2024年3月6日，新加坡文化、社區及青年部兼社會及家庭發展部高級政務次長蔡瑞隆，回復惹蘭勿剎集選區議員潘麗萍關於提升版社區聯繫站計劃（ComLink+）以及殘障人士就業的問題。

蔡瑞隆

潘麗萍

以下內容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：

潘麗萍女士（以下簡稱 "我"）：感謝部長、國務部長和高級政務次長全面而貼心的回答。我有兩個補充問題，主要是問高級政務次長蔡瑞隆的。

第一個問題與提升版社區聯繫站計劃（ComLink+）有關。我聽到了關於此項計劃幾乎完善的敘述。相信高級政務次長在這方面也經驗豐富，在為廣大家庭提供服務的過程中，確實存在很多挑戰。我想重申在發言時提出的問題：試點進展如何？有哪些挑戰？我們打算如何解決這些問題？其他人和部門，包括政府，打算如何共同解決這個問題？這是我的第一個補充問題。

第二個問題與殘疾人賦權計劃有關。我想再次提問：首先，這份報告非常好，我非常認同。很多報告都與活動有關，這是一個很好的方式，但我們需要將其與產出聯繫起來。同時，我們還要確保報告不過時，8年總體規劃是非常重要的事情，在這個時代，很多東西的保質期都很短，所以我認為，社會服務部門的八年總體規劃肯定需要定時更新。因此，能否每年進行一次有組織的正式審查，以確保這些計劃得到更新？還包括我所分享的需要納入包容性保險、刑事司法、審查和加強適當成人計劃等熱點話題，以及將多動症和閱讀障礙等神經多樣性狀況納入總體規劃。

此外，還有一些熱點問題，比如為中度和重度殘疾人提供日常活動中心。我認為，我們確實需要考慮一種混合資助模式，就像我們多年前在維文部長的領導下，為新加坡社會及家庭發展部所做的那樣，即有一個普遍的核心基礎，然後再挖掘，再增加，用對基本服務的財政來補貼，這樣至少可以支付這些模式的基本核心費用。

蔡瑞隆先生：我感謝潘麗萍女士所作的兩項非常詳盡的提問。希望我將給出儘量詳盡的答覆。

我同意這位議員的看法，在實施方面，我們確實經常會遇到很多障礙，特別是在我們需要合作夥伴共同合作的時候，尤其是在政策實施的時候爭取一些靈活性時。但請放心，升級版社區聯繫站計劃家庭接觸的每一位社工、家庭輔導員，直至高級公務員和我本人，都有一個非常明確的觀點，我們確實非常關注這個的情況，我會詳細說明實施時遇到的各種障礙。

我在這裡向大家承諾，新加坡社會及家庭發展部的官員，以及一線的服務人員，都將致力於幫助每一個新加坡社會及家庭發展部服務的家庭。因此，這是對潘麗萍女士第一個問題的一個非常寬泛的回答。

對於第二個問題，我要感謝她在這方面的熱情倡導。我可以向這位議員保證，我們並不是簡單地看總體規劃的產出，一些具體指標也有成果。因此，舉例來說，在就業方面，就業率要達到40%。在2022年啟動《2030年賦能總體規劃》之初，我們的就業率約為30%到31%。要實現從30%到40%的飛躍，這意味著需要安置約10000個工作崗位。我們所說的遠遠不止安置，因為我們希望殘疾人能夠保住工作，持續就業。而就業不僅僅是有一份工作，每天朝九晚六有地方去，它還關乎個人賦權，在很多情況下，還關乎自我價值的實現。因此，這只是我們如何關注結果的一個例子。

其他成果包括，國家社會服務委員會對殘疾人進行了一項名為殘疾與包容小組生活質量研究的調查。這項調查是我們參考的代理報告之一，每兩年進行一次，以了解這一領域的問題是如何運轉的。我很希望潘麗萍女士了解，2030年總體規劃並不是一個生硬的計劃，事實上，它是一個非常有生命力的計劃。

這並不意味著我們在2022年所說的話就是真理，我們對一些政策的調整持開放態度。事實上，我們已經在總體規劃中指出，我們知道情況正在發生變化，特別是在輔助技術等方面。我們承認這一點，並歡迎大家在邁向2030年的過程中提出任何建議。我想補充一點，2030年絕對不是一個句號，而是我們將新加坡建設成為一個更加包容社會過程中的一個逗號。我希望以上陳述，足以向這位議員作出承諾。

以下是英文質詢內容：

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you Minister, Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for your comprehensive and caring responses. I have two supplementary questions, mostly for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

3.45 pm

The first one has to do with ComLink+. I hear an almost picture-perfect narrative of what has happened. But I know and am sure the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also goes through quite a lot of this every day, that it is not picture-perfect and there are lots of challenges actually serving our families. And I just want to reiterate what I asked in my cut. How did the pilot go? What were the challenges? And how do we intend to solve this? And how do the rest of us, including the Government, plan to work at it together? That is my first supplementary question.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

The second one has to do with the Enabling Plan for persons with disabilities. Again, I want to ask from my cut. First is that it is great and I am very thankful for the report that was made. A lot of these reports pertain to the outputs, activities, and that is a really good start as well. But we need to link it to outputs. At the same time, we also want to make sure that it is not outdated. Eight-year master plans are like really major things. Even in this time and age, a lot of things, shelf lives are very short. So, I really think that eight-year master plans in the social service sector definitely have to be updated. So, can I ask for a structured official review each year so that we can ensure that these plans are updated? Also include what I shared about the need to include hot topics like inclusive insurance, criminal justice, review and strengthen the appropriate adult scheme and also to include ADHD and dyslexia, such neurodiverse conditions into our master plan.

And also, the hot button issues, which are really the financial subsidies for essential services, such as daily activity centres for those with moderate to severe disabilities. I think we really need to consider a hybrid model of funding just like what we did many years ago, I think under Minister Vivian for MSF, where there is a universal core base and then you tap on, you add on, top up with means-tested subsidies so that at least the fundamental core expenses for such models can be covered.

Mr Eric Chua: I thank Ms Denise Phua for two very extensive clarifications. I will take the first clarification first. I am afraid I will not be able to give a very detailed reply.

I agree with the Member that in terms of implementation, in fact, oftentimes, we meet a lot of implementation roadblocks, especially where we need partners to work together, especially where we need perhaps to push for maybe some flexibility at the edges of our current day policies. But rest assured that there is a very intentional view right from the social service officers on the ground, the social service office's general managers, as well as each of the SSO officers that are in touch with the ComLink+ families, the family coaches, right up to the senior public servants, as well as myself. We do take a very keen interest in what is going on on the ground. So, while I cannot — well, I can, but I would definitely use up all the clarification time, go through all the details of the various implementation bumps, if you will, that we have encountered.

But you have my commitment in this Chamber that MSF and our officers, right down the line to the SSOs on the ground, will commit to helping every single ComLink+ families that we are serving today. So, that is a very broad answer to Ms Denise Phua's first question.

To the second question, I want to thank her for being a very passionate advocate in this space. And I assure the Member that we are not simply looking at output in the Enabling Masterplan. Some of the indicators that we look at pertains specifically to outcomes. So, for instance, in terms of employment, getting to 40% employment, and that translates, from when we first started in 2022, when the Enabling Masterplan 2030 was launched, we were at about 30%, 31%. And to make that leap from 30% to 40%, that translates to about 10,000 job placements. And we are talking about going way beyond placements, because we do want persons with disabilities to keep their jobs, to sustain employment. Because employment is not simply about having a job, having somewhere to go nine to six every day. It is also about personal empowerment. It is also about self-actualisation in many instances. So, that is but one example of how outcomes are also being attended to.

Other outcomes that we look at, NCSS conducts a quality of life survey of persons with disabilities and this is called the Disability and Inclusion Panel Study. And this is conducted once every two years. This is also one of those proxy reports that we refer to, to see how the needles are shifting in this space. And I really want to behoove Ms Denise Phua that the EMP 2030 Masterplan is not a dead plan. In fact, it is a very live plan. It does not mean that what we have said in 2022 is truth with a capital "T". We are open to evolving some of the strategies; we are open to evolving some of the methods. In fact, we have stated in the Masterplan itself that we understand that things are changing, particularly in terms of, say, assistive technology. And we acknowledge that and we welcome any suggestions along the way as we get to 2030. And if I can add, 2030 is most definitely not a full stop. To me, it is the figurative comma in our journey towards making Singapore a more inclusive society. So, I hope that is sufficient assurance for the Member.

未完待续,请点击[下一页]继续阅读

{nextpage}

CF丨編輯

CF丨編審

新加坡國會丨來源

新加坡國會丨圖源