Vulnerable Adults Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in full support of the Vulnerable Adults Bill. This is a Bill that has been in the making for a long time and aims to protect vulnerable adults in our midst from abuse and neglect. The comprehensiveness of the Bill is testament to the diligent and good work put in by the MSF team.

My work with some of the vulnerable adults reminds me of the usefulness of the Bill. I have an elderly resident, a second-hand goods seller who hoards his entire rental flat and corridor with goods that he picks up in trolleys that he took from the nearby supermarkets. With the flat completely filled with old goods, he sleeps instead at the void deck or the staircase nearby and incurred the resentment and wrath of his neighbours. His hygiene and daily living habits become a great concern to the people around him. He refuses help except for the money he receives from passers-by who thought he was begging. And his social worker and his only nephew are at their wits' end.

I have another resident who suffers from mental illness, with violent tendencies. Her husband refuses to send her for treatment or supervise her well-being. Neighbours who were physically threatened by her could not get assistance by the Police who claim there is nothing they can do until the neighbours get physically hurt first.

Sir, these are but real-life examples that can be added to the unfortunate case of the intellectually disabled Ms Anna Ee whom the Minister has mentioned was tortured to death by her flat mates.

With the rapidly increasing numbers of elderly Singaporeans, the number of persons diagnosed with special needs, and the increasing number of persons with mental illnesses in a highly urbanised society like ours, the Vulnerable Adults Bill will provide the final safeguard to protect persons, such as them.

Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification in several areas.

First, on the big picture. As there is a current slew of many legislation and services which covers the same target group of vulnerable adults that the Minister has mentioned, can the Minister explain how the proposed Bill will complement exactly at the operational level existing Adult Protective Services and legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act and the Women's Charter? How will practitioners on the ground or even members of the public learn, understand and interpret and apply the various provisions to assist persons who are vulnerable?

Second is on balancing the state's right to enforce versus the citizen's right to choose. The Bill, in general, accords power to the Ministry which then appoints a director or protector, as stated in Part 2 of the Bill, such that the state can exercise the power to assess, enter premises, obtain information, remove and commit the vulnerable adult to a place of care and protection, sometimes against his will, if the state so decides.

Mental incapacity falls upon a continuum of severity from mild to moderate to severe. And there are also varying degrees of abuse, neglect by another person, or even self-neglect, which are all criteria applied in identifying a vulnerable adult in the Bill.

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on when and how the state actually decides that an intervention is in order and not a violation of a vulnerable adult's basic human rights? Hence, in the case of the elderly second-hand goods dealer I shared earlier, who appears not to have totally lost his mental capacity and yet showed serious signs of self-neglect, I am interested to know the course of action that the Ministry would undertake to support him. How does the Bill balance the tension between state enforcement and a citizen's right of choice under such circumstances?

My third area of seeking clarification is on placement decision. Sir, clause 11 of the Bill commits the vulnerable adult, upon removal by the state, to be placed under temporary care and protection in an assigned place or under a "fit person". In the event that a vulnerable adult is removed and placed in the gazetted care facility, what measures are taken by the Ministry to ensure that that these places of abode are suitable, dignified and staffed by persons who are properly trained to handle, especially the vulnerable elderly and/or the very severely disabled, some of whom would need specialised and expert care?

Fourth, on the role of the community. Since the formation of the Adult Protective Services by the Ministry, I understand from somewhere I read that the data is that about 250 cases were identified, largely involving adults with intellectual and physical disabilities, psychiatric conditions and illnesses. This is a small number – those who are supported in this way – compared to the universe of, I am sure, a much larger pool of adults who are potentially vulnerable. So, are there any robust ongoing strategies to engage and equip the community, including neighbours, grassroots leaders, medical, social, Police and disability groups, so that suspect vulnerable adults in their midst are identified and supported earlier and not till damage is done either to themselves or others?

Without strong community support, many of these adults would fall through the cracks and remain unidentified until something tragic happens. So, legislation is, hence, only a small part of the solution.

To this end, Sir, I recommend that the Ministry seriously consider the formation of a National Vulnerable Adults Support Services Association, similar to that started elsewhere in the world, such as the US. The association should aim to help organise, educate and train local residents and partners, community partners on the ground, to identify and support vulnerable adults in each private or public residential zone in Singapore. It can form local care groups, much like the cell groups that we commonly find in Christian or Buddhist organisations.

It can play the role of an integrator, a social service integrator, to provide a tighter coordination of the many diverse voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) specialising in disabilities, elderly and mental health support organisations, FSCs, Residents' Committees (RCs) and other security and social support agencies. The association can also look at providing scalable upstream and downstream services to meet the diverse needs of the ever-changing and enlarging population of vulnerable adults. With such an association, many more adults with varying degrees of vulnerability would be able to then receive the needed support upstream in their neighbourhood.

In conclusion, Sir, let me end off with a story of two vulnerable adults, two men with special needs, whom I personally know.

John, not his real name, was a young man who had severe autism. He was living with his very protective mother who also had special needs. Mom, his sole caregiver, rejected treatment for John, sometimes refusing to send him to school when he was younger. Mom was also very insistent on doing things her way, often verbally abusing and avoiding the agency staff who tried to assist. John's life was prematurely ended when he fell to his death, reportedly trying to climb out of the flat he was locked in. We wept when we paid respects at his funeral wake.

Another man I know with a developmental disability had a better fate. He is a resident whom I found during my house-to-house visits as a Member of Parliament. Er Ge, as he is now fondly known, was locked up in his rental flat as well whilst his elder brother went to work. Fearing for his safety and well-being, my grassroots and I approached the nearby PeaceConnect Senior Activity Centre. The Centre and many of its volunteers then offered him daily daycare services even though he was only in his 30s when we found him and not exactly a senior citizen. Today, Er Ge has a whole community supporting him in a day centre and a very vibrant social life at least, compared to me. His brother could even become a volunteer after work because of this respite that he now gets.

I share this tale of the two men to highlight the usefulness of the Vulnerable Adults Bill in the case of John; and the importance of community support in the case of Er Ge.

Sir, as rightly pointed out by the Minister, the Bill is only a tool of final resort to offer protection for the vulnerable adults amongst us, albeit an important one. Unless we seriously organise and harness the potential of the community around them, these adults will not be found nor liberated. So, Sir, with that, I fully support the Bill and thank the Ministry for this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to give the state certain powers to protect adults from abuse, neglect and self-neglect, and focuses on adults who are not able to protect themselves. Nobody can quarrel with such an aim.

Even as our intentions are noble, our perception of what is in the vulnerable adult's best interest may not accord with theirs. There is a Bible passage that literally captures the powerlessness that older people feel as they become more dependent on others. In the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is recorded as saying to his disciple Peter: "When you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted, but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go".

In this regard, I endorse the fundamental principles set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 provides that in exercising any of the powers under the Bill, a vulnerable adult must be respected and have the right of self-determination and not be subject to any unnecessary restrictions on his rights and freedom of action.

While I support the rationale for the Bill, there are a few aspects of the Bill that concern me, which I shall summarise as follows.

First, what will be the division of work between the Ministry under this Bill and the Office of the Public Guardian?

Second, what is the rigour of assessment to be applied before the state decides to intervene to change a person's living arrangements? I am worried about possible Government overreach, causing unnecessary institutionalisation of vulnerable adults, which, itself, would have harmful effects.

Third, would the definitions of "abuse", "neglect" and "self-neglect" in the Bill inadvertently discriminate against the poor?

I raise these issues so that the Ministry can clarify, in order to have greater public understanding of how the Bill will operate. In addition, I will touch on some areas that need further attention to enable vulnerable adults to live fuller lives.

First, division of work under the Bill and the Office of Public Guardian. Under the Mental Capacity Act, the Public Guardian's Office was set up to perform certain functions vis-à-vis mentally impaired persons. These functions include supervising the way donees and deputies perform their duties under Lasting Powers of Attorney and Court Orders. The Public Guardian is tasked with looking into complaints about donees or deputies who do not act in the person's best interest, either in managing his personal welfare or his property and affairs.

When this Bill is in place, there will be some overlap when it comes to a vulnerable adult's personal welfare. I assume that this Bill will tackle the cases where there is no donee or deputy appointed. But the Bill also covers cases where there are donees and deputies, as seen, for example, in clause 6. The question then arises: should there be a case involving donees or deputies that requires state intervention, to whom should a complaint be made? Is it to the Director of Social Welfare under this Bill, or to the Public Guardian under the Mental Capacity Act, or can both be pursued concurrently?

Additionally, the Bill does not cover abuse of a vulnerable adult's financial assets. Where there are donees or deputies appointed, a complaint can be made to the Public Guardian that the donee or deputy has acted in bad faith. But if there is no donee or deputy, the Ministry has stated that the Police would investigate any criminal offences reported. While the criminal justice system is geared towards punishment, how does one undo or reverse financial transactions, so as to restore monies or properties to the vulnerable adult? One can always apply to Court if one has the means. But what if a person does not have the means or does not have any family member to do so? How would this be resolved?

My second point is about the rigour of assessment and the risk of Government overreach. In discussing this area, my concern is about mentally impaired persons and the state's power to remove a vulnerable adult from his current residence. The state can do this if the person is assessed to be suffering from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.

I believe that the Government would not wish to be over-zealous in exercising such powers. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister did reaffirm that social work interventions would basically need to be exhausted first before the Bill will be triggered. Indeed, excessive intervention will harm the vulnerable adults and also be an unreasonable burden on public resources.

To this end, the state's power under the Bill is correctly limited. According to clause 4, a vulnerable adult's views must be respected if he is able to make his views known. Clause 4(b) states that where he has mental capacity, he is generally best placed to decide how he or she wishes to live and whether or not to accept any assistance. Even where he lacks mental capacity, clause 4(c) makes it clear that his views, whether past or present, wishes, feelings, values and beliefs, where reasonable ascertainable, must be considered.

Sir, ascertaining the wishes of a person with dementia can be tricky. From my personal experience with family members and constituents with dementia, dementia is not a static condition. There are good days and bad days, with moments of lucidity when the person seems to think normally. Dementia patients may speak clearly at times, but do they always understand the implications of the wishes they are expressing?

Sir, I would be slow to support the institutionalisation of dementia patients even if things are not ideal at home. Being institutionalised generally comes with a loss of pride and a loss of autonomy, having to live by an institution's rules. Dementia patients can be very agitated and difficult to handle in unfamiliar environments or when surrounded by strangers. Moving such a person from his home to an institution would likely be very damaging to the person's psychological and emotional well-being.

What rigour of assessment will be used before such drastic intervention will be triggered? What standard of care do we expect from caregivers when they care for vulnerable adults?

We usually see caregivers being spouses or children, who love their family members deeply. However, caring for dementia sufferers is onerous, exhausting and physically risky. Spouses are often elderly and frail themselves. Caregivers may also have other obligations, such as work or caring for other family members. And earlier, I think the Minister gave an example of a Mdm Chua and I think her family fits this description which I have just made. Such caregivers are often not medical or healthcare professionals. By what yardstick will they be assessed if a complaint is made?

In this regard, there are somewhat wide definitions in the Bill about what amounts to abuse, neglect and self-neglect.

According to clause 2, a vulnerable adult may be considered to be abused if he is subject to physical, emotional or psychological abuse, is subject to domination or has been unreasonably deprived of liberty of movement or well-being. This raises some pertinent questions.

For instance, if a caregiver decides not to bring the person out because she cannot manage him in public, is that an unreasonable deprivation of liberty? As for being unreasonably deprived of well-being, the illustrations in clause 2 also need closer scrutiny. Let us take illustration (b). It states that if a caregiver does not dress the adult after bathing her and leaves her unclothed in a room with windows open that can be seen by neighbours, that amounts to depriving a person of her personal dignity. While the modesty of the individual certainly needs respect, there could be valid reasons why the caregiver left the adult as such after a bath. For instance, it could be that the caregiver needed some time to prepare medicines that need to be applied on the person's body. Perhaps, the caregiver needed to attend to an urgent phone call or other task. Illustration (c), too, is worth noting. It speaks of a caregiver who refuses to allow a vulnerable adult to receive visitors. But what if the caregiver did so because the adult had reacted badly to visitors in the past, shouting at them and even pushing them away? What if the visitors are young children, who might be traumatised to witness such behaviour?

Before the state exercises its drastic powers of intervention, I would expect that a case-by-case and subjective assessment would have to be made.

Next, does the Bill risk inadvertent discrimination against the poor? How will the definitions of "abuse", "neglect" and "self-neglect" impact poor families or individuals? For instance, we sometimes see multigeneration families living in small rental flats. Will a vulnerable adult sleeping on a mattress without a proper bed be considered "neglected"? What if the vulnerable adult would benefit from certain treatment which requires payment, but he does not have the means to pay for it? For instance, there are psychiatric drugs to treat aggression, but some of these drugs are not subsidised and are costly, especially when prescribed long term. Will the vulnerable adult be considered neglected if the family cannot afford such treatment?

How will the Government approach such cases? I am not saying that the Bill intends to discriminate against the poor, but could this be an inadvertent result?

Finally, Sir, some areas for review.

The Government has been increasingly active in addressing issues, such as ageing and mental health. For instance, the Government has enabled parents of disabled children to access a simplified, low-cost procedure to be appointed as deputies when their children reach adulthood.

Another scenario I have come across is that of adults who lose their mental capacity later in life and have modest bank balances. From time to time, they also receive some top-ups from the Government, which go into their bank accounts. Because of their lack of capacity, they are unable to sign documents and family members are unable to access those monies for their medical treatment or upkeep. With small balances like, say, $5,000 or $10,000, it does not make sense for family members to fork out, say, $6,000 in legal fees to apply to Court to be appointed deputies, especially when the money has to be paid upfront by them. Can the Government look into how the process of deputyship in such cases can also be streamlined and made cost-effective?

My next point is about increasing the social space for vulnerable adults to engage in public activities. Sir, we have made concrete efforts to introduce barrier-free access for those who have physical disabilities. In the case of mental impairment, however, there is less public understanding of the condition.

Families with dementia sufferers tend to limit their social lives, due to the discomfort caused in public by the odd behaviour of their family members. Families often reduce or even avoid outings. This is an area that we can all continue to work on. With greater public understanding of dementia and its manifestations, society can show kindness and support towards families and individuals stricken with mental illness and be more welcoming and understanding towards such families. Public education efforts can be stepped up to increase awareness of conditions like dementia, and I agree with the Minister that all of us can play a part in this.

Finally, if institutionalising a vulnerable adult is unavoidable, how can we cushion the transition to institutional life? The institutions involved could make life more bearable by little gestures to preserve the person's individual identity and autonomy. For instance, instead of requiring residents to wear a uniform, could they be allowed to don their own clothing? Could residents be encouraged to have a space to place family photographs and other effects from home? These seemingly small gestures will go a long way to reassure the individual in an unfamiliar institutional environment.

Sir, the Vulnerable Adults Bill has been a long time in the making, with the public consultation on a draft Bill having been conducted nearly two years ago. The Bill is a welcomed piece of legislation to protect some of the most vulnerable in society but also raises difficult questions of the role the state should play in intervening in the most intimate of relationships, and in interfering with decisions and preferences of an adult on matters of their own care. The long period of gestation for the Bill reflects the delicate process of balancing protection and respect for individual autonomy and freedom.

I stand in support of the Bill and the principles set out under section 4, which articulates the restraint and proportionality that should guide the exercise of the extensive powers under this Bill.

I have a few points of clarification on the scope of protection offered by the Bill, the mechanisms for checks on the exercise of powers, and measures for protecting vulnerable adults beyond those set out under the Bill.

My first point really is what I started this speech with. Why did it take so long to introduce this Bill? What were the various considerations or challenges MSF faced in introducing this important Bill?

Next, under the Bill, a vulnerable adult is defined as an individual who is 18 or older. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for setting 18 years old as the lower age limit for a vulnerable adult? The Children and Young Persons Act protects individuals who are under 16. What are the forms of equivalent legal protection and recourse available to those who are between 16 and 18?

Next, sexual abuse is not listed as a type of abuse under section 2(1). Instead, "physical abuse" is defined to include coercion or attempts at coercing an individual to engage in sexual activity. This definition of sexual abuse as being a subset of physical abuse is too narrow because not all sexual harassment is physical. For instance, vulnerable adults may be subject to verbal sexual harassment not amounting to coercion in engaging sexual activities. Can the Minister clarify the rationale for subsuming sexual abuse under physical abuse, and also clarify how verbal sexual harassment will be dealt with under the Bill? Further, would the Minister consider introducing or including sexual abuse as an independent head of abuse?

Similarly, the definition of "abuse" under section 2(1) does not include financial abuse. There is also a lack of provisions in the Bill that address financial abuse of vulnerable adults. Financial abuse, such as financial exploitation, is a significant problem faced by vulnerable adults and is a form of elder abuse recognised by MSF. A 2014 survey conducted by Trans Family found that 29% of elderly mistreatment in Singapore involves financial exploitation. There appears to be a gap in the current legal framework for addressing financial abuse and exploitation of vulnerable adults.

For instance, finance-related offences under the Penal Code, such as theft, extortion and cheating, may not be sufficiently nuanced to address financial exploitation in the context of an existing relationship of trust or dependency. Protection orders under the Women's Charter does not extend to financial abuse. The definition of ill-treatment under the Mental Capacity Act, which protects mentally incapacitated elders from ill-treatment by their caregiver or donee or deputy does not include financial abuse. Will the Minister consider extending the ambit of the Bill to protection against financial abuse in the future? What are the current legal protections available to vulnerable adults subject to financial abuse?

Next, the Director and protectors have extensive discretion and powers under the Bill. Caregivers may legitimately worry about disruption and interference in their lives, such as the possibility of entry into their homes and premises. Excessive intervention may also further strain relationships between elderly parents and their children. These extensive state powers must thus be exercised with great restraint and proportionality. Can the Minister clarify what mechanisms exist for review and oversight of the powers granted to the Directors and protectors?

Would the Minister consider instituting a formal approval or reporting process for the most intrusive powers exercised by the Directors and protectors? This would include the powers to remove an individual for assessment without consent, to enter premises, to remove a vulnerable adult from their place of residence and to require medical treatment. Can the Minister also clarify the instances where the Director or protector need not seek a donee or deputy's consent before assessing or removing a vulnerable adult under section 6(2) and section 10(2)?

Given that cases of abuse, neglect or self-neglect often occur outside the public eye, effectiveness of the Bill, as the Minister has mentioned, is contingent on detection and reporting of such cases. Will training be provided to frontline staff to sensitise them to indicators of abuse, neglect or self-neglect? I understand that Social Services Offices and other community partners can call MSF to report cases of vulnerable adult abuse, but vulnerable adults who are not in contact with community partners may fall through the cracks. Would the Minister consider setting up a public hotline under the Adult Protective Services for reporting vulnerable adult abuse, as has been done with the MSF Child Protective Services Helpline?

Further, can the Minister clarify the ways in which the Adult Protective Services are similar or different from the Child Protective Services? Will every case of vulnerable adult abuse be reported to the Police? There is an existing mechanism under section 8 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act that allows a Magistrate to investigate a report from any person or Police Officer that a mentally disordered person is not under proper care and control or is ill-treated or neglected. Can the Minister clarify how this provision will operate in relation to the Bill?

Lastly, can the Minister also share the plans for ensuring successful reintegration and adequate care of vulnerable adults when they are returned to their homes from place of temporary care and protection?

Sir, clarifications and suggestions for Ministry's consideration notwithstanding, I stand in support the Bill.

Sir, protecting vulnerable adults treads a fine line between respect of dignity and compassion for the vulnerable. The Vulnerable Adults Bill is a timely and necessary creation to address the needs of a rapidly ageing population, and to bolster our existing legal frameworks.

We have spoken much about bold ideas, but less about real action. This is an example of a small but significant change that we can make. A change that is literally a matter of life and death for thousands of older Singaporeans. The urgency and scale of the problem cannot be denied. By 2030, over 900,000 residents in Singapore will be aged 65 and above, and an increasing number will be living alone, from 31,200 in 2012 to 83,000 in 2030. Sir, I believe the number of adult abuse and neglect will increase going forward.

The law, as it currently stands, is inadequate insofar as the state lacks the authority to intervene. For example, the state has been unable to enter the homes to render timely assistance to vulnerable adults who might be abused by their caregivers or are in a serious state of self-neglect, if the owner of the home refuses them permission to enter. The case of Mdm Ee, a 79-year-old single woman who lives alone, shows us this in real life. She is mentally incapacitated – a schizophrenic – and she has no next-of-kin. She rebuffs all attempts at treatment and intervention from healthcare professionals and social workers alike. Meal delivery services were also ignored as Mdm E left delivered meals at her gate. Hence, the risk of self-neglect is very high. The mentally-ill elderly who live alone, such as Mdm E, are prone to untreated falls and illnesses and may not have ready access to food.

Another case shows how timely this proposed Bill is. Mrs A, she is an 81-year-old woman suffering from dementia and is incapable of activities of daily living. She was abused physically, emotionally and psychologically by her 87-year-old husband who himself is prone to violent outbursts. They used to stay together alone and away from their adult children. But their children's fear of the father made them unable to supervise the elderly couple, leaving Mrs A without any protective figures at home.

The new Bill allows for such cases of self-neglect and abuse, which usually also involve uncooperative or non-communicative vulnerable adults, to be addressed efficiently, without the need for lengthy and unproductive negotiations with either the aggressor or the victim. Assessments of mental capacity can be enforced, the power of entering a vulnerable adult's premises can be exercised and, most importantly, there is a power to remove the vulnerable adult from the premises and to a safer place. This Bill allows us to act pre-emptively to protect vulnerable adults against caregiver abuse and neglect, and victim self-neglect.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wanted to point out a few ways in which I believe we can make this Bill better.

What is missing from this Bill? My first suggestion is to implement a mandatory reporting system for all stakeholders involved in providing care and services for vulnerable adults. Stakeholders, such as medical and social workers, AIC, the Police and perhaps even finance professionals, could be legally obliged to report suspected abuse as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable adult has been neglected or abused.

The underlying principle is that with a group of people as vulnerable as those considered here, those who are unable or unwilling to voice their pains, worries and concerns, it is wiser to be wrong than sorry; it is better, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution, because under-reporting of abuse is likely to be the norm.

The difficulty, as is always the case, lies in the details – who is required to report? Do we restrict the obligation to care professionals or should we include neighbours, friends and family members? What about finance professionals? Which types of abuse must be reported? Should less-tangible forms of abuse, such as psychological and emotional abuse, be covered? Would it be overly onerous to penalise the third party for non-reporting of such less tangible abuses? What about financial abuse, which my fellow Parliamentarian Mr Louis Ng just talked about? What sanctions will be imposed for failing to report, taking into account the bystander effect, that witnesses of abuse are more reluctant to shoulder the burden of reporting if there are other witnesses?

Lessons can perhaps be drawn from overseas jurisdictions. Washington has a mandatory reporting requirement in cases of elder financial abuse, though relatives, friends and neighbours are exempted from this obligation. Likewise, the state of Illinois imposes an obligation to report on "includes employees of the state of Illinois who provide medical or rehabilitation services to adults, law enforcement officers and social service workers" to guard against elder financial abuse.

More fundamentally, we must strike an acceptable balance between protection and intrusion into personal affairs, taking into account Singapore's cultural norm of non-interference.

It is my view that the Bill, which already protects whistleblowers, can be tweaked to include mandatory reporting and yet protect these stakeholders from liability arising from provision of such information or breaches of any code of professional conduct. Penalising the willfully blind heightens stakeholder awareness of their wards' vulnerabilities and improves oversight over the welfare of vulnerable adults. The social need for adequate protection of the most vulnerable amongst us charges us with a moral duty to find this balance, regardless of how difficult it is.

My second suggestion is to consider including financial abuse of vulnerable adults under the ambit of this Bill. Fellow Parliamentarians, such as Dr Lily Neo and Mr Chia Yong Yong, and professors, such as Prof Chan Wing Cheong, and non-government organisations (NGOs), such as the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), have repeatedly raised this concern. And again, Mr Louis Ng just raised this as well.

As it currently stands, the proposed Bill only includes physical, sexual or emotional/psychological abuse. But financial abuse can be as devastating as other forms of abuse and neglect. They can also be precursors to physical abuse. As AWARE observes, financial abuse is "often accompanied by threats of physical violence, and compounds the vulnerability of a victim to further abuse and neglect".

Vulnerable adults, due to their physical or mental infirmities, are less able to safeguard their financial security, or may be held hostage by their live-in caregivers, or lack the financial resources to take civil action. We are well-aware of cases of over-trusting parents who part with their assets out of love for their children, children who subsequently forsake them, whether due to a lack of filial piety or disagreements in the family. Too many cases. Too many sad cases.

Other cases include deceiving or coercing an elderly parent to sign a will or deed or taking money from them without providing support in return. Furthermore, financial abuse is under-reported, due to its subtle, non-tangible nature. In fact, one-in-three cases of elder abuse involved financial abuse as well, according to a 2014 study by Trans Safe Centre.

Including "financial exploitation" under the definition of "abuse" in the Bill would, I believe, be a good starting point in securing the financial interests of vulnerable adults. The definitions used in other jurisdictions, such as in New York, Washington and Illinois, can potentially be transplanted with modifications. Some US states even go so far as to impose a mandatory reporting obligation on professionals who are aware of elder financial abuse.

In fact, this is not the first time that the financial interests of the vulnerable have been debated in this House. The Maintenance of Parents Act, passed in 1996 and amended in 2010, allows elderly parents who are unable to maintain themselves adequately to apply for an order to have their children sustain him or her financially. The Bill tabled before us today gives us the opportunity to act more pre-emptively; to treat the scourge of financial exploitation at its root.

Instead of ensuring that the vulnerable receives financial maintenance after the act of abuse has taken place, is it not more effective to remove the threat in the first place? Such pre-emptive action ensures that whatever financial resources that the vulnerable adult still possesses are not taken away by abusers.

As some points of clarification, this pertains to the issue of cost: who bears the costs of intervention under the Bill? For example, who pays for the permanent care or relocating of the vulnerable adults? Would it be from the vulnerable adult's Central Provident Fund, or the abuser or the Government? I think this point was raised by the National University of Singapore Centre for Biomedical Ethics, and I agree that some clarification would be good.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have argued that there is a case to be made for mandatory reporting and the inclusion of financial abuse into the Bill. As is often said, a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. The Bill, in combating the social ill of the abuse of vulnerable adults, not only meets the changing needs of Singaporeans – its ageing population, falling birth rates and elders who live alone – but also affirms the values of the Singapore that we all know and are proud of.

The Vulnerable Adults Bill must recalibrate our traditional aversion to interventionistic laws, against the reality of the everyday lives of older Singaporeans on the ground. It should not be an obstacle against protecting the highly vulnerable, whether they be children or adults, exceptions must be made where called for. The welfare of vulnerable adults is one such instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is broad support for this proposed law from the social services sector and the public, and I would like to echo the support. It is an important instrument of last resort to be used to safeguard the well-being of vulnerable individuals facing abuse.

I personally witnessed a case where multiple Government and social service agencies were scrambling to intervene to safeguard an elderly woman's well-being after community and family interventions have failed to rescue the mentally incapacitated lady from self-neglect. The crux of the problem was who had the power to compel the lady to accept assessment and assistance. It took years to finally get help to the lady in need which had, in the meantime, caused much distress to the family and the neighbours.

I have three points to raise about the Bill. But before I raise these points, I would like to ask an important question of clarification. MSF first mooted the Vulnerable Adults Bill in 2014, and it was said that the Bill would likely be enacted in 2015. That did not happen and the public consultation on the Bill took place in 2016. Almost two years have passed since and we are here at the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a wait of three years.

Every year, we see about 200 reported cases of abuse of seniors and people with disabilities. This is sufficient reason, in itself, for the urgency of the Bill. The frequently asked questions accompanying the public consultation documents for the Bill stressed that the rate of abuse of vulnerable adults is relatively low and that the Bill is important to keep this rate low as the Singapore society ages and the number of senior citizens increases to 900,000.

The ageing society is also cited as the impetus for the Bill in the other documents. While the ageing society is the crucial context, I believe the central motivation of the Bill should not be about keeping rates low as the society ages. It should be about reducing abuse to the minimal and safeguarding vulnerable adults in all cases of abuse regardless of the societal context because one abuse is one too many and should be stopped. In other words, the motivation and the spirit of this law should be more humanistic and less bureaucratic in the sense of measuring abuse in terms of a key performance indicator.

Therefore, this rate of three years for the Bill to be tabled needs to be accounted for. There must be a good reason or good reasons for the delay. The Minister said we should not rush this Bill in his speech. I hope the Minister could elaborate.

Let me move on to the three points I would like to raise for the Bill.

The first point is about the definitions and the scope of the Bill. It is very good that the principle in clause 4 states that, "In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act, the welfare and best interest of the vulnerable adult must be the first and paramount consideration" has been added to the Bill after public consultation. This is the most important principle. It signals that the main motivation for the Bill is not about keeping abuse rates low, but in protecting the basic human dignity of the weakest members of our society.

However, there appears to be two gaps in the definition. A vulnerable adult is defined in the Bill as an individual aged 18 and above who is incapable of protecting himself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect due to physical or mental incapacity.

Our young persons aged between 16 and 17 are left in no-man’s-land in terms of protection from abuse or neglect. This means that close to 200,000 individuals each year entering what is arguably a very emotionally volatile phase of growth as late teens would neither be protected under the Bill nor under the Children and Young Persons' Act, which defines young persons as under 16 years of age.

The second gap is that the definition of abuse does not include financial abuse when the vulnerable adults' resources are being exploited by perpetrators for their financial gain or personal benefit. While financial abuse is not as physically apparent as other forms, it is equally harmful to the vulnerable adult's well-being and best interest.

Feedback during the public consultation phase highlighted these two gaps. MSF responded to the feedback by implying that the two gaps are covered by other laws. Regarding older young persons, MSF stated that the Women's Charter provides protection for victims of family violence of all ages, and that there are many services and programmes on the ground catering to older youths. However, the whole point of having the Bill is precisely to give MSF protectors the powers to intervene to stop the abuse when family and community interventions have failed.

The Women's Charter does not provide these important powers of last resort. It will be tragic if, because of this definition handicap, MSF protectors would have to wait for two years to intervene to rescue a young person aged 16 facing abuse by reason of physical or mental incapacity. Therefore, would the Minister consider amending the definition of vulnerable adults to lower the age to 16 years, or amending the Children and Young Persons Act to cover young persons who are up to 17 years of age?

Regarding financial abuse, MSF stated that the Police can investigate financial offences under the Penal Code, and the Office of Public Guardian can apply to Court to suspend or revoke the powers of a vulnerable adult's donee or deputy. However, financial abuse is much more insidious and hidden. And it often involves elements of psychological and emotional abuse.

With all due respect to the abilities of the Police and the Office of Public Guardian, they are not as well-equipped as the MSF protectors and the powers under the Bill to investigate, detect and assess incidents of financial abuse. Again, the whole point of having the Bill is to enable the MSF protectors to intervene to stop the abuse and harm caused to the vulnerable adults, which is something the Police and the Office of Public Guardian cannot do.

The second point I would like to raise for the Bill is that while the statutory powers of intervention should generally be deemed as powers of last resort compared to the family and community interventions, there is scope and justification for some of the powers to be deemed as intermediate powers. What I mean by this is that the MSF protectors should be allowed to exercise some powers of the Bill while family and community interventions are ongoing so that the latter – the family and community interventions – could be supported and enhanced. This pertains to the powers of getting information of the suspected vulnerable adults, entering private premises to assess well-being, and compelling vulnerable adults to receive medical or dental treatment.

Of course, these powers have to be assessed judiciously so as not to compromise family and community interventions. The power to remove and relocate the vulnerable adults should remain the power of last resort.

Would the Minister comment on how these powers would be operationalised and exercised vis-à-vis the family and community interventions on the ground?

At this point, I would like to go back to the question of financial abuse. If, in the course of an investigation and ongoing family and community interventions, it is discovered that the vulnerable adult is facing financial abuse in having his or her resources exploited for the perpetrators personal benefit, what recourse does the MSF protector have to intervene to protect the vulnerable adult? Can the MSF protector refer the case to the Police or the Office of Public Guardian? Would the evidence be sufficient to bring charges against the perpetrators for fraud or dishonesty offences and the process be quick enough to stop the harm being done to the vulnerable adult?

I am asking this because the Office of Public Guardian can only apply to Court to suspend the powers of the donee or deputy if the donee or deputy has been charged for a financial offence.

There is one more issue I would like to raise with regard to intermediate powers. This is regarding situations where vulnerable adults face economic abuse in not having their needs being met because of the lack of financial support from family members. The power to remove and relocate the individual under the Bill may actually not be in the best interest of the vulnerable adult as she may benefit more in residing and receiving care in their own home.

It appears that the intermediate power is needed here. I am not keen to suggest that the MSF protector be empowered to apply on behalf of the vulnerable adult for maintenance from his/her children under the Maintenance of Parents Act as I am instinctively wary of quipping state intrusion into the prerogatives of the family. But what other intermediate recourse is available to MSF officers?

The third and last point I would like to raise about the Bill is the connection and potential overlap with the provisions in the Women's Charter catering to the protection of victims of family violence. While this Bill appears to be motivated by the need to especially protect the vulnerable elderly from the risk of abuse in an ageing society, the definition of vulnerable adult is broad enough to encompass victims of family violence, particularly family violence of the most egregious kind. Whilst spousal victims of family violence are most likely not in the first instance, be it the mentally or physically incapacitated, in many cases of egregious abuse, spousal victims, and most of them being women, become mentally incapacitated because of sustained abuse, and are incapable of protecting themselves from further abuse.

I would like to seek the Minister's clarification, therefore, on whether the Bill does, in fact, cover victims of family violence, and whether the MSF protectors are effectively empowered to intervene in cases of family violence under this Bill. If, in fact, it does, then I would like to ask the Minister what the division of labour and powers would be like in the provisions in the Women's Charter and in the Bill. I am asking this because there could be quite a lot of confusion on the ground after the enactment of the Bill. Social service agencies and concerned whistleblowers may choose to report incidents of family violence to MSF for more immediate intervention under the Bill instead of the more laborious route of helping victims to apply for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) from the Court.

I am personally in favour and open for spousal victims of family violence who have become mentally incapacitated by abuse to be deemed as vulnerable adults so that they can receive the needed assistance from MSF.

On the other hand, I am concerned that MSF resources could be stretched and overwhelmed if MSF officers have to investigate even a proportion of family violence cases to determine whether intervention under the Bill is warranted. One compromise could be for the law to be amended to allow immediate family members of victims of family violence and perhaps selected social service agencies, the Police and MSF protectors included, to apply for PPOs on behalf of victims. The idea is to avoid concerned family members and friends of victims of spousal abuse expecting and going for the nuclear option of removing the victims from their homes unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe the Bill would become a landmark law in our legislative history. It has far greater ramifications and the express intentions to keep abuse rates low in an ageing society. In fact, the Bill has raised, and the Act will continue to raise, many issues regarding human dignity and human rights and the role the state plays to protect and provide for the more vulnerable members of our society. The conversations and debates should be welcomed and embraced because I think they will push us forward as a people grappling together with the issues of human vulnerability.

Already a number of cases of abuse of neglect and self-neglect have made headlines recently and sparked intense discussions. This Bill is timely and actually somewhat delayed. Nevertheless, I support the Bill and look forward to tracking closely the effectiveness of its implementation on the ground.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am heartened that the Bill will further strengthen the Government's ability to intervene to protect the vulnerable adults who may have fallen through the cracks of family, friends and community support and subjected to abuse and neglect. Such individuals may include the elderly, as well as persons with disability and special needs. It is about time that the Vulnerable Adults Bill is set to complement existing laws that address violence, maltreatment and abuse against vulnerable adults. Therefore, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, however, I have the following clarifications in two broad areas of the Bill, that is, one, empowering state intervention and, two, relocating of vulnerable adults. On empowering state intervention, I have the following four questions.

An "adult" is defined as 21 years of age in the majority of Singapore's laws. How has the age of 18 been decided in this Bill? As the Children and Young Persons Act covers children below age 14, and this Bill covers persons from 18 and above, how would the vulnerable persons between ages 14 and 17 that are not covered under this Bill be supported?

Two, how do we first establish early identification of this group of vulnerable adults?

Three, how can MSF take on a more active than reactive role when it comes to identifying vulnerable adults? I am sure most of us remember the case of 26-year-old Annie Ee Yu Lian, who had intellectual disabilities and suffered torture at the hands of a trusted couple. Eight months of agony and suffering, and yet no one knew – no one even suspected that something was wrong. What more can we do? How else can we educate Singaporeans to look over one another and be bold enough to report? Is there any other hotline to report suspicion as many may hesitate to report to the Police as it is not yet known to be a fact that such abuse is taking place in the first place? Moreover, some may want to report but do not want their identity to be known for fear of souring their relationship with neighbours, relatives or friends. Can MSF do more to create awareness amongst the public, riding on SG Cares, which is a national movement to support the efforts in building a more caring and inclusive society?

Four, even if a deputy or donee has been appointed, their consent is not required for the power to assess, power to remove and for the medical care to take place as stated in sections 6(2), 10(2) and 18(3) of the Bill. Under the Mental Capacity Act, however, their consent is required for medical care. Will this cause a conflict?

On relocating vulnerable adults, I have the following question. MSF is given the mandate to arrange for temporary care location. Who would be responsible for the cost of care and any other costs, such as those requiring medical attention deemed necessary by professionals?

Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I am optimistic that with the support and cooperation of Singaporeans at large, complemented by robust law and SG Cares initiatives, we can minimise or perhaps eliminate such inhumane abuse and exploitation inflicted upon vulnerable individuals who trust the very people that cause them pain.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Vulnerable Adults Bill. I have always been concerned about the vulnerable adults and have, since 1999, raised the issue on better protection of our vulnerable adults and, especially the abused seniors. I have spoken about the predicament of vulnerable adults being abused and have beseeched our Government to better assist them at least nine times in this House. I am glad, indeed, that MSF will soon put into law to better safeguard the vulnerable adults.

Over the years, during my speeches on this topic, I have raised the issues of neglect of the vulnerable, physical abuse resulting in injuries, emotional trauma, psychological anguish, deceit of funds and financial abuse. I am glad most of these are now covered in this Bill. However, this Bill does not cover financial abuse, as mentioned by other Parliamentarians earlier. We need to address financial abuse in these vulnerable adults. Let me elaborate.

As mentioned by my Parliamentary colleague Mr Seah Kian Peng earlier, a 2014 study by Trans Safe Centre, a charity that specialises in tackling elder abuse, showed that about one in three involved a senior who had been financially abused. With each passing year, the growing numbers of seniors will reach 900,000 by 2030. Many of them would have some savings from their long working years and they may be subjected to financial abuse. This will be an increasing problem with time. I have heard residents and patients relating to me that they had to give in reluctantly to their difficult children who might be drug abusers, ex-convicts or gamblers when they demanded money from them. The seniors said they were afraid of their children; scared of their tantrums, tempers and abusive words if they did not give in. There were also stories of unpaid borrowings by children, deceit in transferring of HDB ownership and so on. Thus, this Bill is not complete with the omission of the financial abuse issue.

During one of my house visits, I saw one debilitated senior on her bed through her house gate. She was too weak to even sit up or talk to us. The home was in an unhygienic state. Her gate was locked by her only son when he left to work early in the morning and would only come back late at night. I considered it as a case of neglect, either due to circumstances or willfully. But the senior would not complain as she was too afraid to lose whatever she had left and had resigned to her fate. Thankfully, we managed to find her son and persuaded him to allow us to assist with his mother's daily needs and medical needs henceforth. I hope this Bill will enable individuals like this to be identified early and help rendered before it is too late.

The role of the community is important to better protect the vulnerable adults. Extended families and neighbours are usually the first to know of the vulnerable adults at risk. Publicity and raising awareness on this topic and information on the kind of assistance available are thus very important.

I welcome Part 4 of clause 23, which provides protection to whistleblowers for providing the information on abused or neglected cases. This clause protects whistleblowers from liabilities. This fact must be well publicised to encourage more people in the community to report. In publicity materials, tips on what to look out for will be useful to further raise the awareness. Such relevant information includes poor hygiene, malnutrition, dehydration, physical injuries like bruises and fractures, unexpected injuries, mental trauma, depression as well as social isolation.

The people in the community, the family and friends as well as the neighbours, and the frontline personnel, such as medical doctors, nurses and social workers, play an important role to ensure the success of this Bill when it is enacted. In our society, there is a strong disapproval of abuses, especially so on the vulnerable. I hope MSF will spare no effort in facilitating the community to play their part in our responsible and caring society. There is a need for easy one-stop reporting and good follow-up provided by MSF. The convenience of a designated 24-hour hotline to call for reporting on information will be useful. I hope that with this Act and the good execution efforts by MSF, we can prevent another case of Ms Annie Ee who died from the injury of frequent abuses over a long period.

May I ask the Minister whether this Bill goes far enough in creating a criminal offence for the abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult? Does this Bill send a strong signal to the perpetrators on their wrongdoings? Now that there is this Act, we need to have a deterrence to ensure that family members do not push their dependants away to MSF by causing neglect. Otherwise, perpetrators can walk away from their responsibilities, if they know that they can get away easily.

Under Part 3, clause 19(1) and (2) of this Bill, the Minister is empowered, by notification in the Gazette, to designate any premises in Singapore as a place of temporary care and protection for the care of vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. I welcome this. In many cases of abuse, the best way to end their plight is to remove the vulnerable from their homes and place them at designated facilities that can provide better support and care. May I ask MSF what are these places and whether we have such avenues and such facilities available before enacting this Bill. We have to make sure that the vulnerable are not worse off with our intervention. I also hope that MSF will ensure that the vulnerable adults at risk receive as much information on their alternate care and assistance available to them. The fear of the unknown, away from their familiar environment and the fear of losing whatever little care and support they are getting may prevent the vulnerable adults at risk from giving their consent for interventions involving removal and out-of-home placements. This is especially so for the seniors at risk.

Under Part 2, clauses 5 and 6, this Bill empowers the Director or a protector to assess an individual or a vulnerable adult to be assessed by a qualified assessor. May I ask the Minister if the assessors can do both the physical health assessment, such as detecting malnutrition and body injuries, as well as mental assessments, to detect mental anguish, trauma and depression? Every assessment can only be complete with both physical and mental well-being taken together. Will these assessors be at hand on the enactment of this Bill?

I hope that MSF will implement this Act thoroughly to ensure its success. Areas of priority are good publicity, getting the buy-in from the community and enough personnel that will carry out their duties diligently. The success of all these will save our vulnerable adults from unnecessary pain and suffering and this is only rightly so in our inclusive caring society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As we intensify our efforts in being more inclusive and providing for the less fortunate and the vulnerable, this Bill is timely which seeks to provide for the safeguard of vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. In the course of our daily interactions with others in our community, we would have come across adults who are deemed vulnerable, either because they have some form of special need, or because of age, they suffer from illnesses or conditions that diminish their ability to remember or communicate effectively, such as dementia, aphasia – which is an impairment of the ability to speak because of stroke –or multiple sclerosis, among others.

A few months back, a female resident, Ms N, came to see me at my Meet-the-People session, panicky and in tears. Ms N shared that her elderly father, whom she said had dementia, was missing and that she received a call from a Home for destitute persons informing her that her father was there. Apparently, he was found begging on the streets and could not recall where he lived. When Ms N went down to the Home to try and bring her elderly father home, she was told that she could not do so as the Home would need to get the go-ahead from MSF before they could release her father. She managed to talk to her father whom she said appeared scared and had suicidal thoughts. I managed to get in touch with MSF through Minister Desmond Lee and, with the Minister's kind help, managed to get Ms N's father released from the Home within the next few days. I must extend my sincerest gratitude, on behalf of my resident, for the Minister's timely intervention and assistance in this case.

While that incident turned out well for Ms N and her father, the reality remains that there will be adults among us who may not recall who they are or where they live, or who may do things that can compromise their safety or the safety or others. These are the vulnerable adults who live amongst us. There needs to be a better framework and set of laws to manage how we are able to provide for them and ensure their well-being and safety, as well as that of others around them.

While I generally support the intents of this Bill, there are some clauses within the Bill which I seek clarifications on.

First, for clause 3(2), it is mentioned that the Director may appoint any public officer with suitable qualifications and experience as protector under the proposed Bill. What qualities are needed before a public officer can be appointed as a protector? What are the functions and powers of the protector? How is the protector different from the Director? Is the protector a deputy to the Director? Or is the protector supposed to play the role of a counter-check to the Director or enforcement officers to ensure, for example, that the safety of the vulnerable adult is ensured, or that excessive force is not meted on any vulnerable adult that is being removed from a place that exposes that adult to abuse, neglect or self-neglect?

Second, for clause 6(1)(d) and clause 10(2), it is stated that the Director or protector may remove a vulnerable adult from the place where that vulnerable adult is residing or staying for the purpose of an assessment, with or without the consent of that vulnerable adult, their donee or deputy. To what extent can the Director or protector ensure this vulnerable adult is to be removed? What if the vulnerable adult becomes hysterical or has an emotional breakdown or a meltdown and starts to protest? How will the Ministry manage this delicate balance between state intervention and individual rights and choices?

Third, for clause 10(5), the Director or protector may use such force considered necessary to remove the vulnerable adult. Will physical force or coercion be used against this vulnerable adult? Who will provide that counter-check against the use of excessive physical force or coercion against a vulnerable adult? Will there be a standard engagement procedure employed when dealing with such adults, where engagement, communication and cajoling are applied first and foremost? What if the vulnerable adult in question turns violent? What will be done then?

Fourth, for clause 11(1)(a), in having removed a vulnerable adult, the Director or protector must commit the vulnerable adult to a place of temporary care and protection or to the care of a fit person. Similarly, for clause 19(1), the Minister may designate any premises in Singapore as a place of temporary care and protection, or as a place of safety for the care and protection of vulnerable adults. What would be these places of temporary care and protection? Are they in hospitals? Or are they in specific VWOs? Will family members be allowed visitations? How long will the vulnerable adults be committed to such places of temporary care and protection? And in terms of "fit persons", how are the competencies and qualities of these "fit persons" defined? Will there be considerations of prior interaction or relationship to the vulnerable adult in question, so as to ensure some level of familiarity or comfort? Will there be considerations of prior relevant experience or similar language ability to the vulnerable adult, so as to ensure minimal miscommunication?

Fifth, for clauses 20(1) and 20(2), a "proper care plan" has to be in place for a vulnerable adult. What are some criteria of the "proper care plan" for vulnerable adults? Will this "proper care plan" be made in consultation with family members should the vulnerable adult be committed to a place of temporary care and protection? Would the Review Board or Director or protector be the one to review or audit this "proper care plan" on a regular basis to ensure adherence?

While there are many causes and levers for intervention in the case of vulnerable adults among us, there are equally as many sensitivities in calibrating the balance between state intervention and individual rights and choices. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my request for clarifications from the Ministry, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to laud the efforts that have been done to present this Bill to Parliament. As my other colleagues have said, this has been a long-awaited Bill, with many hoping to see more teeth in legislation to help safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. I understand that for far too long, social workers have been left frustrated with the inability to take action in situations where they feel that more could be done. I note the great balancing act that needs to be put in place to ensure that while we do what we think is necessary for the group that cannot help themselves, we do not inadvertently trample on individual rights and liberties.

Therefore, although personally, I share the sentiments of some of my colleagues who feel that the Bill could extend to protect against issues like financial abuse, I appreciate the caution with which we proceed on this Bill. I hope that the Ministry would review the matter further and consider other recourse available to the elderly in this respect.

For the purposes of this speech though, I would like to focus on the implementation of the Bill. In my humble opinion, for this Bill to be effectively administered and for the true spirit of the Bill to be embraced, we need to ensure that there are appropriate support, resources and manpower in place to respond to the circumstances that would arise in the course of enforcement of this Bill.  I, therefore, have some clarifications to make.

Firstly, I would like to understand who would form the team of qualified assessors on the ground. What would be the requirements of these assessors and would there be specified training given to them?

Secondly, I note that there would be instances where the vulnerable adult would have to be taken away from the care he or she has. Do we have sufficient manpower, support and spaces like the care facilities that the Minister referred to, to ensure that the care of these vulnerable adults, temporary or otherwise, is seamless and comprehensive? Further, what are the measures or support framework in place to ensure reconciliation with families where appropriate? I know that the Minister had earlier shared that Court orders could be made to direct family members to attend counselling. Are there other mechanisms to assist with reconciliation and appropriate follow-ups with the family members?

Thirdly, I believe that the cases that would fall under this category would be complicated and potentially emotionally and logistically challenging. The social welfare officers need to be trained in various aspects. They should be equipped with skills in dealing with, for example, violent relatives, they need to understand the Court processes and also have greater depth in dealing with and recognising psychological on top of physical harm. Are all our officers fully trained and equipped to handle various circumstances? I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the matters I raised. Notwithstanding my request for clarifications, I support this Bill.