Such events include the donee's bankruptcy, which would revoke his power to manage the donor's financial matters. As such, I strongly encourage all parties to rely on the electronic copy when transacting.

Mr Louis Ng asked if the hard copy version of the LPA is the LPA during the 90-day period. The answer is yes. The electronic copy only becomes the LPA after the 90-day period if no relevant error is spotted and reported. If a relevant error is reported to OPG, the electronic copy becomes the LPA either on the 91st day or on the day which the Public Guardian rectifies the relevant error, whichever is later.

Mr Louis Ng also asked about the circumstances under which the Public Guardian will not rectify a notified error in the electronic copy of the LPA. Under the new section 11(14) of the MCA, which is inserted by clause 4 of the Bill, a "relevant error" refers to any disparity or inconsistency between the electronic copy and the LPA that has been registered. The Public Guardian will rectify every such error brought to her attention.

To his question on whether transactions relying on an electronic copy containing a relevant error would still be valid, the answer is yes. The new section 16A of the MCA, which is inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, protects donees who have acted in reliance on the electronic copy without knowing of the relevant error and third parties who have transacted in good faith without knowing of the relevant error.

I thank Mr Louis Ng for his careful scrutiny of the Bill's provisions and wish to clarify that the new section 10D, inserted by clause 3 of the Bill, addresses errors or omissions arising from a malfunction of OPGO when the transaction in question is performed via the system. The new section 10D is not intended to cover rectification of any relevant error arising from the process of converting hard copy LPAs to electronic copies.

Mr Seah Kian Peng proposed to require express verification from the donors and donees before the electronic copy is treated as the LPA. We have made a considered decision not to do so. Let me explain.

Firstly, the risk of such errors is very low as there is neither entry nor extraction of new data.

Secondly, in the rare chance that there are errors in the electronic copy after the 90-day period, the Public Guardian may still rectify the error under the new section 15A of the MCA.

Thirdly, the 90-day cut-off provides certainty in the LPA's status and allows confident transactions.

Donees and third parties will also be protected if they had respectively acted in reliance on the electronic copy or had transacted in good faith without knowing of the relevant error. We do not wish to inconvenience most donors and donees to cater for an unlikely scenario.

Miss Cheryl Chan made a few technical queries. First, on considerations for disclosing non-confidential information – this may be disclosed to Public Sector agencies or the public at large for reasons of public education or interest, for example, to correct any falsehoods regarding LPA statistics.

Second, on whether access to confidential information contained in the LPA will be restricted – subsidiary legislations will be amended such that only donors, donees and transacting third parties authorised by the donor or donee may access this information. Others seeking access would need the Public Guardian's approval to search the LPA register.

Third, on the next steps should a donee or donor object to the proposed rectification or update of the Public Guardian's register – under the new section 33A of the Act, which is inserted by clause 14 of the Bill, the Public Guardian must not proceed with the rectification or updating if the person objects unless the Public Guardian is satisfied that the objection is frivolous, vexatious or has been withdrawn. As rectifications would be based on information obtained from other Singapore Public Sector agencies, objections would be unlikely.

Mr Louis Ng asked if MSF has incorporated lessons from the United Kingdom's online system for LPAs. I wish to clarify that the UK's service does not allow for the online registration of electronic LPAs. The LPA must still be printed and signed using wet ink signatures before submitting it to the UK OPG. What the UK's online service allows is the conversion of the hard copy registered LPAs into online summaries of the LPAs that can be shared with transacting parties.

In contrast, OPGO digitalises the entire LPA process, including the online creation of digitally-signed LPAs. Given this, comparisons between OPGO and the UK's online system might not be apt but I take Mr Louis Ng's point on the need to ensure that the roll-out is smooth. We have conducted extensive stakeholder engagements and will involve them in User Acceptance Tests. OPG will also be training Certificate Issuers on the use of OPGO.

Let me now address the third theme: cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity risks are not new but they are especially pertinent in light of important documents like the LPA. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Ng Ling Ling, Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Yip Hon Weng for raising their concerns.

OPGO will be housed under the Government Commercial Cloud. Cybersecurity measures will be in place to protect against hacking and data compromise. For example, Personal Identifiable Information will be encrypted.

To address unscheduled system outage, OPGO data would be backed up daily across multiple geographical locations or zones in Singapore. OPGO will run across these multiple zones to provide better infrastructure resilience and scalability for business operations. Thus, in the unlikely event of a system outage, we expect OPGO to be restored and tested within a reasonable timeframe, possibly within a day, so that users can continue their LPA applications by the next day. Users will be informed of the disruption and may contact OPG's hotline for help.

The Public Guardian will also check through all the LPAs submitted during the period of malfunction. Should there be any issues, Miss Cheryl Chan may be assured that the Public Guardian will rectify it as soon as possible and notify the donors and donees affected within seven days of its rectification.

As these issues are likely to be easily rectified – for example, a person's NRIC being keyed in twice – donors and donees need not be too alarmed. If a donor or donee spots any discrepancies in the electronic LPA after OPGO has been restored, he or she can contact the Public Guardian to rectify it.

I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for her suggestion to expand the protection clauses within the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to cater for scenarios arising from cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches. We will work closely across the Government as we develop the system and the specific protection clauses required.

I wish to reassure Members that we have taken steps to prevent unauthorised access and distribution of the electronic LPAs.

The electronic LPA will only be accessible to the donors and donees after they log on to OPGO. Donors or donees may share the LPA with third parties by making the request in OPGO and providing the email address of the transacting party to receive the electronic LPA. OPG will send a password-protected LPA to the transacting party. Only parties authorised by the donors or donees may view the LPA.

Stringent security measures also prevent changes to the contents of the electronic LPAs without the donor or donee's knowledge when the document is signed with Singpass. If the LPA is compromised, the changes will be detected and the digital signature will be reflected as invalid, thereby disabling it from being used.

Many Members have made suggestions for further safeguards to protect donors, donees and third parties. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked for MSF to reconsider the removal of a witness for the donees’ signature. We have assessed that the risks of doing so are very low.

First, the donee must log on to OPGO using Singpass 2FA. With 2FA, the donee must first enter his Singpass ID and password and, thereafter, enter a One-Time Pin (OTP) sent via SMS or use Face Verification. Alternatively, the donee may log on to OPGO using the Singpass application. These provide an additional security layer to prove the donee’s identity.

Second, OPGO will send notifications to a donee at various points while the LPA is being created. As the donee is kept informed in real time, he or she can alert OPG if someone is impersonating him or her.

Third, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Ms Yeo Wan Ling may be assured that even as we go digital, we have retained the most important safeguard for donors to execute the LPA in the presence of the Certificate Issuer. This ensures that the donor has the mental capacity to make his or her LPA, including that the donee appointed is the person intended by the donor. The class of professionals who may be Certificate Issuers are scoped to those whom we are confident possess the qualifications to certify that the donor understands the purpose and scope of the LPA.

Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked to consider at least one meeting between donors, donees and Certificate Issuers or between Certificate Issuer and donees. I seek Members’ understanding that we are aiming to strike a right balance between safeguards and convenience. There is, currently, no requirement for donees to be present when the donor visits the Certificate Issuer. It may be difficult for donors and donees to arrange a common time and space, given our work and family commitments. This is especially so if the donees are overseas at the time of the donor’s execution of the LPA. We wish to retain this convenience so that the LPA-making process is as accessible as possible.

Furthermore, the donor should choose a person he trusts to make decisions on his or her behalf. Should there be any doubts on the donee’s mental capacity, the donor would not have appointed him or her. If more than one donee is appointed, any other concerned donee may also object to the registration of the LPA during the mandatory three-week waiting period.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked to consider additional protection measures before a donee may use the LPA to transact. Miss Cheryl Chan had suggested for the Public Guardian to authenticate the medical report so that transacting parties are assured of its validity. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng proposed that all donees should notify OPG of their intention to exercise their authority, especially for major decisions, before doing so. And these are all good suggestions.

Today, the MCA already allows a third party to require a donee to produce a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, stating that the donor’s lack of capacity is likely to be permanent, for matters involving a donor’s property. Transacting parties may refuse to accept the donee’s authority if the donee does not comply. Clause 7 of the Bill will amend section 13(10) of the MCA to also enable transacting parties to require donees to produce such a certificate for transactions involving the donor’s personal welfare.

I am not inclined towards a Statutory Declaration as this requires donees to seek a Commissioner for Oaths, which incurs more costs. We must not unnecessarily penalise the majority of cases that do not involve fraud.

The OPGO process will also address some of the Members’ concerns, namely, the donee will need to declare on OPGO that the donor has lost mental capacity before transacting using the LPA. OPG will also continue to remind stakeholders to conduct their due diligence checks and verify that the maker of the medical report is a doctor with a valid licence.

Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Shawn Huang, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendment to allow the Public Guardian to disclose to the donor certain information concerning the donees. They wish to clarify the process and how OPG could detect such occurrences.

OPG has a register of LPAs. The system will alert the Public Guardian if any prospective donee has been appointed as donee in multiple LPAs. The Public Guardian will assess the flagged case and interview the donor, if necessary. Potential red flags, as Mr Don Wee noted, may include cases where the donee is unrelated to any of the donors. The Public Guardian may also receive whistle-blowing complaints on the proposed donee.

Mr Louis Ng raised an important point on whether the Public Guardian would intervene, regardless of the donor’s stated wishes. A key principle in the MCA is to respect the decision of a person with mental capacity. We must respect the donor’s wishes should he or she knowingly appoints a donee with multiple doneeships or declines to attend an interview with the Public Guardian, a possible scenario that Ms Sylvia Lim raised.

Nonetheless, should the Public Guardian have evidence of fraud or undue pressure, she may seek the Court’s directions under existing section 17 of the MCA on whether the LPA should be registered. For Mr Melvin Yong’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s information, the Public Guardian would interview the donor to assess if the donor had voluntarily made the LPA. If necessary, the Public Guardian may rely on her existing powers to obtain further information to determine the issue. This approach would similarly be taken for cases that Miss Cheryl Chan has raised, for example, when the donor is already experiencing an early onset of dementia.

Mr Louis Ng asked if the Public Guardian could interview persons other than the donor. The Public Guardian may exercise her investigative powers under the existing section 32 of the MCA to interview any person who has the relevant information relating to a donor who has lost mental capacity. As the number of doneeship appointments is confidential, we need to be careful on how much is shared and with whom. Thus, under the new section 31A of the MCA, we have enabled the Public Guardian to disclose this information to the donor only so that he or she may make an informed decision.

Mr Don Wee suggested additional measures to screen potential donees. For example, Mr Seah Kian Peng asked to require the Public Guardian to disclose multiple doneeships in all cases. I wish to clarify that the intent of the amendment is to cover select cases where there are reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the LPA-making process. With more than 95% of donees being trusted family members who are chosen by donors themselves, we agree with Ms Sylvia Lim that multiple doneeships are not uncommon. For instance, a daughter may be appointed as donee for her father, mother and husband. The Certificate Issuer will also have certified that the donor is not under undue pressure or fraud to appoint a particular person as donee. The Public Guardian will exercise her discretion judiciously when disclosing the donees’ information in the exceptional cases where fraud or undue pressure is suspected.

Mr Murali Pillai also proposed that the Public Guardian be allowed to disclose other relevant information which is material to the donor’s decision when appointing the donee, for example, if the donee has prior criminal convictions. I thank Mr Murali for his suggestion and will consider this for future amendments.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if there is any recourse for mismanagement or breach of trust committed by the donee which does not require going to the Court. It is important that donors appoint donees whom they trust. But in the rare case where a donee abuses his or her powers, the Public Guardian is empowered to investigate the case and may apply to the Court under the existing section 17 of the MCA to revoke the LPA. Application to the Court is necessary as the Court plays the role as the finder of facts to determine whether mismanagement or breach of trust has occurred. That said, the concerned party need only report the case to the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian can then take the case to Court, if necessary.

On Mr Gan’s suggestion to explore insurance for donors and donees to protect against the risk of legal suits, we will take this feedback onboard but we are mindful that this may incur higher costs for both donors and donees.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also raised another query regarding simplified dispute resolution options for disputing donors, donees and family members. Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, conflicts may arise because of a communication breakdown or misunderstanding. It may not be easy but I would encourage all disputing parties to talk through their differences. OPG may also refer these cases to mediation, family conferencing or counselling.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked what might constitute "good reasons" where remote witnessing may be required. These include cases where the person has contracted a highly contagious disease such that a Certificate Issuer may not visit in person. Under such exceptional circumstances, prior application by the donor is needed for the Public Guardian to assess the merits of the case and to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place for remote witnessing. OPG will seek inputs from the various stakeholders on the safeguards and ensure that all the operational details are worked through before we implement this.

Finally, let me move on to the last theme regarding Members’ suggestions for future developments in the mental capacity space. Ms Denise Phua, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Don Wee asked if there are plans to further simplify and expedite the deputyship process. Many cases have benefited from the time and cost savings arising from the simplified deputyship application track. But I agree that more can be done. We note the Members’ suggestions and will continue to explore ways to improve the process.

Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Xie Yao Quan emphasised the importance of a holistic pre-planning package. We wholeheartedly agree. My Ministry has been working closely with MOH to encourage citizens to pre-plan and to make their LPAs and Advance Care Plans together. The Advance Care Plan allows a person to consider their care preferences and communicate their wishes to their "healthcare spokesperson", who can speak on their behalf in the future. Ideally, the donee will take on the role of the healthcare spokesperson so that he or she may not only communicate but also make the decisions.

Ms Hany Soh and Mr Yip Hon Weng would be pleased to know that the My Legacy portal already has an LPA-ACP tool which guides users to complete both forms. We are working with the My Legacy team to allow for system interfaces between OPGO and My Legacy, such that online LPA applications can be made on My Legacy, too. This will enable Singaporeans to consider making an LPA as they plan for other end-of-life matters. OPGO will also encourage donors to nominate their donees as their "healthcare spokespersons". I also thank Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their suggestions to integrate the LPA into relevant healthcare protocols and Government processes, such as CPF nomination reviews.

In the same spirit, Ms Denise Phua had asked if the Certificate Issuer pool could be expanded to other professionals. My Ministry will review this feasibility. Currently, Singaporeans may refer to OPG’s website for the list of more than 7,000 Certificate Issuers. OPGO will also include a search function enabling donors to locate the Certificate Issuers by location.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the electronic LPAs would be automatically updated on the National Electronic Health Records system. We are working to automatically approve search requests submitted in OPGO by pre-approved agencies, such as hospitals. This will ensure healthcare professionals and providers can retrieve search results in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Patrick Tay have raised some concerns on the costs of making an LPA. Let me address them.

First, there will be no additional costs incurred when making an LPA electronically. We have extended the LPA Form 1 application fee waiver for Singaporeans to 31 March 2023. I, therefore, urge all Singaporeans to take advantage of the waiver and OPGO to make your LPA.

Second, regarding Ms Soh’s query on whether we will waive the fees permanently, we will review this and share more when we are ready.

Third, Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Certificate Issuer fees may be waived, subsidised or benchmarked. OPG does not prescribe the fees charged as LPA certification is a professional service. However, the top 10 most visited Certificate Issuers are published on OPG’s website. As at January this year, the majority of the top 10 most visited doctors charged $50 or less, especially for senior citizens. For those needing financial assistance, the OPG website lists not-for-profit providers offering subsidised LPA certification services. They include Life Point's LPA One-Stop Services, Potter's Place Community Services Society and Mount Alvernia Outreach Medical Clinic @ Enabling Village.

I fully agree with Ms Denise Phua, Mr Don Wee, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Xie Yao Quan's call for more Singaporeans to make their LPA.

In my opening speech, I have outlined how digitalisation would ease this LPA-making process. Ms Denise Phua would be pleased to learn that MSF has been working closely with other Ministries and community partners to raise awareness on pre-planning. As mentioned, we work with the Silver Generation Ambassadors to reach out to seniors and their care-givers.

While we have halted temporarily our physical roadshows due to the pandemic, OPG has continued to engage hospitals, banks, Senior Activity Centres and so on, to conduct virtual talks on LPA for their staff and clients. But we can do more to widen our outreach in a sustained manner. There are plans for a pre-planning campaign which will leverage digital and ground channels to reach out to all Singaporeans.

I am also heartened by Mr Patrick Tay's sharing about the live webinar and economical pre-planning packages he had embarked on for his Pioneer constituency and hope that other Members would consider similar efforts in their constituencies.

I am glad that Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Seah Kian Peng had pointed out the taboo amongst seniors regarding LPAs and the misconceptions that some younger Singaporeans hold about pre-planning.

I understand that the conversation about losing mental capacity can be difficult to broach. But it is better to be prepared than to leave matters unclear for our families should we lose mental capacity.

Fortunately, more young Singaporeans are grasping the importance of pre-planning. Since 2010, we have about 30,000 donors below the age of 50. The full breakdown of the donors and donees by age is available on OPG's website. We will continue to educate Singaporeans and stakeholders to address these misconceptions and promote pre-planning before considering more drastic measures like default LPAs.

Mr Louis Chua asked if there is an aspirational target for the number of LPAs that we want to achieve. The truth is that the LPA take-up rate has been rising quite rapidly. From just 346 registered LPAs in 2010, we now have more than 20,000 LPAs registered just in the first six months of this year alone.

My point is that we are moving in the right direction. So, targets aside, what we ought to do is to facilitate the LPA-making process and the launch of OPGO is yet another step to this end.

Finally, Mr Leon Perera asked if MSF would explore supported decision-making.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, donors should choose donees whom they trust and that includes trusting them to know their interests and wishes. The current MCA also requires donees to take all practicable steps to help the donor to make a decision before treating him as being unable to do so. Family members who are the vast majority of donees are also well-placed to support their donors in making their decisions as much as possible. For unrelated professional donors, they are required to draft a care plan and check in regularly with the donor to ensure that their wishes are respected to the fullest extent.

Madam, this Bill represents a significant step forward in balancing the convenience of making an electronic LPA while ensuring that necessary safeguards are in place. Citizens and third parties alike will also have more confidence in transacting with the most up-to-date electronic LPAs. Digitalisation of the LPA and other transactions with the Office of the Public Guardian is especially timely, given the pandemic, which limits face-to-face interactions.

The LPA is an important pre-planning tool in ensuring peace of mind not only for ourselves but also for our family members and loved ones as they will know our wishes and can carry them out if we were to lose mental capacity.

With that, I thank all Members for your valuable inputs and support of this Bill. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.