Debated in Parliament on 26 May 2020.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."
Question proposed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the world has changed. The social glue has come unstuck and we are forced online to learn, work, live and stay connected. Yet there are many who are cut off from access due to lack of internet connectivity, requisite devices or digital literacy. They are not digital natives; they are digital outcasts. COVID-19 has exposed and deepened the digital divide in our society.
To achieve an SGUnited Smart Nation, closing this gnawing digital divide must be an urgent priority. I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged this divide in the Fortitude Budget earlier.
In this Motion, I will address three questions: how deep is the digital divide? What factors contribute to the divide? And what solutions can we consider?
Mr Deputy Speaker, at least one in 10 households in Singapore are not plugged into our digital world according to the Household Expenditure Survey. Only 81% of resident households have a personal computer, and only 87% have Internet access.
Only 45% of households residing in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have Internet access. Thirty-one percent have a computer, a personal computer. Contrast this with 96% and 95% respectively of households living in non-HDB apartments.
These numbers mean that some of us are almost guaranteed to have internet connectivity and a personal computer, while more than five in 10 households living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats have no internet access or personal computer.
This is also reflected in the ground realities exposed by Home-based Learning (HBL). MOE has loaned out an estimated 20,000 devices, including laptops and tablets. A few community groups I personally know including Engineering Good have given out more than 2,600 laptops in total. They have also provided wi-fi dongles or SIM cards to several families.
The bleak picture does not end at infrastructure, Mr Deputy Speaker. Stories from the ground reveal significant struggle in terms of digital literacy and skills, particularly among one, low-income households; two, the differently-abled; and three, seniors.
ReadAble is a community organisation supporting families in rental flat communities. They shared that parents struggle with navigating donated laptops donated – whether with Zoom or even in-app functions, which compromises their children’s education.
According to Society Staples, a social enterprise working with the differently-abled (PWDs) and the Disabled Persons Association, many lower income PWDs lack equipment, Internet access or the necesssary IT skills. It is difficult for them to work from home or participate in society online. This can mean loss of income and opportunities to retrain or learn new skills. They also missed out on maintaining or even expanding connections with family and friends which increases mental stress and strains existing coping mechanisms, especially for those with psychosocial disabilities.
Cassia Resettlement Team, a community organisation, has had to support many low-income individuals, particularly seniors, who struggle with the digitisation of Government services. For example, many of them cannot use SingPass without help. SingPass, as we know, is required to access many such services including checking CPF accounts, which are regularly required to apply for welfare schemes; or checking medical appointments, medical tests results and prescriptions.
In 2006, the Intelligent Nation or iN2015 Masterplan pledged that every household with a school-going child would own a personal computer by 2015. I remember this clearly as I was running my own education technology company then and was very energised by this vision of a digital future which my company also participated in. Sadly, despite this iN2015 ambition, our efforts to become a Smart Nation since 2014 and the Digital Readiness Blueprint released in 2018, we continue to struggle with a deep digital divide in Singapore.
I would like to highlight two structural issues that perpetuate the digital divide: gaps in Government intervention as well as metrics that miss the mark.
Market forces are the key driver of this divide. Today, Internet connectivity and personal computers are necessities but they are still priced beyond the reach of the low-income in our society. This disparity in turn perpetuates further inequality.
The Government intervened by introducing the NEU PC Plus Scheme in 2006, offering students and PWDs from low-income households a new personal computer bundled with three years of free internet connectivity. While it has benefited more than 40,000 households, the scheme falls short in several ways.
First, it only permitted one laptop per eligible household regardless of the household size, increasing to two only last month due to HBL.
Second, the application process is complex and bureaucratic.
Third, it is limited in scope, excluding pre-school, home-schooled and university students and adults.
Fourth, it discriminates against PWDs, who only receive a 50% subsidy as compared to 75% for students.
Fifth, under the Home Access Scheme, adults have no option to apply for a personal computer, only a tablet or smartphone.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and appreciate the civil servants at MOE and IMDA who have worked very hard to resolve digital access issues during this circuit breaker period. IMDA enhanced the NEU PC scheme. MOE worked with schools to loan out personal learning devices and kept schools open for those who struggled with digital access.
But gaps persist. The device loan programme came with conditions and liability provisions. Community organisation 6th Sense shared that there were families who were too scared to bring these devices home as they would not be able to afford to pay the schools if the devices got lost or broken. Further, the families were rightly worried about going to school and risk COVID-19 infection. One teenage student I know developed severe COVID-19 related-anxiety before HBL. Why should any child be required to go to school and use IT facilities at the height of a pandemic?
Given these gaps, community organisations found that it made more sense to give every family good internet connection and every child a personal computer.
By personal computer, I mean a laptop or a desktop, and not a tablet. Personal computers, including laptops, are the engines of creativity and productivity. Tablets and smartphones are not enough for work and learning. A child who has to type out an essay on a smartphone or a tablet is not on the same footing as a child with a laptop. Yet, some low-income families reported that their children were told to do home-based learning on their mobile phones!
The Minister for Education has said that, by 2024, every Secondary 1 student will have a tablet, a laptop, or a chromebook, which the Deputy Prime Minister just shared that this timeline will be accelerated earlier. I commend the policy intent, but I propose a broader, cross-Ministry change in the form of a Digital Adequacy Framework on which I will elaborate later.
Now, let me move to the gaps in our statistical metrics and KPIs. They do not capture whether every citizen has internet access commensurate with their needs. In fact, certain classifications obscure infrastructural inadequacy. As they influence and inform policy-making, it is important to get them right.
First, our statistics do not reflect the sufficiency of devices in each household. Instead, they measure the number of houseFholds with access to a personal computer, which includes tablets. For example, if a household of seven has one tablet to share between them, they are classified as having access to a personal computer in the home.
Second, our metrics do not measure under-connectivity. Simply owning a personal computer and being connected to wi-i is not the end of the matter. Poor connection or an underperforming hardware creates further obstacles. Xiaoqian, a Secondary 2 student, recently shared her home-based learning experience on a public podcast. Before ReadAble provided her with a new laptop, she only had an old laptop at home. I quote from her: “It will be very slow for me to switch on and I have to wait. I wake up early to switch on the computer to wait for it, but in the end I was late for class because it was still uploading. I wouldn’t have a full lesson.” I am sure we will agree that it is unacceptable in a Smart Nation for a child to receive a deficient education because of faulty hardware.
Third, our KPIs conflate personal computers with other digital devices. This is undesirable for reasons I have already discussed earlier.
If our metrics do not highlight these fault lines, we remain blissfully misinformed of reality and true digital inclusion will continue to elude us.
MCI has boldly committed in its Digital Readiness Blueprint that all Singaporeans will be digitally ready, no matter their income or current IT abilities. I support this commitment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and would like to offer some suggestions from the ground regarding enhancements to existing schemes and structural changes.
The NEU PC Plus Scheme could be further streamlined. The five gaps I mentioned earlier should be plugged. For instance, beneficiaries of various financial assistance schemes could automatically qualify for new PC Plus. For instance, can MSF and MOE work together to ensure that every family with a child on MOE-FAS, or every family supported by ComCare who has a child in school, automatically gains adequate access to a fully subsidised personal computer? Should adults supported under ComCare or residing in HDB rental flats not have the option of receiving a partially or fully subsidised digital device, depending on their income. IT subsidy schemes should also include device replacement and customer care.
The scheme should also be broadened immediately to permit applications to benefit all children whether pre-school, home-schooled or university students, and adults from low-income families. PWDs should be subsidised equally to students, especially given the changing nature of work post COVID-19.
To reduce the time and resources required to deliver digital devices to families, can we have a Digital Empowerment Voucher (DEV) scheme that combines aspects of the existing Public Transport Voucher and Innovation & Capability Voucher schemes? Families would then get the devices themselves. The vouchers could be stipulated for use only with local SMEs which would also directly assist our local enterprises in these trying times.
In terms of a structural rethink to realise the Digital Readiness commitment to provide adequate digital access for those with limited resources, I propose that a Digital Adequacy Framework be considered. Because it is not enough to just be digitally ready or included, this digital participation must adequately support their learning, work and social connections meaningfully.
Under this Framework, tablets must be decoupled from the definition of “personal computer” across the board for learning and work purposes. We should also view the amount of hardware deemed adequate for each household to be the aggregate of the needs of each member in it.
For instance, should every student aged Primary 5 and above have their own laptop, considering MOE’s digital literacy plans for upper Primary schools? Should younger children have computer access in the home, sharing a personal computer with no more than one other person? The Framework should also fold Internet speed, hardware functionality and digital literacy into its analysis to enable meaningful digital participation.
Within this Framework, universal Internet access should be provided as a public utility especially for low-income households. Can IMDA and HDB work with commercial providers and Town Councils to ensure that all low-income households have adequate Internet connection? For instance, can Wireless@SG be expanded to cover all rental flats in Singapore and enhanced with sufficient speed, much like the ubiquitous wi-fi access available in shopping malls?
Finally, the Digital Adequacy Framework should underpin the Digital Readiness Blueprint to inform and guide its work. Meaningful statistics and metrics across more diversed groups should be gathered regularly. Much public policy has been characterised by efficiency, effectiveness and economy, emphasising outcome that are easily measured rather than what might be most helpful to measure.
In the UK, for example, the Office for the National Statistics studies the digital divide across locations, gender, age, income, disability, ethnic groups and language, education and other social and economic determinants of digital inequality. Such information will be helpful to policy design.
Mr Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 has spotlighted our deep digital divide and the "digital outcasts" in our midst. Our clarion call for SGUnited must surely be a Singapore that is also digitally united through community digital resilience. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister also acknowledged this need for resilience through digital inclusion earlier in his speech.
I therefore want to conclude by imploring the Government to ensure that every digital policy design intentionally includes the views and experiences from our vulnerable groups, these digital outcasts. I propose that a Citizen's Workgroup be established comprising citizens and community groups to complement the Digital Readiness Workgroup made up of leaders in public, people and private sectors. The observations and recommendations outlined in this speech have been the result of consultative and collaborative efforts with, and between, these community groups and citizens.
Like the MOH's commitment that "no Singaporean will be denied appropriate care because of an inability to pay", the Digital Readiness Blueprint takes the position that "no Singaporean will be denied adequate digital access because of an inability to pay, or use". I am energised by this vision, Mr Deputy Speaker. COVID-19 has thrust Singapore into the digital future. We must not leave any citizen in the past.
Prof Lim Sun Sun, would you like to join the debate? You have four and a half minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member Ms Anthea Ong for inviting me to speak on this Motion. In her speech, she has vividly captured the wide range of ground difficulties encountered by families on the wrong side of the digital divide. As Leo Tolstoy posited in his renowned novel Anna Karenina: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
Indeed, families in Singapore that have struggled with digital access over the circuit breaker period juggling home-based learning and work from home have faced a spectrum of challenges. Some have had no devices, others the wrong kinds of devices, of which many were slow or malfunctioning. And yet others had no Internet connections and still more had limited digital skills.
Families on the right side of the digital divide are similarly happy – robust Internet connections, reliable devices, and digital competencies to see them through their online needs for learning, working and transacting.
How can we level the playing field as far as such technological needs are concerned? By providing universal digital access.
In my commentary published in ChannelNewsAsia today, co-authored with Assoc Prof Irene Ng from the National University of Singapore, we propose a significant paradigm shift – to regard digital access as a public utility, just as we do electricity and water. As far back as nine years ago, in 2011, the United Nations declared Internet access as a human right.
With Industry 4.0 pounding at our doors, regarding digital access as a public utility makes eminent sense and will involve three tranches.
The first is to make Internet connection universal. Singapore's Wireless@SG programme already provides free Internet access across broad swathes of public space. With our Nationwide Broadband Network successfully in place, extending free home wi-fi to residential areas will not involve more than a concerted coordination with telcos outfitting every home with modems and wireless routers. Indeed, our transition towards 5G provides a strategic opportunity to "reset" our digital infrastructure networks for universal Internet access.
The second tranche is ensuring access to computing devices. As those of us who own multiple devices well know, they are not all created equal and some devices are simply more effective for particular functions. As it stands, online learning platforms are optimised for computers or laptops, and not mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. We cannot expect our students from low-income households to simply get by or make do with mobile phones for online learning.
Universal provision of computing devices assumes need with less concern over deservingness. Thus, greater universalism could materialise in the form of automatic allocation, as is the case now with Baby Bonus, Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and Silver Support. Possible channels include building computing provision as part of school registration, ComCare benefits, or WIS. Stepped levels of subsidies according to household income and size of household could also be introduced, similar to the subsidy ladders for childcare and Baby Bonuses. Technology companies should be mobilised to co-fund such provisions as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts.
The final tranche is of course digital literacy. Invariably, better-educated parents will be more tech-savvy and can better guide their children's digital access. Hitherto, some donors have been reluctant to provide Internet access to needy families, citing fears that they will be vulnerable to online risks such as pornography or gambling.
We must therefore introduce more intensive in-school digital literacy programmes to help these children make up for the lack of scaffolding at home. But poor digital literacy should not be used as justification to deny low-income families access to a vital resource that the rest of society benefits from.
Beyond learning for children, home-based computing will also be essential if low-income adults are to have any real chance to participate in more technology-based training or employment. The progress of our Smart Nation drive has translated into more Government services moving online, thus making digital access even more of a need than a want.
In a rapidly digitalising society, comprehensive digital access in the form of wi-fi, devices and technological literacy is a critical social leveller as a conduit for education, upskilling and employment.
Prof Lim, your time is up.
The recent slew of generous budgetary measures shows that our Government is committed to leaving no one behind. The best way to ensure that everyone gets on the social mobility escalator is to make universal digital access an affordable public utility.
Minister Iswaran.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Ms Anthea Ong and Prof Lim Sun Sun for emphasising the importance of a digitally inclusive society and for sharing their thoughts on how we can bridge the digital divide.
Let me start by making it absolutely clear that digital inclusion has been at the heart of the Government's national digitalisation effort, and, indeed, of every discussion we have had in this House on that subject. Our Digital Readiness Blueprint, which was launched in 2018, envisions a nation with universal digital access where every Singaporean – young or old, disabled or able, rich or poor – is empowered with access and skills to thrive in the digital future.
While our digitalisation message has been consistent and universal, the adoption of digital technologies has been uneven, across our economy and across our society. COVID-19 has brought that same message across more starkly, highlighting to all the value and even the urgency of digital solutions at a time when we have all had to learn and work from home, and interact and transact online.
We now have the opportunity to give digitalisation a renewed impetus and push and the Nominated Members of Parliament have already observed that the Deputy Prime Minister has been somewhat prescient in his Fortitude Budget speech by making digital inclusion one of the key thrusts of the Fortitude Budget.
But I think I want to make one point before I go further, which is, I appreciate the spirit in which some of the ideas have been put forward, but in our efforts to highlight gaps and in our desire to do better, we must be careful not to forget the progress that has been made, largely because of the hard work done by various Government officials in partnership with community partners and corporate partners.
So, I want to begin by first putting into perspective the current state of Singapore's digital readiness. Where are we today in our digital inclusion journey?
IMDA's Annual Infocomm Usage Survey in 2019 found that 89% of all households own computers; and among households with school-going children, 98% own computers. If we exclude tablets from the definition, we find that 61% of households with school-going children own computers. So, that drops significantly. Interestingly, within this group, it is noteworthy that more than 80% of HDB 1- to 3-room households with school-going children have access to computers. In other words, it is gratifying that the efforts are reaching this lower income group.
IMDA's survey also indicates that broadband penetration among households stood at 98% in 2019; and it is nearly universal for households with school-going children.
Our 3G and 4G mobile broadband subscription rate stands at 100% of the total mobile market, compared with an international average of 75%; and our total broadband which is fixed and mobile subscribers, stand at 807 per 1,000 of population, compared to an international average of 369 per 1,000.
Another group that we pay close attention to is our seniors. Smart phone usage among adults below 60 was 99.6% in 2019; for seniors aged 60 and above, it had increased to 75% from 36% in 2016.
These figures, I believe, affirm that we have made valuable progress in our digital inclusion journey. One key contributory factor has been the range of initiatives that have been launched in close collaboration between our public, private and people sectors. For example, since 2006, IMDA's NEU PC Plus programme, which Members have all referred to, has helped over 46,000 low-income households, with school-going children or persons with disabilities, for them to obtain computers and broadband access. And I want to assure Ms Ong that the computers in this scheme refers to computers as in PCs and desktops and not tablets.
A further 16,500 households have benefited from IMDA's Home Access programme since 2014 which provides subsidised Internet access, with an option to bundle in an Internet-enabled device. Both these are run in partnership with self-help groups and also with Social Service Agencies.
Digital readiness is also not just about hardware and connectivity, but it is also about the literacy and the skills to derive the full benefit. And that is why we have, for example, initiatives like the Silver Infocomm Initiative (SII), which was launched as far back as in 2007. It provides a range of programmes for seniors at different levels of digital skills. These programmes are also provided in vernacular languages to meet the needs of our seniors.
Our companies have been important partners in these initiatives, with over 70 partnering IMDA, with 6,000 volunteers in our outreach efforts. And for persons with disabilities, the NEU PC Plus programme provides support for computer and broadband access. I can elaborate further but because of the time constraint, I just want to emphasise that the persons with disabilities remain an important part of our overall effort towards digital inclusion.
So, we have a range of programmes aimed at youths, aimed at seniors, aimed at people with disabilities, aimed at low-income households, and these programmes are run in partnership with the private sector, with the community organisations. The situation, I believe and I beg to differ with the Member, is not as bleak as Nominated Member of Parliament Anthea Ong paints it out to be. I think we have made progress, but at the same time we must have the humility to acknowledge that there is more that we can do.
And that brings me to the impact of the COVID-19. It has led to a surge in the interest and demand to go digital. We welcome this rejuvenated interest and will do our best to support it.
During the period of Home-based Learning (HBL), for example, Members have already heard how MOE loaned out more than 20,000 computing devices and 1,600 Internet-enabling devices. The question has been asked, "Why only one device per household in the NEU PC programme?"
But we are talking about an environment pre COVID-19. I think that Members would agree that the last two months has changed the world. So, what was sufficient in a pre COVID-19 era for example – one computer per household at a time when there was no home-based learning, there was no work-from-home or telecommuting requirements – changes dramatically when you are in a COVID-19 type situation with circuit breaker measures.
So, I think we must have some perspective in evaluating how fit-for-purpose the programmes were and of course, then understand that if the situation has changed, we need to adapt and introduce the measures that are necessary.
In terms of the NEU PC Plus programme, for example, what IMDA did was then to adapt the programme so that families with three or more school-going children could apply for a second subsidised PC and more than 3,000 computers were given out in this period despite the supply chain restrictions that we had to deal with. So, I think it has been an important effort.
We have also seen commendable initiative spawned by self-organised groups and community organisations. As Ms Ong noted, the group Engineering Good has been collecting and refurbishing 1,800 old laptops for those who cannot afford one of their own and I also know that they have been working with partners like Progress NEST and A Good Space, whom Ms Ong is associated with and I think we will continue to encourage such collaborations amongst the community organisations and between the public and private sectors.
Minister, you have one more minute.
Thank you. I want to conclude by highlighting again, as Deputy Prime Minister has highlighted, we want to build on these momentum, including the various initiatives for seniors, to reach out to all segments. So, the efforts with seniors, the efforts with hawkers, the efforts with low-income households, they are all a measure of our aspiration to ensure universality in the approach we take towards digital inclusion.
But, it is a challenging task as I am sure Members like Prof Lim who has been involved in some of these community efforts know, as you go further down, it becomes harder and harder to implement.
Sir, I want to conclude by affirming that digital inclusion anchored by digital access and digital literacy remains a foremost priority of the Government's efforts and borne of a pressing need COVID-19 has catalysed a heightened interest among individuals, families, workers and enterprises to be equipped with digital access and to acquire digital skills.
We welcome this and we will do our utmost to ensure that every Singaporean is digitally ready and we will work with community and corporate partners and canvas widely for ideas as has been suggested by both Members. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that every Singaporean regardless of age income or background is well prepared to lead a fulfilling life in our shared digital future.
Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.
The Question having been proposed at 5.47 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 6.17 pm.
PAPERCUTS