Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Sir, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) has been enacted for more than 10 years now. The MCA allows for Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) to be registered with the Public Guardian. The LPA is a legal instrument through which a person, called a "donor", appoints one or more persons, called "donees", to make decisions on the donor’s personal welfare and/or property and affairs, should the donor lose mental capacity in the future to make such decisions. The MCA also allows the Court to appoint a person, called "deputy", to make certain decisions on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity but has not made an LPA. The key difference between a donee and a deputy is that a donee is appointed by the donor when he or she has mental capacity, while a deputy is appointed by the Court after the person has lost mental capacity.

The pandemic has shown that life can be unpredictable. We never know when events that could result in the loss of mental capacity, such as accidents and diseases, may strike. Making our LPAs early offers peace of mind for ourselves and our family. For example, Mr Low Kim Leng, a 69-year-old retiree, and his wife made their LPAs after witnessing how the LPA ensured that the affairs of their relatives with dementia were well taken care of.

Mr Francis Ng, a 60-year-old semi-retiree, also attested to the importance of making an LPA early as this would help his family avoid the stress and costs of applying to the Court for a deputyship order. He shared that because his father had not made an LPA before losing mental capacity, he was unable to manage his father’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) property on his behalf.

Instead, he had to apply to the Court to be appointed as a deputy and reflected that the process was very stressful as it was long and tedious, in addition to having to care for his father. Unfortunately, his father passed away before the deputyship application was granted. Now, he urges his peers to make their LPAs as soon as possible.

Many Singaporeans appreciate the importance of pre-planning. Already, we have more than 120,000 LPAs registered as of May 2021. This is a good sign. To encourage more Singaporeans to sign up and pre-plan, we have waived the $75 fee for LPA Form 1 applications by Singapore Citizens until March 2023. This means Singaporeans need not pay any application fee when making their LPAs during this period. They will need to pay for the LPA Certification service, which is about $50 or less, based on rates charged by those found on a list of the top 10 most visited doctors who are serving as Certificate Issuers as at January this year.

LPA Form 1 is the standard LPA form used by 98% of donors to confer on their donees the power to make decisions on the personal welfare and/or property and affairs of the donor. The remaining 2% use LPA Form 2, which require lawyers to draw up the specific and customised powers to be granted by the donor.

In preparing for this Bill, we have sought feedback from the legal and medical sectors, as well as members of the public. They have provided valuable insights and they are supportive of the amendments we are proposing.

Let me draw the attention of this House to two key amendments proposed in the Bill.

Firstly, the Bill will make it possible to create and execute LPA instruments electronically. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIIA on matters pertaining to the establishment and operations of a new electronic transaction system, OPG Online or OPGO. New subsections (5) to (14) of section 11, which are inserted by clause 4 of the Bill, will allow us to recognise an electronic copy of an LPA registered prior to the launch of OPGO to be free from error and to be treated as the lasting power of attorney, if certain conditions are met. Other transactions such as the filing of a Deputy Report with the Office of the Public Guardian will be lodged via OPGO as well. This is in line with the Government’s commitment to harness technology to better serve Singaporeans and so that all donors and donees can reap the benefits of going digital. We will support those who are less tech savvy so that the gains will be enjoyed by everyone.

Secondly, to better protect donors against the risk of fraud, a new section 31A inserted by clause 12 of the Bill provides that if the Public Guardian has reason to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce a donor to execute an LPA or appoint a particular person as his or her donee, the Public Guardian may disclose to the donor: one, the number of LPAs which have appointed the person as donee; and two, the number of applications that are pending before the Public Guardian for the registration of an instrument which appoints the person as donee.

LPAs today are made and executed in hard copy. To this end, we can do better. For example, Dr Sin Yong, a Certificate Issuer who certifies that a donor has mental capacity to make an LPA, shared that doing away with hard copies could reduce the hassle of passing around paper forms. Indeed, by enabling LPAs to be made online, there will be greater convenience, efficiency and security for our citizens. Let me illustrate.

First, donees will be able to accept their appointments more conveniently. Donees will not need to append their wet-ink signatures before a witness or to affix physical seals on the LPAs. Instead, donees will be notified of the donor’s intention to appoint them via SMS and email. They can then log on to OPGO via Singpass to accept the appointment. This is especially beneficial if donees are overseas and unable to return to Singapore to do so.

We will also legally recognise electronically signed LPAs as deeds. Currently, hard copy LPAs must have wet-ink signatures appended and seals affixed by the donors to be executed as deeds. Going forward, the donor will sign the LPA using his National Digital Identity in OPGO in the presence of a Certificate Issuer, instead of appending wet-ink signatures and affixing seals. Certificate Issuers can be accredited medical practitioners, practising lawyers and registered psychiatrists. The new section 12A of the Act inserted by clause 6 of the Bill sets out the requirements for the LPA to be executed electronically as a deed.

Second, digitalisation will cut the time taken to complete and register an LPA. With built-in system checks and validations, most online LPA applications can be immediately processed upon submission. This is a substantial time saving compared to the current three weeks processing time. A handful of cases may require manual processing, that will take about eight working days. To be clear, there will still be a three-week waiting period allowing for any objection to the registration of the LPA to be raised. This three-week window starts from the date the Public Guardian notifies the donee or donees of the acceptance of the donor’s application to register the LPA. If there are no objections at the end of this three-week waiting period, the Public Guardian will register the LPA instrument. On a related note, we will also tap on Singpass to retrieve personal information via MyInfo. This auto-populates the donor’s particulars into the online LPA, thus increasing the ease of making an LPA.

Third, robust measures ensure that the LPA is properly made by the donor and not by an impersonator. In this regard, we have retained the critical requirement for the donor to execute the LPA before a Certificate Issuer. Under paragraph 2(1)(e) of the First Schedule to the Act, the Certificate Issuer will need to certify that the donor understands the purpose of the LPA and the scope of the authority conferred under it, and the donor is not under undue pressure or duress to make the LPA and that there is nothing else which would prevent the LPA from being created. The Certificate Issuer must be satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled before the Certificate Issuer may certify the LPA.

Both the donor and Certificate Issuer will sign using a secure electronic signature, which is enabled by the National Digital Identity, before submitting it online for processing. Electronic LPAs that are easily retrievable will also reduce the risk of damaging or misplacing hard copy LPAs.

Finally, OPGO will serve as a one-stop electronic transaction system for all transactions with the Office of the Public Guardian. Donors and donees will be able to easily access the registered LPA in OPGO. When transacting with third parties on behalf of the donor, donees may request for the Office of the Public Guardian to send an electronic copy of the LPA to the third party. This assures third parties that the LPA is indeed the true and latest version. Additionally, individuals will be able to conduct online LPA searches and, subject to approval, request for certified true copies of the registered LPAs via OPGO.

Filing deputyship reports will also be made easier via OPGO. For example, deputies can use an online finance tracker to manage the incapacitated person's income and expenses. Certain fields in the reports will also be prefilled with information from court documents, the previous year's report and the finance tracker. Deputies will not have to manually complete their reports or compile their supporting documents. Instead, they can focus on caring for their incapacitated loved ones.

We want all donors and donees to benefit from digitalisation and this includes those who have registered their LPAs before the launch of OPGO. The Office of the Public Guardian will make available electronic copies of all existing LPAs on OPGO. The risk of error in transferring these existing LPAs onto OPGO is low as there is neither extraction nor entry of new data.

Nevertheless, we will send a notice to all existing donors and donees via registered post, requiring them to verify the accuracy of the electronic copy on OPGO against their registered LPA. Under the new section 11(7), they will be given 90 days after the date of notice to notify the Public Guardian of any error. If the donor has lost mental capacity, any donee may notify the Public Guardian on his, or her behalf.

Under the new section 11(12), if the Public Guardian is not notified of an error, the electronic copy will be treated as the LPA after the end of the 90-day period. If there is a notification of error within the 90-day period, the electronic copy will be treated as the LPA on the 91st day, or the day on which the Public Guardian rectifies the error, whichever is later. This is to allow donors and donees to fully benefit from having the entire 90-day period to notify the Public Guardian of any error.

I would like to assure Members that errors discovered after the 90-day period can still be rectified by the Public Guardian. This is provided for under the new section 15A of the Act which is inserted by clause 9 of the Bill. Nevertheless, I strongly encourage all donees and donors to make the necessary verifications within the 90-day period.

Under paragraphs 7(4), 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the amended First Schedule substituted by clause 17 of the Bill, the Public Guardian is required to attach a note to an LPA on the occurrence of certain events. Such events include the bankruptcy of the donee, which terminates the donee's authority in relation to property and affairs, and the donee's loss of mental capacity, which terminates the donee's appointment.

All such notes will be attached to the electronic copy of the LPA in OPGO. As such, the electronic copy of the LPA in OPGO will be the most up-to-date copy.

Third parties transacting with donees should ask for the electronic copy when verifying the donee's authority. The Office of the Public Guardian will send the electronic copy to the third party through OPGO and upon the donee's request. In the unlikely event that there is an error in the electronic copy, the new section 16A of the Act which is inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, protects the donee if he or she had relied on the electronic copy without knowing of the error and protects any third party, if the third party had transacted in good faith and without knowledge of the error.

Let me now turn to an amendment that aims to enhance the protection of donors. There had been concerns about the exploitative behaviour of donees in past discussions of the Mental Capacity Act. Such cases form a very small minority and we had amended the Mental Capacity Act in 2016 to put in place pre-emptive actions. For example, the Court may under the existing section 36A(3) of the Act, suspend the donee, or deputy's powers. If he or she has engaged in conduct affecting his or her suitability to be a donee or deputy and there is a risk of dissipation of the incapacitated persons assets. But we can do more to protect the donors proactively even before an LPA is registered.

There may be rare instances where a person attempts to unduly influence many donors to appoint him or her as their donee. The donee may stand to gain if any or all of the donors lose their capacity. Some donees may also fail to disclose their multiple appointments to donors who might take that into consideration.

To safeguard against such risks, the new section 31A of the Act, which is inserted by clause 12 of the Bill allows the Public Guardian to interview the donor and disclose certain information if she suspects that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the donor to make an LPA or appoint a person to be his or her donee.

Only the number of LPAs for which the prospective donee has already been appointed or intends to be appointed may be disclosed. No other confidential information such as the names of the other donors will be given. However, this alone should suffice for the donor to pause and reconsider the choice of his or her donee.

Further, if the Public Guardian has reason to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has indeed taken place, she may exercise her supervisory and investigative functions, for instance, by applying to the Court under the existing section 17 of the Act to determine if the LPA should still be registered. This amendment will not apply retrospectively to LPAs registered prior to the amendment.

I am mindful that some of us may be less comfortable navigating online services. MSF will provide support and work with our community partners to ensure that assistance is readily available. Today, almost 90% of the donees are the donor's immediate family members, of which more than 60% are below 50 years old. This is promising as it indicates that family support is strong with many donees often helping their older relatives to fill up the hard copy LPAs. As we roll out OPGO later this year, I am confident that many Singaporeans will continue to rely on their family to assist with their LPA applications online.

To facilitate this, we have designed OPGO to leverage the multi-user SMS two-factor authentication, or 2FA service provided by Singpass. Elderly users who do not know how to log on to OPGO via Singpass may opt for the SMS one-time PIN, or OTP, to be sent to the child's mobile phone number. The child would then be able to help the elderly log on to OPGO via Singpass.

We will make OPGO as user-friendly as possible. Videos and resource guides will be incorporated into the system to guide users in the completion of their LPAs online. This includes text-to-speech functions for the visually impaired. The online guides, videos and instructions will also be made available in vernacular languages. Members of the public who need help may also set up an appointment for one-on-one consultation at the Office of the Public Guardian.

We will work closely with our partners to ensure that help is accessible at various community touchpoints. Individuals may approach their nearest Citizen Connect Centre located at selected Community Centres or the Public Service Centre, or PSC, at Our Tampines Hub. We also welcome other community partners to work with us to bring more on board as we begin this digitalisation journey.

Electronic submissions of LPA applications will be the norm to ensure that the public reaps the full benefits of digitalisation. But there may be exceptional circumstances that warrant the use of a hard copy form which are specified in the new section 10C(2) of the Act inserted by clause 3 of the Bill. For example, where personal circumstances or physical disability of the donor and/or donee results in their inability to make or sign the instrument using OPGO.

Other instances include cases where the donor or donee is ineligible for a Singpass account if he or she is not a Singapore Citizen, Permanent Resident or long-term resident. We will also allow hard copies submissions if there is a severe and prolonged system outage.

Sir, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of pre-planning for exigencies. This includes the very real risk that we may one day lose our mental capacity. It is wise to pre-plan and have peace of mind knowing that we have entrusted our well-being to a person who will act in our best interests should the need arise. Making our LPAs early will also make the caregiving journey less stressful for our loved ones, who will be spared the stressful and costly process of obtaining a Court order to be appointed as deputy.

We will walk this journey with our citizens to ensure that everyone can take advantage of OPGO and it is my hope that Singaporeans will leverage this digital transformation to make their LPAs safely, conveniently and expediently. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.26 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), provisions can be made for individuals who lack capacity to manage their affairs. This Bill amends the MCA so as to establish a simplified electronic process for the creation of Lasting Powers of Attorney, which allow individuals to appoint persons to make decisions on their behalf should they lose their mental capacity to do so themselves. It is certainly a useful legal instrument that was introduced in 2010.

But the number of persons who have made it is not high. As of 2018, only about 23,000 Singaporeans above 65 have made their LPA. This low number could be due to a number of reasons. One often incited is a stigma about speaking about death. Understandably, we might not be comfortable discussing the possibility that we will be unable to make decisions for ourselves.

Talking about end of life matters is still seen as a taboo or inauspicious for some. It is human nature. We say we will do it, but most of us will procrastinate and end up not doing it. These are important matters, whether it is making a will or LPA, but we do not pay enough attention to it.

Some years ago, my wife and I finally accompanied each other and we did both. Since then, I could say so to a lot of people, with stronger conviction, whether it is to friends or residents, why they should do it and do it now, not tomorrow. We do this certainly not for our sake, but for the people that matter to us – our family and loved ones.

In the long term, with an ageing population, these conversations will increase in frequency whether in public forums or private spaces. As unpleasant as the possibility may be, in the event that someone can no longer make their own decisions, an LPA empowers their close relatives to act on their behalf, for elderly individuals or couples without family support, the Professional Deputies and Donee Scheme provides a source of potential donors for an LPA.

Another reason for the low numbers might be a lack of public awareness. MSF has been promoting LPA through Community Centres, Senior Activity Centres and radio channels. However, members of the public might be unfamiliar with what an LPA entails or are confused by the decisions needed: what powers to grant donees whether multiple donees should act jointly or separately, and so on?

For this, we will need to step up our outreach and publicity efforts. Although events and roadshows are good idea, awareness tends to fade if they are not sustained over time. Furthermore, the effectiveness of in-person events may be limited by evolving safe distancing measures.

Last, I think perhaps the most likely is just a lack of attention. Our bias is to ignore the long term or to shy away from thinking about difficult topics. This cannot be fixed by more public dialogues or information and education. It requires each of us to decide for ourselves that we need to be responsible and aware of our own mortality and to prepare for it.

LPA is certainly a useful instrument which deserves to be better known and more widely used. At the same time, even as we promote its use, we should see its limitations.

Under the MCA, a donor can confer on the donee the authority to make decisions regarding the donor's welfare, property and affairs if the donor becomes unable to make these decisions themselves. Currently, the process requires the hardcopy of all documents and physical meetings between donor and donee.

For most of us, we will find making LPAs digitally much easier and more convenient. With the amendments, parties do not need to physically meet up to sign and exchange documents. The use of Singpass also means that the user's details are automatically entered, making it more convenient for LPA to be made while not compromising on data security.

However, I do have the following concerns on the proposed amendments to the Act.

First, it concerns access. We need to ensure that those who are less tech savvy are not left behind. As mentioned earlier, the elderly are a prime target audience for LPA to be made. Yet, many of them may be unfamiliar with the tools or even terminology that is used.

For example, they may not know how to navigate the Singpass app or website with the two-factor authentication. While Singpass now allows users to sign into family members' accounts, not all elderly have family members on hand to help them.

Yes, MSF will assist those who have difficulty navigating the OPGO system by making Internet-enabled devices and trained staff available at community centres (CCs). This ensures that people do not have to venture beyond their neighbourhoods, making the process quick and easy. However, not all CCs will have these facilities. For those who need help, travelling further to an unfamiliar place may greatly discourage them. In fact, I know it does, especially for the elderly. If help was available at all CCs, I am quite sure it would lead to a greater take-up rate.

Sir, I hope the Ministry can consider this suggestion. Yes, I recognise that more resources will be required but I believe it will be monies well spent.

Still, even with various forms of assistance and accessibility measures, the five steps of the OPGO process may be hard to track, with multiple notifications and confirmations. For this, giving donors a physical checklist of the steps involved and the stage they are at – similar to reminders on vaccination cards – may be useful.

Next, I want to touch on scams. Besides improving accessibility, with more services and applications transitioning online, we also need to watch out for scams, which are getting increasingly sophisticated.

For now, there are safeguards in place such as Singpass users being prompted to verify the authenticity of websites before logging on. However, scams are getting more complicated, with fake websites resembling other Government agencies' websites being reported. We must keep our guard up and prevent such scams.

Some elderly individuals or those who are less tech-savvy might request friends or family members to help them with their submissions. I think this is quite normal in the course of business. While the majority of such cases will be safe, there could be those who abuse their trust and appoint themselves as donee. I would like to know what safeguards are in place to ensure that the donee appointed is the one intended by the donor.

Additionally, the current proposal's "default setting" is to treat the e-copy of the registered LPA in OPGO as free from error and as the LPA if there is no notification of any error within 90 days.

While this method might be administratively expedient and help save time, and certainly it does, given that this is such an important document, I think we should instead make it an affirmative confirmation by the donor that all details are correct; that is, to ensure that the consent is active consent. The security and sanctity of the LPA are worth the increase in administrative work, in my opinion.

Finally, I am heartened to hear that there are safeguards in place should there be reason to suspect that someone was pressured or deceived into making an LPA, especially if the donor lacks mental capacity. In such cases, the Public Guardian can disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which their prospective donee has already been appointed to allow them to make a more informed decision.

This safeguard, I feel, can be made stronger. We should not subject the Public Guardian to such a heavy responsibility. The Public Guardian should not really have to exercise judgement about when to step in. Instead, as long as the donee is a multiple nominee, I think this must be disclosed to the donor. With the disclosure, the donor can then decide if he or she wants to continue making the LPA with this donee.

In the long run, as we improve access and strengthen safeguards against abuse of the process, hopefully more people will make an LPA. Notwithstanding these suggestions, I support the proposed amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.36 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer who is involved in the issuance of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs). I have also had personal experience as a court-appointed deputy of a mentally incapacitated person.

Sir, the primary purpose of this Bill is to enable the Office of the Public Guardian to establish an electronic transaction system to facilitate the execution and registration of LPAs and other documents. I am generally in support of this Bill, which promises to make it more convenient for the public to execute LPAs and register them instead of needing to print and submit wet-ink documents to the OPG.

Another group of persons who would benefit are court-appointed deputies who will also be able to transact online with the OPG and retrieve information more easily. There are also provisions to alert donors of suspicious circumstances surrounding the intended LPAs, which are well-intentioned.

Even if the move is to go online, the Ministry has decided to retain the requirement for an LPA donor to appear in person before the Certificate Issuer. While some have called for this requirement to be done away and to allow donors to appear remotely, I disagree.

The in-person appearance is important as it will enable the Certificate Issuer – whether a lawyer, a psychiatrist or a credited medical practitioner – to make some assessment as to whether the donor is making the document out of free will. In comparison, having the donor appear online may be convenient. But online certification also carries a higher risk that there are unseen persons or forces adding pressure to the donor to execute the document.

Similarly, out of caution, the Government has decided not to expand the category of professions who can issue LPAs. Again, I agree that caution is warranted.

We have already seen hostile litigation among family members over LPAs, with lawyers and doctors dragged in to justify their assessments of whether the donor was mentally capable or incapable at various points in time. It is prudent not to include other suggested groups like religious and grassroots leaders without much more consideration.

Sir, the Bill will mandate that LPAs be executed and registered digitally from now on and reports by deputies be filed online. As with all things digital, there are concerns about those who would find it difficult or even oppressive to do so and how we would need to include them in the implementation of the OPG online. The Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, Mr Louis Chua, will elaborate on this while my colleague in Aljunied GRC, Mr Leon Perera, will offer his suggestions for some reforms for the future.

For my part, I wish to seek clarifications about three clauses in the Bill: the proposed section 10(C)(2), clause 12 and clause 17(2).

First, the proposed section 10(C)(2). This will allow the Public Guardian to provide alternative ways to transact with its office if the transaction cannot be carried out through the online system and "due to a person's physical disability or other circumstance or because the system is unavailable or for any other reason."

It would be useful for the Ministry to elaborate on the scope of these exceptions. When we say a person is unable to use the system due to physical disability, are we referring to a person who cannot use his fingers to key in a digital identification or who is visually impaired? What is the scope of the wide phrase "for any other reason"? Would this include, for instance, persons who are hospitalised or incarcerated?

Second, clause 12 will give new powers to the Public Guardian to interview the donor. The new section 31A provides that the Public Guardian may require the donor to appear before him if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee. It is further stated that one of the grounds for such suspicion is the number of LPAs registered or pending registration with the same donee.

Sir, this provision is well-intentioned but raises a few questions. Although it is stated that the Public Guardian can require the donor to be interviewed, it is not stated what the consequence will be if the donor does not attend. This could happen for innocent reasons like not being physically mobile. What will the Public Guardian do in that circumstance?

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Public Guardian might apply to Court for a decision on whether the LPA should be deregistered. Could he clarify, for example, whether the Public Guardian might even decline to register the LPA in the first instance?

Next, on what basis would the Public Guardian find reasonable cause to suspect fraud or undue pressure? Will the Public Guardian largely rely on information given to it rather than initiate its own investigations?

Third, the Bill specifically suggests that being a donee in multiple LPAs is a suspicious circumstance. How will this operate in practice? For example, if I am named a donee by three family members, will that be considered suspicious? Indeed, the likelihood of family members appointing the same donee is increasing as many of us need to assist elderly relatives who are unmarried or childless.

Finally, clause 17(2) of the Bill will facilitate the Public Guardian in giving special approval for LPAs to be executed remotely. This may be allowed with prior approval if the Public Guardian is satisfied that there is "good reason" why the donor cannot appear physically before a Certificate Issuer to execute the electronic document.

Given what we have discussed about the risk of not appearing in person before the Certificate Issuer, it will be useful to know what scenarios are being contemplated as constituting good reasons. Indeed, the Ministry has stated in its public consultation summary that exceptional circumstances will need to be shown. Could the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on these circumstances? For example, does it include situations where donors are overseas for long periods of time? Sir, I look forward to hearing the Ministry's responses to my queries.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.43 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Mental Capacity Act.

The amendments primarily provide for Lasting Power of Attorney (LPAs) to be made and registered online through the formation of an what the Parliamentary Secretary calls OPGO, an Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system.

There are good reasons for this change: (a) to cope with the rising LPA volume, which has increased nine-fold from 2,681 in year 2014 to close to 25,000 in 2019; (b) to enable a faster and more convenient process – the change removes the need to physically print and submit hardcopies or affix wet-ink seals and signatures currently need for LPA deeds; (c) and the third good reason, the proposed amendments provide for new features to better store, search and retrieve electronic LPAs versus hard copy LPAs. New safeguards to check on donees and cybersecurity features are also added.

These changes bode well for Singaporeans who were previously deterred by the longer and more cumbersome process and especially for those who are IT-savvy and who can self-help. However, I would like to highlight four concerns which I hope the Ministry can address.

Concern number one: the underlying inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA.

Sir, I fear that the amendments will not address the underlying cause of inertia of Singaporeans in making an LPA. Despite the encouraging increase in the number of LPAs registered – more than 20,000 annually in recent years – the total number remains relatively low compared to the population which is eligible.

The data bears testimony, supports this concern. More than one million Singaporeans are above the age of 55. More Singaporeans are expected to be hit by dementia or loss of mental capacity gradually. In a 2015 study conducted by the Well Being of the Singapore Elderly or WiSE led by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), one in 10 people aged 60 and above may have dementia. In 2018, ChannelNewsAsia ran an article featuring more Singaporeans being diagnosed with dementia at an even younger age and even younger age.

There is clearly an increasing number of Singaporeans at risk of losing their mental capacity. There is also an inertia to take the initiative by many to apply for an LPA. So, even if the expected number of LPAs is expected to rise to more than 30,000 with the proposed amendments, there is still a large pool of Singaporeans who need more than a nudge.

A more aggressive and robust communications and outreach plan is in need. The current video example available to MSF and the other measures are obviously not enough.

So, I strongly advise the development and implementation of a comprehensive communications and outreach plan covering: (a) different target audiences with demographics and so forth; (b) analyses of their communications style, the language, channels of communication; (c) ways by which they can be reached through an effective marketing mix or communications mix of TV, radio, print, grassroots workshops, volunteer workshops and incentive programmes.

Concern number two: the vulnerable and the need to include and protect their interests.

Sir, some members of society who most need an LPA are the least likely to apply for an LPA. They may be the less educated, not defined by one’s paper qualifications, who may not understand the concept or need for an LPA. They may be the less technically savvy who are averse to the use of Singpass, electronic signatures and so forth. In an IMDA survey of 2019, it was revealed that 58% of residents above age 60 are Internet users compared to 89% for all residents – a percentage-point difference of about 30%.

Then, there are persons with disabilities who are differently abled and they are different. Some may have mental capacity but will still need help to understand and complete the process of LPA application and registration. Some may not pass the test for full mental capacity as stated in MCA. For example, that is to understand, to be able to retain information, to weigh decision and to communicate. They and/or their caregivers will need advice and guidance on whether LPAs are relevant or whether deputies should be appointed to protect them.

There is an obvious need to seriously invest in a track for the vulnerable. I suggest that the Ministry considers the following options to ensure that the vulnerable are included and protected.

One, to set up specific LPA clinics at the major community centres staffed by trained professionals with technical knowledge and/or language fluency that is required. Much like the vaccination centres albeit at a smaller scale. These can be permanent for bigger towns for longer period or they can be mobile LPA clinics to serve smaller precincts.

And second is to consider adopting a parallel run allowing for a co-existing physical and online system until our nation is more ready to go fully online in this matter.

Concern three: Certificate Issuers.

One important party to the process of LPA application is the Certificate Issuer or CI. The CI is a witness for the donor and certifies that the donor has the capacity to make an LPA and that there is no fraud or undue influence used to induce the donor to make the LPA. The current Act states that the LPA CI must be either one, a medical practitioner accredited by the Public Guardian; or a practicing lawyer; or a registered psychiatrist. Just three professions.

Findings in countries such as Hong Kong, for instance, have shown that many do not approach these professionals for various reasons: the cost or the perception of the cost; and the fear or discomfort of approaching or interacting with these experts.

Legislation in England and Wales, of which the Singapore MCA is modelled after, provides for a "Certificate Provider" to be someone a donor knows well. So, I think that is a bit broad and general and I do not support that. But they also include professional persons such as one of the following: either a registered healthcare professional; a solicitor, barrister or advocate; a registered social worker; or an independent mental capacity advocate. So, the professional pool is larger than that in Singapore.

Whilst technical qualification is a proxy of a CI’s competency, it is only one of several competencies required of a good CI. A responsible CI should be able to and is interested in detecting the donors who are vulnerable, unduly pressured or influenced into giving power to certain donees. Why, for example, can certified, accredited social workers or psychologists not be accredited by the Public Guardian? Why can they not be included in the pool of CIs, so that the pool can be enlarged for choice by the donor? I recommend that the pool of CIs be enlarged.

Concern four and the final concern: families of persons who lack or lost mental capacity and are without LPA.

Sir, as a Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned for my adult residents who are incapacitated, due to old age or birth or accident and so on, or have become incapacitated but they all are without an LPA. They and their families who have to decide on their behalf and look after them are often clueless and helpless.

I understand that a process for the application and appointment for deputies has been put in place under the existing Act. However, the low level of awareness of the need and the process remains baffling to the main in the street. Usually, it is too late by the time they know about this and the process often takes too long, leaving the family in limbo and distress.

While progress have been made to encourage deputyships for clients in disability organisations – I know such as MINDS for the intellectually disabled – there is still a sizeable population out there who need to know about the matters of deputyship appointments. They ought to urgently start the process of application and appointment, before it is too late.

Hence, I urge the Government to allocate more resources, both financial and for Ministry to allocate more time, to similarly enable a faster, customer-centric and effective process for those who are now without mental capacity.

In summary, Sir, the proposed amendments provide for welcomed changes to an otherwise more cumbersome system.

I have listed four major concerns and provided recommendations for the Ministry’s consideration. Resources will be needed but they will be monies and time well invested. The cost of not investing in this important life planning tool will most certainly be higher later.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

5.53 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mental Capacity Act (Amendment) Bill makes changes to bring about the digitalisation of LPA filing, changes in the filing of deputyship reports and the modification of the donor protection framework to help curb abuse, among other things. My party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim has spoken in support of the Bill and has posed important clarifying questions and suggestions, as will my Parliamentary colleague Mr Louis Chua. I shall limit my speech to a few technical suggestions for future consideration.

Firstly, Sir, under the Bill, making and submitting an LPA in hard copy may still be permitted but only under exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of physical disabilities or if the Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) website is down, for example.

Some donors may not necessarily have physical disabilities but may be uncomfortable with the prospect of transacting purely online over such an important legal act. This phenomenon may have been elevated by the publicity surrounding Internet frauds and personal data being compromised through various data breaches.

MSF says it will reach out to users in need through the Citizen Connect Centres at community centres and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Tampines Hub. I would like to ask to what extent will the Government preserve this option, going forward, of human staff to support donors at Citizen Connect Centres who wish to register LPAs but who are uncomfortable with submitting the LPA purely online without any interaction with officials at a physical office.

Next, Sir, I would like to suggest that it be made mandatory for donees to notify the Public Guardian of their intention to exercise their authority to make very major decisions on behalf of donors that impact the donor’s living arrangements and have major impact on their finances before doing so, so as to better safeguard persons who lack mental capacity from abuse.

Some jurisdictions require proactive regular reports from donees or guardians, particularly those with financial responsibilities. In Victoria state in Australia, for example, administrators must submit financial statements to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on an annual basis and otherwise as directed

The New York Mental Hygiene Law requires guardians to report on their activities. The guardian must file an initial report no later than 90 days after being appointed by the Court. In the initial report, the guardian who has been granted powers with respect to property management must document a complete inventory of properties and financial resources of the "incapable" person. For personal needs, the guardian must provide a plan of care. The guardian must also file an annual report and provide accounting yearly as prescribed by the Court.

Sir, we do not necessarily have to go as far as what is being done in these jurisdictions at this very early stage in the evolution of our LPA landscape, since we also have to avoid imposing overly onerous burdens that may deter persons from becoming donees. However, a basic requirement to notify the OPG when a donee exercises their powers under the Act as regards to major financial and property-related decisions and major living arrangement-related decisions may be worth considering. The definition for what constitutes such major decisions could be clearly spelt out in the legislation or subsidiary legislation.

Such a requirement would provide the OPG with more information on how powers are being exercised under the Act, which would be useful for subsequent policy reviews. Such a requirement may also make the donees take the exercise of their responsibilities a little more seriously when it comes to making very major decisions on behalf of their donors.

I would stress that I am not suggesting that donees be made to file detailed descriptions of every single decision they make on behalf of the donor, or annual reports and so on and so forth, as this is too onerous.

Lastly, Sir, for the longer-term evolution of this body of law and regulation, would the Government consider giving some thought to complementing a substitutive decision-making model for LPAs with a supported decision-making model in the future?

Currently, the Mental Capacity Act or MCA adopts what can be termed a substituted decision-making model, which differs from the supported decision-making model now encouraged by the committee for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or CRPD.

Substituted decision-making enables a proxy to make decisions on behalf of another person who is incapable; therefore, the concerned individual has no right to make a decision for himself or herself unless the substitutive decision-making framework is reversed or mitigated through some form of legal action.

One counter-argument to any move towards a supported decision-making model may be that the substitutive decision-making model may not be as paternalistic as it sounds right now. In the words of Assoc Prof Chin Jing Ji in an article in the journal of the College of Family Physicians, and I quote, “section 6 of the MCA defines best interests to include reasonably ascertainable past and present wishes and feelings, beliefs and values of the person, and other factors of significance. Furthermore, the MCA insists that before an act is done, or a decision is made, due consideration must be made to achieve the intended purpose in a way that is less restrictive on the person’s rights and freedom of action.”

But, Sir, at best, the MCA is ambiguous as to whether it wants primarily to advocate autonomy or beneficence for the person lacking mental capacity. This ambiguity could allow for some interpretation in favour of supported decision-making at the practical level, but may also make decision-making challenging for the donee, potentially leading them to err on the side of caution, meaning to err on the side of paternalism.

It is known within the medical community that the best interests of patients can sometimes come into conflict with substitute decision-making. Clinicians may be left in a difficult position when best interest standards are in conflict with each other. Some argue that the role that the managing physician plays in consensus-building is a potential solution. This problem is further complicated by the presence of paid professionals in the LPA system. Professional donees with little knowledge, no more than the doctor, about the donor’s preferences might be more likely to employ a standardised, paternalistic approach towards decision-making on behalf of the donor.

Sir, the concept of supported decision-making is relatively new and it is predicated on the basic principle that most people are autonomous beings who develop and maintain capacity as they engage in the process of their own decision-making, even if at some levels support is needed.

In the supported decision-making paradigm, the individual receives support from a trusted individual, a network of individuals or entities to make personal, financial and legal decisions that must be followed by a third party such as financial institutions, business, health professionals and service providers. Depending on the needs of the individual with a disability, depending on their particular condition, the supported person will aid the individual to understand the relevant issues and information and make decisions based on her own preferences. If necessary, the person providing support interprets and communicates the individual's preferences and desires to third parties, so that they can be realised.

As described in a paper by researchers Devi, Bickenbach and Stucki, Canada is one of the leading countries in the legal implementation of supported decision-making models, for example, the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Disability Act 1993 from the province of Manitoba. Another example is contained in the province of British Columbia's Representation Agreement Act (RAA), under which an adult can enter into a "representation agreement" with a trusted person or support service who is empowered to either to assist that individual in making and communicating certain decisions with which he or she needs assistance, or to make decisions for him or her. Another example of a supported decision-making model is the Swedish "legal mentor" who acts as the individual's agent, with the individual's consent. Sweden revoked its formal guardianship laws for adults with disabilities in 1989 and replaced it with this supported decision-making model.

Supported decision-making recognises that even people who have difficulty making choices, formulating decisions and communicating their preferences can make positive choices.

The CRPD Committee has repeatedly called for the replacement of substitutive decision-making systems with supported decision-making systems. For example, in its Concluding Observations on Croatia and also General Comment No 1.

I wonder, in conclusion, if the Government would give some thought to developing instruments in the future that would enable us to make supported decision-making a legal option that donors can select alongside the options currently provided for. Moving in this direction may better promote and protect the rights of persons who require support in exercising their legal capacity in line with what they believe to be the mental capacity, the degree of mental capacity that they have.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

6.03 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. Death and taxes are both as unwelcome, yet both are an essential part of our lives. We have to think, plan and eventually execute the provisions for our mortality. The amendments we debate today will enable the Office of Public Guardian to digitalise the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) process. I see this as an important first step that will provide Singaporeans and their families with better support in dealing with life’s vicissitudes pertaining to loss of mental capacity, terminal illness, end of life and distribution of assets to loved ones post-life.

I made the call for digitalisation of LPAs and Wills on 7 April 2020 in this House when we were debating the COVID-19 (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I had also made calls to modernise and simplify the probate processes for several years now.

I do hope that in the near future lay persons will be able to access digital platforms to make not only LPAs but digital wills, advance medical directives and applications for Grants of Probate or Letters of Administration for straightforward probate matters without fuss, with little costs and from the comfort of their homes. That would be real and significant progress.

At the same time, I do recognise that we still have a digital divide in our community and hon Member Ms Denise Phua spoke cogently about this point, drawing from surveys done by IMDA. I, therefore, would like to join her and hon Member of Parliament Mr Seah Kian Peng in their call to provide tangible support to persons who are not digitally savvy.

I only have one short query and this is to clarify the legislative policy concerning the role of the Public Guardian in safeguarding the donor’s wellbeing and interests even before an LPA is made by him. This arises from the proposed amendments to give the Public Guardian (PG) the power to: (a) interview the donor if there are grounds to suspect there is fraud or undue influence to induce a donor to make an LPA or to appoint a particular person to be his donee; and (b) disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his prospective donee has already or will be appointed as donee on the same grounds.

A number of hon Members of Parliament who spoke before me also dealt with this provision including hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim.

Let me say that, in principle, I do not have an issue with the proposed amendments. I applaud the move to enlarge the Public Guardian’s responsibilities so as to better protect the donor’s interests at the outset before an LPA is made. I do not see this as an extension of duties; the PG taking over the responsibility of ensuring that the donee is a suitable person. That responsibility must sit squarely with the donor. However, I think it is good that the PG provides the necessary support to the donor in terms of giving relevant information and putting the donor on notice before he makes the important decision on the choice of his donee.

My short query is in relation to why the role of the PG in safeguarding the donor’s interest before the registration of the LPA cannot be expanded beyond fraud and undue influence to also include general suitability of the proposed donee.

For example, it may serve the donor’s interest if the PG shares with the donor information as to whether the proposed donee has any criminal convictions dealing with theft, cheating, extortion, criminal breach of trust or an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Such information is not easily accessible by members of public, even though these are matters of public record since convictions are almost always pronounced in open Court. Currently, the Court already has the power to revoke the LPA or direct that the LPA not to be registered on this ground if the conviction post-dates his appointment as donee. The presumption here, I gather, is that the donor would know or act with reasonable diligence to establish the proposed donee’s background beforehand.

But, in practice, this is not necessarily the case. We know all too often how we shirk tasks that have high cognitive tax, such as reading the fine print of contracts and policies, and I am speaking as one who is paid to read fine print, even though I must admit I do this at work but not at home.

I would be grateful if the hon Parliamentary Secretary could please clarify what is the legislative intent in circumscribing the PG’s role to just matters where it is suspected that fraud or undue pressure is used on the donor.

Before I sit down, I would like to take this opportunity to join the hon Parliamentary Secretary in his clarion call to fellow Singaporeans who have not done so to make LPAs so that they can minimise the trouble to their loved ones who have to bear the responsibility of caring for them should they lose their mental capacity. I have.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

6.09 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, early last month, I hosted a Zoom webinar organised by the Sengkang Constituency Committee, where we shared with our residents the importance of wills, CPF nominations and the Lasting Power of Attorney or LPA. Each one of these instruments play an important role in estate planning and helps provide peace of mind for our loved ones should something untoward happen in our lives. While we are still fortunate to be in good health and of sound mental capacity today, an LPA arguably also provides us with the serenity of knowing full well, that there will be someone we trust to undertake key decisions for us, should we lose mental capacity one day.

I thus believe that having an LPA or will done up to provide assurances in the event of the "ifs" and "what ifs" in life, is no less important than, say, the assurance of having basic health insurance plans in place, such as MediShield, for example, to which I note that with the rollout of MediShield Life in 2015, all Singaporeans are now covered for life, compared to 2.8 million policyholders back in 2006, notwithstanding the general population increase since then.

I was thus a little sad and frankly unsurprised, however, that based on the straw poll that was conducted during our Zoom webinar, only 5% of participants have indicated that they have done up an LPA and 6% have done up a Will. Upon conducting further research, I note that up to 2020, there has only been about 100,000 LPAs registered in Singapore. Even if we exclude foreigners and base our calculations off the resident adult population of about 3.2 million people, the number of registered LPAs represent a mere 3.1% of the resident adult population.

I recognise that MSF expects more than 40,000 LPAs to be registered by year-end. But even so, based on 40,000 LPAs registered a year, this will take the equivalent of about 80 years to get everyone covered; and most of us would not be here by then!

Beyond the technical amendments to this Bill, the key question I have for the Ministry is thus, do we have a target to aspire to, in terms of the timeline, the number and percentage of LPA registrations in Singapore? Beyond the digitalisation of the LPAs and the waiver of the application fee for Form 1 since September 2014, what more is being done, and how much resources are being dedicated to ensuring that we raise the awareness of LPAs and, ultimately, the number of LPA registrations in Singapore?

Looking into the details of the Bill, my first clarification is on section 31A, which my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim has discussed. While the new section allows for the Public Guardian to interview donors if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee, I wonder if a caveat mechanism can be put in place as a preventive measure to protect vulnerable persons and prevent abuse, rather than just a risk-based approach of requiring an interview when risks are identified? This could involve, for example, having a next-of-kin or appointed caregiver submitting a declaration, substantiated with medical opinion that a person already lacks mental capacity or have intellectual disabilities, and that any attempts by the person to register for an LPA would raise an immediate red flag.

My main concern, however, is that surrounding the transition to a purely electronic transaction system, the Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system (OPGO). I consider myself a digital native and appreciate the digitalisation of paper-based processes, especially one which would involve the use of snail mail, to a purely electronic one. But for consequential documents, such as the Election Department (ELD)'s nomination papers or residential sale and purchase agreements, for example, there is a certain degree of comfort and confidence from the tactile experience of touching and signing a physical document.

The digital divide is thus real and cannot be ignored, as can be seen from recent experiences of residents choosing a physical TraceTogether Token instead of downloading the TraceTogether App, or the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers, on which many residents have shared with me feedback on the convoluted digital process of redeeming some of these vouchers.

As such, I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider retaining the option for donors to draft their LPA on a hard copy version of Form 1, if it is preferred, rather than only for exceptional circumstances? I note that for CPF nominations, while this can be done online, there remains an option for members to complete a hard copy form to be submitted at the CPF Service Centres as well.

Further, it would also be preferable if multilingual support can be provided on the LPA Form itself, while also providing a guide in all four official languages to walk donors through the process of registering an LPA. Looking through the guides provided by the OPG in its current website, I note that the LPA brochure, guides for caregivers, donees and deputies are all available in Chinese, Malay and Tamil as well. But arguably the most important guide of all, the guide to the LPA is only available in English on the website.

I recognise that the Ministry will be assisting those less comfortable with digital services, by leveraging on community touchpoints such as the Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) and the Integrated Public Service Centre (IPSC) at Our Tampines Hub. Yet even at the CCCs, my understanding is that staff will be assisting residents with performing Government transactions online. As it is an important document to make, elderly residents who may not be comfortable with digital forms, especially one in English and may not wish to complete the LPA form all at one go. As friendly as the CCC staff may be, elderly residents may also wish to consult their children or other relatives whom they trust to get a second opinion on the LPA and a physical form would better facilitate this whole process.

Further, while I strongly believe that an LPA is important for adults of all ages, close to 80% of LPA donors from 2014 to 2019 are aged 50 and above, while 55% of LPA donors are aged 60 and above. The importance of having hard copies and multilingual support is thus even more important, given the demographic of LPA donors today.

Another interesting statistic which I observed is that from 2014 to 2019, female LPA donors have consistently outnumbered male LPA donors by a ratio of about 1.4 is to one. I wonder, if the Ministry has conducted any study into why this is the case and whether efforts can also be made to encourage more men to make an LPA? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me end my speech in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that if one day we lose mental capacity due to ageing or other factors, we would hope that someone whom we trust, someone who is reliable and capable can handle our personal welfare and financial matters on our behalf.

That being the case, it is extremely important to have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in advance to appoint someone whom we trust as our donee.

When the amendment Bill is passed, Singaporeans will be able to apply for LPA online through the Office of the Public Guardian's online service and handle relevant transactions such as submitting online deputy’s report and making e-payments. Once LPA is digitised, the time to register an LPA will be shortened from three weeks to an average of eight working days. This is a good thing.

However, for the elderly who are illiterate and do not know how to use computers, it will be more difficult for them to apply online. The digitisation of LPA may also lead to concerns about electronic forms and public trust.

I understand from the MSF's announcement in May that Singaporeans who are not tech-savvy can go to Citizen Connect Centres located at CCs and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub for assistance. However, it is nonetheless an online application form. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister if we can keep the paper form LPA , just like when we do CPF nominations, we can either do it online or go to the CPF Service Centre to fill up the physical form.

From 2014 to 2019, nearly 80% of donors are aged 50 and above and 55% are 60 years old and above, hence having a paper form LPA and multilingual support is all the more important.

Finally, according to my study, adult residents now make up 3.2 million of the population, only 3.1% have successfully applied for an LPA. I hope the Government can make more efforts to encourage more Singaporeans to have an LPA so that they are protected.

6.19 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill, which seeks to enable the digitalisation of the Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs), filing of deputyship reports, as well as enhance the protection of donors and persons who lack mental capacity.

The LPA is a legal instrument which allows a person, the "donor", to voluntarily appoint one or more persons, the "donee", to make decisions and act on his behalf when he loses mental capacity one day. There are three key steps under the existing process.

First, the donor must choose someone he or she trusts to make decisions and decide on the decision powers to accord to the donee. If there is more than one donee, the donor must also decide whether the donees are to act jointly, or jointly and severally.

Second, the donor must attend before a Certificate Issuer, that is, a doctor, lawyer or psychiatrist, with the LPA, who will then sign and certify that the donor has mental capacity to make an LPA. This is a crucial safeguard in ensuring that the donor is aware of the legal implications and has not been under duress or undue pressure in the creation of the LPA.

Third, the donor must submit the LPA and all relevant documents to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) by post. The OPG will then verify the documents and proceed to register the LPA if there are no valid objections.

We are living in an era where almost anything and everything is digitalised. It also means things are done even faster, smarter, easier and safer, especially with a low touch economy. Accordingly, the proposed amendments which seek to establish an electronic transaction system for persons to create an LPA or carry out their transactions with the Office of Public Guardian digitally, is a timely and laudable move.

Even as the majority of Singapore rides the rapid waves of change in the digital sphere and we are moving forward in this space, I wish to highlight three concerns which I hope to see addressed we embark on this set of amendments.

First, expanding outreach and communications. My wife and I did our LPA earlier this year and I must say the process is not a simple one. You need to read the fine print and there are quite a number of signatures and quite a number of documents and forms to go through.

My first concern is with the seniors amongst us and whether the electronic process will be a boon or a bane to them as there are many who may not be electronically savvy and comfortable with the e-processes and may result in us losing out this group which are precisely the ones who need to make their LPAs most urgently, in case they lose their mental faculties with the passing of time and age. The question we need to address is how the electronic process will help or encourage seniors to do up the LPA? Will the system be multilingual as well and void of legalese?

I understand that the Office of Public Guardian has plans to work with the People's Association, the Infocomm Media Development Authority and other organisations to train and assist elderly persons. This is a step in the right direction to evangelise the importance of the LPA. In addition, the Office of Public Guardian can also partner with NTUC and the Labour Movement as well as our union leaders to enhance the outreach to workers and union members. For a start, perhaps a special campaign can be embarked on to get all our union leaders to do up an LPA at a subsidised rate so that they can lead the way to encourage the workers and fellow members as they interact and engage them at the workplaces and the various shop floors.

Second is extending support at the local level and the needy. Over in my Pioneer constituency, my community volunteer team and I had also organised and conducted a Facebook live webinar in October last year on "Wills, Estate Planning and Lasting Power of Attorney" to educate our residents on this very important topic. We collaborated with Invictus Legacy centre to extend a very economical and affordable package to all Pioneer residents when they do up both an LPA and a simple Will, to the end of this year. This was well-received by my residents and many of them shared that this was a useful and practical. As of earlier this year, I know more than 300 residents have done up their LPAs in response to this special package and service for our residents.

I recalled also doing a similar drive during my last term in Boon Lay constituency where we also extended a special package, but this time to the many needy and low-income residents there staying in rental flats. With this, I submit and suggest that OPG can work with the community and come up with a similar support scheme to assist low-income and needy residents to do up their LPAs. Besides waiver of the registration fee, which is a good move, support can come in the form of waiving or even subsidising the certificate issuer charges. There can also be proper benchmarks as now, there is a spectrum of charges imposed by Certificate Issuers depending on whether it is done through a lawyer, doctor or psychiatrist.

Third is deputyship. I am concerned for those who do not make their LPAs before losing mental capacity and their families and loved ones must now apply for deputyship with the Courts, which is a costly, time-consuming and cumbersome process, which quite a number of Members of this House have probably highlighted. Would MSF be making any further changes to simplify the existing procedure, which would save time, costs and energy for all of us? I note that there is a simplified application process for restricted use of monies of S$60,000 and below for certain categories of applications.

Further, the amendments propose to allow the Public Guardian, in case of suspected fraud, to disclose to a donor that his prospective donee is already a donee to multiple donors. Does this disclosure obligation apply across the board? Or would there be certain exemptions, for instance, where the appointed donee is either a next-of-kin, close relative, or friend of the multiple donors? Also, if the authorities suspect that fraud has been perpetrated, what will happen to all LPAs registered after the amendments have been passed?

Sir, clarifications and concerns notwithstanding, I stand in support of this Bill.

6.25 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, against the backdrop of changing demographics and in the spirit of digitalising the Public Service, enabling the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be made electronically is indeed a welcome move for it allows greater efficiency and convenience for the donor, donee and the Ministry.

Whilst in the process of improvement and advancement, it is important that we do not forget there are risks involved. Hence, I seek clarity on the safeguards put in place and its adequacy as well as some clarifications regarding specific sections in the amendment Bill.

First, ensuring robustness of the nomination process to prevent fraudulent nominations.

To provide additional safeguards for donors, it was mentioned that the Public Guardian may interview the donor and disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his or her prospective donee had already been appointed, or intends to be appointed. Could the Ministry provide more specifics on the process and how in doing so, would prevent fraudulent nominations and avoid conflict of interest for donees with multiple appointments? Further, how would the process account for and act as a preventive measure for those who are already experiencing an early onset of dementia or individuals with special needs?

Regarding process robustness, for section 10B(1)(g) and section 46(2)(b) and (d), could more clarity be shared on (a) what circumstances and considerations would allow for the disclosure of this non-confidential information; (b) who would be allowed the access to this information and (c) will there be any measures in place to ensure that only those permitted have access to the information and that the risk of incorrect disclosure is minimised or even eliminated?

Under section 10C(2), if more insights can be provided on what the Public Guardian foresees and hypotheses that could constitute valid reasons besides physical disability and electronic transaction system unavailability that is already outlined, for transactions that can be carried out in the form and need not be done electronically.

On section 10D(1) and (3), in the event that the Public Guardian has to correct any error or omission in the register or document as a result of the malfunction of the electronic transaction system, would there be any prompt communication to inform both the donor and donee of the correction that has to be done? If so, what would be the service level agreement in informing both the donor and the donee. This is a critical point as outlined in subsection (3) that and I quote, "when an error or omission has been corrected, the error or omission is treated as not having occurred". Should there be an error made by the Public Guardian in the course of rectification, what possible recourse can the donor or donee pursue?

Second, to ensure sufficient reach and provision of support for the move towards electronic LPA. I think a few of my fellow colleagues have spoken about this. But I just want to emphasise on one point: with more elderly in Singapore living alone, are there any concrete plans to assist these seniors to file for LPA if they have not done so and to assign deputies earlier to them to better support them in their later years.

I believe, many of these seniors and special needs individuals may also be unfamiliar with the legal considerations, so how can we better serve their needs as we pivot towards electronic LPA.

In clause 7, amendment of section 13(10), would steps be taken by the Public Guardian to authenticate the certificate from the registered medical practitioner, ensuring that it is a true copy? Because as we go electronic and in many of these documentations, sometimes inevitably, that could be errors or that could be gaps. So, if we are not going to do this, how can the public agencies or organisations in which the donee is interacting on behalf of the donor, be assured that there is a validation process in place?

On section 33A(3) and (4), could greater clarity be provided on the next step of action should the donor or donee raise objections to the proposed rectification or update of the register?

Last but not least, the cost that is involved and the transition process towards electronic LPAs. With this move towards electronic LPAs, would there be any additional cost for the donor in the LPA filing as compared to the non-electronic LPA? Because in clause 9, section 15A, it mentions that if there is any error to the non-electronic LPA, rectification can actually be made on the electronic version. So, my query is: what then would become of the non-electronic LPA? Will it be superseded? Additionally, what is the transition process for the existing non-electronic LPA filed and the impact that it has on the existing protocols related to it?

Sir, the move towards digitalisation of public records is an important milestone. It will help with improving efficiency of processes for records checking and cross-usage amongst the authorities and I believe this is a very welcomed move.

However, LPA is a sensitive document and it deals with the matters that affect the welfare of citizens, particularly more so for the vulnerable. Thus, it is important that we maintain a robust system, albeit electronically, which manages the affairs with great accuracy and continues to uphold the trust between the institution and the public.

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

6.31 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill represents another step in the nation's move to digitalise. A smooth transition to the new electronic transaction system for LPAs will simplify the process of making and accessing LPAs. However, if not managed well, the transition can cause more errors and put users off the new electronic transaction system.

A sizeable number of donors who interact with the system will be the elderly and vulnerable who may require more guidance in navigating the electronic system. This makes it all the more important to closely and carefully manage the transition.

I have four points for clarification on this Bill on the transition process.

My first point is on the rectification of relevant errors.

The new section 11(10) provides that the Public Guardian (PG) may rectify a relevant error if it is satisfied that there is a relevant error. This suggests that the PG has the discretion to rectify a relevant error but is not obligated to rectify the error. The new section 11(12)(B)(II) also addresses the situation where a PG decides not to rectify a relevant error.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify under what circumstances will the PG not rectify a relevant error? In addition, can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that for the 90-day period before the electronic copy is treated as being free from error, the non-electronic copy remains the LPA? Can the Parliamentary Secretary also then confirm that the donee and third parties are entitled to rely on the non-electronic copy in the 90-day period before the electronic copy becomes the LPA, even if there are discrepancies in the non-electronic copy, which the PG may decide not to rectify in the electronic copy?

My second point is on parties that have relied on relevant errors in carrying out transactions.

The new subsection 10D(3) provides that where an error or omission has been corrected, the error or omission is treated as not having occurred. The new subsection 16A(2) provides that if an electronic copy of a non-electronic LPA has a relevant error, a person who transacts in good faith without knowing of the error is entitled to rely on the electronic copy for that transaction.

Where a transaction is entered based on a relevant error, which is corrected, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the effect of the correction on the transaction? Does the transaction remain valid or will the transaction be unwound?

I ask this because, according to section 10D(3), the error is treated as not having occurred, which may mean that the basis of the transaction no longer exists and should be unwound. However, section 16A(2) provides that a person is entitled to rely on the electronic copy with the relevant error in relation to the transaction, which suggests that the transaction remains valid.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify how this potential contradiction should be reconciled?

My third point is on suspected fraud or undue pressure on a donor.

Under the new section 31A(1), a donor may be interviewed if the PG has reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the donor to execute the instrument.

In addition to interviewing the donor, does the PG have the power to interview persons related to the donor or to interview the donee? In the event that the PG is of the view that there is sufficient evidence to show that fraud or undue pressure was, in fact, used to induce the donor to execute the instrument, will the PG intervene, regardless of the donor's stated wishes? What are the steps a PG will take in relation to a donee that it suspects is using fraud or undue pressure to influence multiple donors to appoint him or her as a donee?

My fourth point is on how the transition to the electronic transaction system will be implemented.

The new section 10(C)(1) requires a person to use the electronic transaction system if they wish to register an instrument to create an LPA. Section 10(C)(2) contemplates that there may be some circumstances where a transaction cannot be carried out using the electronic transaction system due to a person's physical disability or other circumstances.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Can the Parliamentary Secretary elaborate on the circumstances under which a person may be exempted from using the electronic transaction system? The elderly and the vulnerable who may use and need the LPA most may also be the demographic that faces the most difficulties using this new electronic transaction system.

I am glad that the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) has already shared its many initiatives and roadshows to educate and provide assistance for using the electronic transaction system.

The UK has also implemented an online system for LPAs. The UK took a gradual rollout approach to their four million registered LPAs by opening up the system in batches to LPAs registered in different years.

What are the lessons the Ministry has identified from the UK's rollout of their online system? How have these lessons been incorporated into the Ministry's and OPG's efforts to ensure the rollout is a smooth one in Singapore?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

6.37 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To most Singaporeans, LPAs sound depressing and remote. However, there will come a day when you and I may be bedridden and have to rely on someone we trust to continue to live with dignity. Since we have to appoint someone to handle our property and other important affairs through an LPA eventually, the LPA application process should be made easy.

Here, I would like to discuss the impact of LPA digitalisation on Singaporeans.

Public Service in Singapore has always been at the forefront of digitalisation. During the pandemic, digitalisation has helped our elderly to learn about and use email, internet banking and video conferencing. However, this does not mean that they do not fear digital services. The key to make the leap across the digital divide is not knowledge but confidence. How are we going to instill confidence in our elderly towards digitalisation?

Digital services will not completely replace customised services. To many Singaporeans, convenience from digitalisation is merely a function which is a complement to face-to-face services.

In order to boost the confidence of the people, we need to make digital LPA easy to understand, use and trustworthy. At the same time, automated services should come with a human touch and be more personalised.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the hallmark of a 21st century government is its ability to digitise its functions and processes and the Singapore Government has made leaps and bounds in this regard, such as the digitisation of citizen data on Singpass, payments on PayNow and even, to many of our citizens' delight, replacing parking coupons with an app.

However, Mr Speaker, today, we are here to debate the digitisation of a service that is arguably of more concern to a thinner, more vulnerable slice of our society, such as the elderly as well as adults with special needs – the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).

These LPAs are not a matter that should be taken lightly. While the prudent and forward-thinking make LPAs pre-emptively, many Singaporeans only consider LPAs as they get on with age out of the concern that, one day, they may not have the ability to make proper judgements over their own welfare, property and other personal affairs. Effectively, to make an LPA is to commit to let someone else decide what you should eat, where you should stay and how you should live should the fateful day come that you are not able to make these decisions yourself.

Sir, I have seen the trepidation with which some of my elderly residents and even residents in their late 40s and 50s have with their approach in their interactions with the digital world – be it creating an email, setting up a bank account or even creating video calls with their loved ones. I recall someone I know in his early 50s asking me for help with the change of a file name on a document that is stored on his phone.

It is unfamiliar terrain for many and then even for some. Understandably then, the electronic LPA system, with implications reaching farther than WhatsApp video calls, may daunt many seniors who cannot find the confidence and assurance to traverse the digital divide.

An online system is only as useful as those who are able to find it useful and set itself up to be an exhibit in the museum of digital assets if not well implemented. Given that most of the online LPA system's intended audience will be daunted by fears associated with crossing the digital divide compounded by the pressure of making an LPA while they still can, we must stand ready to provide support for using these systems.

While digitalisation is often intended to reduce burdens on manpower, we must be willing to cross the bridges with those whom we build it for. I call on the Government to make accessible support systems for those daunted by online systems in order for them to get the most out of this initiative.

Crossing the digital divide is not just a matter of know-how but, in many cases, it is a matter of confidence. Providing a personal touch, especially on something as personal and life-changing as LPAs, through social services or other equivalent means will give our residents the encouragement, assurance and motivation to set up LPAs over the well-meaning online system.

Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would also like to shed some light on another vulnerable slice of society and they are adults with special needs and residents with mental health impediments.

On the extreme end, parents or relevant caregivers assume deputyship over these individuals, making decisions on their behalf in matters akin to an LPA. However, special needs and, indeed, mental incapacity, are a spectrum and we find a great diversity of conditions. Some cases are more visible than others while many other such conditions are virtually invisible to the untrained eye. Some conditions cause mental incapacities in bouts or sporadic episodes and cannot be recognised with certainty in one-off encounters.

We recognise that online LPA services greatly add to the convenience of the process by reducing the need for physical appointments even though these physical appointments, arguably, play pivotal roles in the ascertainment of mental capacities. Given the grave implications of making an LPA, we cannot, with good faith, proceed with the issuance of LPAs should there be any shadow of a doubt whether or not an individual is under pressure or has mental health impediments. We must get it right every single time.

Sir, while I am ready to place my faith in the intentions of LPA certificate issuers – medical doctors, psychiatrists and lawyers – their ability to ascertain an individual's mental capacity at the time of issuance is, actually, paramount to safeguarding the integrity of the process.

For example, should an individual who experiences episodes that result in delusions seek to make an LPA, how would the certificate issuer be able to ascertain that the basis on which the individual applies for an LPA is grounded in reality? Would an untrained personnel be able to make an assessment based on a one-off interaction with a special needs adult? These are situations that are not easy, even with physical interactions and online submissions make it even more tricky. Without additional safeguards or a transparent and rigorous evaluation system for mental capacity, the issuance of LPAs over an online system might become inconsistent at best, and, at worst, fail to protect the individuals it was precisely set out to protect.

As we necessarily lose the personal touch of the LPA process in introducing an online system, we must conscientiously support seniors in crossing the digital divide and intentionally build in safeguards that capture the diversity of our adults with special needs. These concerns notwithstanding, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.

6.46 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, dementia is close to my heart. It is very likely that each of us has a story to share about dementia. A family member or a friend. It is part of life, because one in 10 aged 60 and above may have dementia. This is not a trivial number.

The Mental Capacity Act has continuously updated itself over the years, strengthened its mechanisms to ensure that you, me, our friends and family will be taken care of with respect and dignity, held carefully in the cradle of trust. Yes, trust. And this must be so throughout our lives. More so when we can no longer make decisions, either because of dementia or because of an accident or other illnesses.

As we move ahead with the roadmap to digitalise, we must ensure that we continue to build trust in the system as we embark on this journey. I applaud the effort for digital avenues for those who are less comfortable with digital services, to enable more to better understand its mechanisms and to embark on this transit.

With the new electronic transaction system, some would have concerns with its security. Can the Parliamentary Secretary share further details on the safeguards that will be deployed to ensure the integrity of the process? I also understand that in the event where there are grounds to suspect fraud or undue pressure used to induce a donor to make an LPA to appoint a particular person to be his or her donee, the Public Guardian may interview the donor. Can the Parliamentary Secretary share more on the measures in place and how the Office of the Public Guardian could have detected such occurrences and take swift action to safeguard the interest of the donor? Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.49 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Mental Capacity Bill amendments which allow LPAs to be drafted and amended and submitted via OPG Online. Through interactions with Yio Chu Kang residents, I have encountered problems due to an absence of LPA.

Most recently, a resident, Mr K, came to see me at a Meet-the-People session. His father suffered from advanced dementia and was in a nursing home. Mr K wanted to sell off his father's flat to pay for his father's nursing home charges. However, he was unable to do this. His father did not execute an LPA when he was mentally capable of doing so. As such, Mr K was stuck in limbo. To obtain legal permission, he would have to apply to the Courts to be appointed as a deputy. This is both costly and time-consuming. I have proposals in three broad areas to enhance the Bill further.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should make the process even more convenient for residents. I noted that the requirement for the donor to appear before the LPA certificate issuer, or CI, is retained. While I understand the rationale, this safeguard of meeting in person still presents a challenge to donors who have mobility problems. I hope that the Government can look out for this group of donors. Perhaps the Silver Generation Office can be roped in to do house visits. They can help to make clarifications and arrange for a CI to certify the LPA in the comfort of seniors' homes. Some medical practitioners and law firms already offer house visits. OPG should consider including those who provide such options on their websites and in the directory of CIs.

We should also consider having the process authenticated using digital fingerprints. Banks and hospitals are already doing this for their forms and transactions. This will be useful for residents who may have suffered from a stroke and have difficulty signing physical documents, or those who are illiterate among our elderly.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, along with increased convenience, we need to make sure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. With digitisation, a growing concern is the rising trend of data leaks. In this case, we are looking at potential leaks of highly personal information. It could leave donors vulnerable to online fraud or blackmail. How will the Government safeguard our data in the event of a cybersecurity breach? How can donors be assured that they will not be left to their own devices to navigate the associated issues?

Separately, there was public feedback for the OPG to assist healthcare professionals and providers to retrieve the LPA and donee's contact information in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Currently, healthcare practitioners may login via Singpass to the OPG's e-services portal to make a search request. The search results indicate whether the patient has made an LPA and the relevant details of the donee. As the LPA will now be digital, can an LPA be automatically updated on the National Electronic Health Record system? This is so that in the event that an LPA needs to be activated, the healthcare professional need not wait two working days and pay $20 just to know who to contact.

I note that as part of the additional safeguards for donors, the Public Guardian may interview the donor. The Public Guardian may disclose to the donor the number of LPAs for which his or her prospective donee has already been appointed, or intends to be appointed. This is in the scenario if there is suspicion that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce a donor from making an LPA or appoint a particular person to be his or her donee.

Beyond this, another suggestion would be to make it mandatory for donees to notify the OPG of their intention to exercise their authority before doing so. This is to better protect donors from abuse. Requiring the donee to notify the OPG can act as a road bump to make some potential abusers think twice.

Checks and processes could also be added to look into cases where a Singaporean with living blood-related family members decides to appoint an unrelated person as his donee. There were 21,000 LPAs registered in 2020. Currently, 90% of donees are immediate family members. Still, that leaves 10% of them, or about 2,100 donors in 2020 alone, who have unrelated donees.

According to the recent population census, more people are choosing to remain single. Some married couples are opting to go childless. As such, we will likely see more Singaporeans choosing unrelated donees due to the lack of younger relations to count on.

Having such checks may prevent fraud incidents like the high-profile Mdm Chung's case in 2016, who appointed an unrelated former tour guide from China as a donee. The 2020 edition of LPA Form 1 requires the donor to specify the relationship of the donee to the donor. This helps to alert the OPG should an unrelated donee be appointed. Hence, OPG should institute precautions when such unrelated donees are appointed, especially when LPA applications involve vulnerable groups.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should do more with regard to awareness and outreach to make sure more residents know about this important process. Under PAP Seniors Group, we will be rolling out LPA awareness talks to the public, encouraging more people, especially younger Singaporeans, to make their own LPA.

I wish to circle back to a point I made when I spoke on the Electronics Transaction (Amendment) Bill earlier this year. Digitisation is merely an enabler. We should review the fundamentals of the LPA application process to ensure that is user centric. Although the LPA is for adults above the age of 21, statistically, elderly Singaporeans are more vulnerable to mental incapacitation. We should, therefore, continue to focus our efforts on seniors. Advanced Care Planning, or ACP, is a critical component of ageing. The LPA may be important in ensuring that ACP is properly implemented in tandem.

Unlike the ACP, which is non-binding, an LPA is a legal document that appoints donees. Should one have already made an LPA, it would be ideal and advisable for one's donee and the nominated healthcare spokesperson to be the same person. This is to avoid possible disagreements when making healthcare decisions on one's behalf. I hope that the Government will look into incorporating ACP options into the LPA drafting process on the electronic system.

MSF could work with MOH to encourage all general practitioners (GPs), especially those who are concurrently qualified CIs, to proactively provide packages of LPA and ACP to their patients. Both Ministries should also build an integrated process from the Social Service Agencies, or SSAs, to the healthcare institutions to encourage this effort. SSA officers should be trained to provide this service. In the hospitals and polyclinics, they should actively highlight LPA and ACP matters to their patients.

OPG should also have a central hotline to provide support for all the GPs and SSAs. LPA consultations should be made more accessible in various languages and dialects. Likewise, the new online LPA service should be made available in four languages. Extending this further, we should take a whole-of-Government approach for outreach and awareness. Offer LPAs to everyone who is above 30 years old, like CareShield Life. We should start early because the risks of stroke and dementia are higher as we age. MSF should also work with CPF Board to see whether we can incorporate the process of reviewing one's nomination for CPF as well as LPA.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the LPA is a critical legal document. Whilst moving towards making the LPA process through OPGO more convenient is in the right direction, we need to make sure safeguards are in place and encourage greater outreach and awareness. This will benefit all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Resumption of Debate on Question [5 July 2021], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development].

Question again proposed.

4.51 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to start my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, it is encouraging for me to note that MSF will be expecting over 40,000 applications for Lasting Power of Attorney, or LPA, by the end of 2021. Given that one in 10 Singaporeans aged 60 and above have the chance of being diagnosed with dementia, and with the numbers expected to rise to 80,000 in 2030, I believe that the LPA should be widely promoted to all Singaporeans as it allows an individual to make an early choice of a proxy decision-maker whom they can trust. This reassures donors that their interest will be taken care of should they lose their mental capacity one day. Hence, I support the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill to facilitate more Singaporeans to apply for an LPA.

Although I agree that LPAs be done electronically, I am concerned that the seniors who are not tech-savvy will be discouraged to submit their applications. Although there are community touch points such as the Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) and the Integrated Public Service Centre (IPSC) at Our Tampines Hub to provide assistance to seniors who are less comfortable with the use of digital services, I am still worried that not all seniors who are not tech-savvy will go to these places for help, especially those who are immobile.

Like my colleague Member of Parliament Mr Yip Hon Weng, I would like to suggest that MSF consider mobilising Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to promote and assist in the application of LPA. SGAs can do house visits, help to guide and assist seniors who are immobile in the application of LPA. This will benefit seniors who are not tech-savvy or immobile.

(In English): It is encouraging for me to know that MSF would be expecting over 40,000 applications for Lasting Power of Attorney, or LPA for short, by the end of 2021. This makes the latest amendments to the Mental Capacity Act a timely move.

Given that one in 10 Singaporeans aged 60 and above have the chance of being diagnosed with dementia, and with the numbers expected to rise to 80,000 in 2030, I believe that the LPA should be widely promoted to all Singaporeans as it allows an individual to make an early, informed and personal choice of a proxy decision-maker or donees whom they can trust. This reassures donors that their interest will be well taken care of should they lose their mental capacity one day.

Since the inception of the LPA in 2014, slightly more than half of the donors are aged 60 years old and above. The focus on my speech will be on the concerns and needs of seniors who are intending to apply for the LPA. I would like to raise three considerations related to the amendment Bill.

Firstly, I join my fellow PAP parliamentarians in sharing the concern that by fully enabling LPA to be made electronically, the seniors who are not technologically savvy may be discouraged to submit their applications. Although MSF will be leveraging community touchpoints, such as the Citizen Connect Centres and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub, to provide assistance for seniors who are less comfortable with the use of digital services, there is a need to consider also seniors who have mobility issues and are not technologically comfortable.

I would like to suggest for MSF to consider mobilising the Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) to promote and assist in the application of LPA for this group of seniors. SGAs can help to guide and assist seniors who are immobile and cannot approach the Citizen Connect Centres by themselves in the application. In addition, special considerations can be made for seniors, who are immobile, to have the LPA Certificate Issuers (CIs) visit their homes together with the SGAs, to complete the LPA application, to give them the peace of mind. This would benefit seniors with mobility issues.

Secondly, under the newly proposed Office of the Public Guardian Online or OPGO process, donors and donees are not required to meet face-to-face to obtain a signature on the LPA Form. I am concerned that this may create an opportunity for vulnerable seniors to be targets of fraud by fraudulent donees who want to take advantage of them. Without the requirement for donors and donees to meet up, seniors might be unknowingly coaxed into creating an LPA appointment by fraudulent donees. Although donors are still required to meet with the Certificate Issuers (CIs) to ensure that the donor has the mental capacity to make the LPA and understands the effect of an LPA, without a third person witnessing the donees' identity, it can become challenging for the Certificate Issuers to act as a safeguard in preventing fraud from occurring.

I would like to propose that MSF consider requiring at least one meeting, in person or virtually, between donors, donees and the Certificate Issuers, so that all parties would be aware of each other's identity and for the Certificate Issuers to provide timely feedback to the donors if they have grounds to suspect that the donees might be using fraud or undue pressure to induce the donors to make an LPA.

Finally, I would like to raise the concern about the protection of donors and donees should cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches compromise the integrity of the e-LPA documents. In recent times, there have been several noteworthy cybersecurity breaches on some cloud computing providers. Should a security breach result in e-LPA documents being amended without the donors' or donees' knowledge, a transaction executed in good faith based on the LPA may result in a loss for the donors and/or liability for the donees.

How would the parties be protected, especially when the transaction relates to the donors' personal welfare, property and affairs? Should the transaction that is in progress when the breach occurred be halted to determine if there has been any adversarial impact made to the LPA?

The Bill introduces section 16A that affords protection of donees and others if the e-LPA has a relevant error. I would like to propose that the section should also be expanded to include relevant protections from liabilities of donors and donees as a result of cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches. This would go some way to protect the interests of all parties.

Mr Speaker, in my interactions with residents in Jalan Kayu, many come forward seeking help because they cannot make decisions for their family members who are suffering from dementia or other forms of mental health challenges, as their loved ones did not make an LPA when they still had the mental capacity to do so. These decisions can range from making simple bank transactions to applying for an HDB flat.

Therefore, it is important to appoint a reliable and trustworthy proxy decision-maker early, so that both the donor and their family members have peace of mind, knowing that their welfare and interests will be well taken care of when they become mentally incapacitated. Notwithstanding the considerations raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

5.00 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as an Office of the Public Guardian pro bono deputy appointed by the Court under the Mental Capacity Act. I welcome the amendment Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

5.05 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have four suggestions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

5.20 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.32 pm

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

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

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

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

5.34 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.41 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to enable the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to be made electronically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

5.45 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank all 19 Members who have spoken earnestly on the Bill, reflecting on the importance they place on pre-planning for peace of mind and for their support of this Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, let me address some queries regarding OPGO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me now address the third theme: cybersecurity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.20 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker: I do not believe there are any clarifications because the Parliamentary Secretary has been very diligent in answering all the questions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Eric Chua].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.