The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Singapore on its implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Committee Experts commended Singapore on ratifying the Marrakesh Treaty, among other measures to promote the rights of persons with disabilities, while asking questions on the use of the death penalty and access to health insurance.
Saowalak Thongkuay, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, acknowledged various efforts to promote the human rights of persons with disabilities in Singapore, including the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty.
Markus Schefer, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the Convention prohibited the use of the death penalty against persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities. The Committee had appealed to the State party to not execute Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam. Had Singapore considered abolishing the death penalty and imposing a moratorium on it until new rules came into effect?
A Committee Expert said that discrimination was occurring regarding the provision of health and life insurance for persons with disabilities. What measures were in place to eliminate this discrimination, and to support persons with disabilities to access private health insurance?
The delegation said that there was no international consensus on the use of capital punishment, and each country had the sovereign right to determine whether it was implemented. Due regard was given to the mental state of the accused person. In the case of Mr. Dharmalingam, the High Court had found that he did not have an intellectual disability.
Singapore had a multi-layer health financing scheme, and various subsidies ensured that all citizens had access to health care, the delegation said. All residents of Singapore were provided with 75 to 80 per cent coverage of hospital fees under State medical insurance. The Government intended to draft guidelines on the issuance of private health insurance to ensure access for persons with disabilities.
Eric Chua, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth of Singapore and head of the delegation, presenting the report, said Singapore was committed to building an inclusive society where persons with disabilities were enabled to pursue their aspirations, achieve their potential, and participate as equal members of society. Efforts were guided by national roadmaps, the “enabling masterplans”. The Government consulted with more than 300 persons with disabilities, caregivers and representatives from disability organizations in developing these masterplans.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Chua said that Singapore was fully committed to removing barriers for persons with disabilities, and to building an inclusive society that allowed persons with disabilities to achieve their full potential.
Mr. Schefer, in concluding remarks, said that the State party had provided detailed explanations of its efforts in employment, healthcare, education and other areas. Great efforts were still required to fulfil the provisions of the Convention. Mr. Schefer called on the State party to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities from the Convention’s perspective.
The delegation of Singapore consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Social and Family Development; Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth; Land Transport Authority; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Health; Ministry of ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Affairs; Ministry of Manpower; Building and Construction Authority; SGEnable; Attorney-General’s Chambers; Ministry of Law; and the Permanent Mission of Singapore to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Singapore at the end of its twenty-seventh session, which concludes on 9 September. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found , while webcasts of the public meetings can be found . The programme of work of the Committee’s twenty-seventh session and other documents related to the session can be found .
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 9 September to close its twenty-seventh session.
Presentation of Report
ERIC CHUA, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth of Singapore and head of the delegation, said that Singapore was committed to building an inclusive society where persons with disabilities were enabled to pursue their aspirations, achieve their potential, and participate as equal members of society. Efforts were guided by national roadmaps, the “enabling masterplans”. The Government consulted with more than 300 persons with disabilities, caregivers and representatives from disability organizations in developing these masterplans. Disability considerations were mainstreamed into policy development. The Government supported the education, employment and independent living of persons with disabilities. It worked to eliminate barriers to participation across all segments of society. The latest masterplan featured 29 recommendations across various areas, and included quantitative indicators and targets for the first time.
Since 2016, the Government had expanded early intervention services for preschool-aged children with developmental needs, and enhanced subsidies to keep fees affordable. It had substantially increased investment in early intervention services, spending almost double of what had been spent in 2018. It had amended the compulsory education act in 2016 to extend compulsory education to students with moderate-to-severe disabilities.
In 2021, the Government provided employers of Singaporeans with disabilities with wage offsets of up to 20 per cent of salaries. It supported about 6,400 employers who employed more than 9,700 Singaporeans with disabilities in 2021. The 2021 “jobs growth incentive” introduced further wage offsets which supported more than 3,400 persons with disabilities during the pandemic. In 2020, a national accreditation framework recognising organizations for disability-inclusive employment was established.
All public buses were wheelchair-accessible, all train stations had wheelchair-accessible routes, and all bus interchanges and 98 per cent of bus stops were barrier-free. The Government regularly reviewed Singapore’s code on accessibility in the built environment, in consultation with persons with disabilities and disability organizations. Around 79 per cent of buildings and over 99 per cent of all other public spaces had achieved basic accessibility. Local networks had been established to identify and address remaining accessibility gaps in specific localities.
The Government had launched the “enabling academy” in May this year, a disability learning hub that promoted lifelong learning for persons with disabilities. It planned to enshrine anti-discrimination guidelines for employment into law, and would work with disability organizations to develop alternative employment models, such as micro-jobs, and increase the number of disability-inclusive employers.
The Government would design and implement alternative housing and care models to enable persons with disabilities to live in the community. It was also piloting “enabling services hubs” working to build inclusive neighbourhoods and bring disability services close to where persons with disabilities lived.
To drive disability awareness, the Government was conducting various awareness campaigns. In 2019, an award was established to recognise persons with disabilities who had made significant contributions to society.
CHIA YONG YONG, Consultant on Disability Issues, Ministry of Social and Family Development, said that she was born with a type of muscular atrophy. In her third year as a lawyer, she fractured a leg, and some years later started using a wheelchair full-time. She was born in a Singapore that was very different from modern-day Singapore. In the 1960s, the country was fighting for survival after having gained independence, and had no resources except for its people. At the time, the Government focused on strengthening the economy, defence, healthcare, education, skills and standards of living. All public resources had to be conserved to ensure that people had food on the table and slept safely.
Housing at the time was often overcrowded, unhygienic and inaccessible. In her childhood, Ms. Yong Yong lived with 20 other people. Everyone shared one inaccessible bathroom and toilet. School infrastructure was not accessible. Although Ms. Yong Yong was supported by her school, her sister experienced some bullying and exclusion. Public transport was inaccessible. Ms. Yong Yong’s father took her and her sister to medical appointments, school and subsequently work. Her mother took on various manual jobs to supplement family income.
Ms. Yong Yong said 2004 was a turning point for disability policy in Singapore. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had set out a vision of Singapore as an inclusive society for persons with disabilities. From that point, systematic policy change had dramatically altered the landscape for persons with disabilities. The first enabling masterplan was launched in 2007, and this year the fourth iteration was launched.
Today, public pathways had ramps, and public transport was accessible. Healthcare was easily accessible and affordable. Staff at hospitals received training to render assistance where needed. Healthcare was subsidised and of very high standard. But more could be done. Employment continued to present challenges for many persons with disabilities. There was often a mismatch of expectations between employees and colleagues/employers, and job redesign remained a challenge. Ms. Yong Yong hoped that the employment landscape would eventually become disability-neutral. Singapore had done much by way of infrastructure and systems. But mindsets, attitudes and an opening of the heart and mind would take time and continual, collective effort.
Questions by Committee Experts
Singaporean legislation did not have an official definition of disability. Social services for persons with disabilities were currently provided by social service agencies, which denied the meaningful participation of all persons with disabilities as rights holders. Persons with psychosocial disabilities continued to be excluded from mainstream public services and disability specific services. Singapore’s laws continued to promote a substitute decision-making regime, guardianship and involuntary hospitalisation, and forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals and general hospitals. The Committee was further concerned that women and girls with disabilities were subjected to charity and medical interventions.
In addition, persons with disabilities experienced significant economic inequities. Persons with intellectual disabilities and autism were confined at home and denied access to public services and the social protection scheme. The Steering Committee on Disability lacked decision making and monitoring authority. There was also a lack of appropriate individualised procedural accommodation for persons with disabilities in the legal system, particularly regarding the death penalty.
What steps had the State party taken to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention and to withdraw reservations to articles 12 (4), 25 (e) and 29 (a) (iii); to develop comprehensive legislation tackling discrimination against persons with disabilities; and to review and develop a definition of disability aligned with Convention?
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the Convention’s goal was to guarantee effective protection for all human rights for persons with disabilities, including the right to life. The Convention prohibited the use of the death penalty against persons with psychosocial disabilities. The Committee had appealed to the State party not to execute Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, and to adopt procedural accommodations. Had Singapore considered abolishing the death penalty and imposing a moratorium on it until new rules came into effect?
A Committee Expert said that the infectious diseases act and the railways act contained discriminatory provisions relating to persons with leprosy. Had measures been taken to reform these? What measures had been taken to prevent discrimination against all persons with disabilities? What measures were in place to increase cooperation with organizations of women and girls with disabilities, to prevent violence against women and girls with disabilities, and to provide reasonable accommodation for women with disabilities in the workplace? How many persons with psychosocial disabilities had been executed or faced death penalty charges?
Another Committee Expert said that Singapore had stated that it would maintain its reservations to article 12.4 of the Convention. This indicated that the State would not conform to the human rights model of discrimination. Would the State consider repealing this reservation? What measures were in place to ensure that the national strategy on autism was in line with the Convention? Various laws aimed to silence civil society, particularly those that cooperated with international organizations. What measures were in place to empower organizations of persons with disabilities to participate in political processes? What was the State party doing to combat discriminatory portrayals of persons with autism in the media?
One Committee Expert asked about plans to create an organization for persons with intellectual disabilities. How were organizations of persons with disabilities involved in awareness raising programmes? Were organizations of persons with disabilities involved in training about the Convention for public officials? Was information about the Convention available in accessible formats, including Easy-Read?
A Committee Expert asked the delegation to explain how Singapore provided equal and effective protection against discrimination. How did discrimination mechanisms provide access to remedies for persons with disabilities? Persons with disabilities and representative organizations should be recognised as human rights defenders. How did Singapore uphold the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for these organizations?
Another Committee Expert asked how reasonable accommodation was provided for persons with disabilities at school and work. What initiatives were taken to promote a positive image for all persons with disabilities, and ensure that media depictions of persons with disabilities were in line with the social model of disability? How were organizations of persons with disabilities involved in designing and implementing awareness programmes?
One Committee Expert asked about steps taken to eliminate discrimination against women and girls with disabilities and protect them from violence and abuse. How would the State improve access for women and girls with disabilities to reproductive health programmes? What measures were in place to allow children with disabilities to express their views on matters affecting them? Did the State organise training for public officials on the social model of disability?
A Committee Expert asked for information on mechanisms to ensure the best interests of the child in kindergartens and guardianship situations. What measures were in place to prevent corporal punishment?
One Committee Expert said that an accessibility fund had been established. What was the current state of this fund?
The delegation said that Singapore had fully incorporated the principles of the Convention in domestic law, and so the State had no plans to incorporate the Convention in stand-alone domestic legislation. All persons with disabilities were equal before the law under the Constitution. The Constitution also protected against all forms of discrimination, and all persons who were allegedly affected by discrimination could bring their cases before the courts. The State was the first South Asian country to incorporate the Marrakesh Treaty into law. It planned to introduce legislation that prevented discrimination in the workplace and unfair hiring practices.
Singapore supported the principle of article 25 (e) of the Convention, and would hold public consultations regarding the withdrawal of this reservation. It would maintain its reservation to article 12 (4). A person was not deprived of their capacity simply based on an assessment that they lacked capacity. The mental capacity act strived to preserve all persons with high support needs for legal capacity. Several measures were in place to allow persons with disabilities to vote in elections. The State defended voting secrecy, however, and so would maintain its reservation to article 29 (a) (iii).
Guidelines for fair employment practices had been established. The tripartite alliance for fair employment practices received complaints about workplace discrimination and provided avenues for redress. Workplace discrimination was not tolerated.
The enabling masterplan called for the development of employment models for persons with disabilities, housing models and other support mechanisms. The implementation of the plan could be monitored by organizations of persons with disabilities. An inter-ministerial committee assessed all agencies’ policies affecting persons with disabilities. Organizations of persons with disabilities were consistently consulted before major legislation was introduced. Various persons with disabilities were on the boards of policy committees. The Movement for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities promoted measures to support persons with intellectual disabilities.
Schemes were in place to support the livelihoods of persons with disabilities and subsidise medical costs. Disability assessments ensured that persons who needed the most support received the most resources.
The accessibility fund assisted private building owners to make buildings accessible. The fund had so far supported the construction of 150 buildings. The Government had recently extended and enhanced this fund to allow for the construction of accessible toilets and nursing rooms.
The vulnerable adults act protected persons with disabilities from abuse. The act allowed for affected persons and their family members to apply for protective court orders.
There were various avenues where the views of children were consulted, including the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Youth Council. The Ministry of Education had consulted with children with disabilities on education policies, and made revisions based on consultations. Court-appointed councils were in place to assess the best interests of children in guardianship cases.
Patients with leprosy did not face discrimination. The incidence of leprosy had declined sharply to less than two persons in 100,000 due to improvements in medical treatment. Persons with leprosy had access to artificial limbs. All children with disabilities had access to the healthcare system. Hospital institutions provided early assessments and physical and psychosocial care for children with disabilities.
International law did not prohibit capital punishment. There was no international consensus on the use of capital punishment, and each country had the sovereign right to determine whether it was implemented. There was no inequality in enjoying the right to life in Singapore. An accused person in a capital offence case was able to access free legal aid. Due regard was given to the mental state of the accused person. In the case of Mr. Dharmalingam, the High Court had found that he did not have an intellectual disability. Inmates with mild intellectual health conditions received regular treatment. Inmates who needed serious treatment were referred to hospitals.
The Government had solicited the participation of organizations of persons with disabilities in awareness campaigns. In 2020, six million Singaporean dollars had been invested in informing businesses about the rights of persons with disabilities. The media and organizations of persons with disabilities had been briefed about the Convention, and Easy-Read, Braille and audio guidebooks on the Convention had been produced.
Guidelines on portrayals of persons with disabilities in the media had been established. However, the intent of the guidelines may have not yet been realised, and the delegation welcomed the Committee’s recommendations in this regard.
The right to freedom of speech was not absolute. Individuals’ freedom of speech needed to be balanced with the need to ensure a peaceful society. Organizations of persons with disabilities were able to exercise their right to free speech. Forums promoting self-advocacy had been held by an organization of persons with Down syndrome. The Government provided counterstatements to false statements online, and took down inflammatory false statements. The Government did not intend to prevent all forms of foreign intervention, but only acts of manipulation by foreign organizations.
Law enforcement officials received training on managing persons with disabilities, and training was also provided for members of the judiciary on working with persons with disabilities.
Singapore provided reasonable accommodation for children with disabilities in schools. It was compulsory for all children aged 6 to 15 to attend a Government-funded school. Most students with autism studied in mainstream schools. All teacher training programmes included information on supporting students with autism. The Government provided early intervention services to assist parents in supporting the development of their children. Clinical practice guidelines for children with autism were currently being revised to ensure that interventions and support were based on evidence.
The Government was raising awareness on gender-based violence and had developed legal protections and support mechanisms for victims. Perpetrators of family violence were required to undergo counselling. Enhanced punishments were given to persons who abused vulnerable persons. The Government collaborated with community partners to identify cases of domestic violence and train staff of victim support services. Victim support services provided counselling, temporary care and protection, and other interventions for victims.
The sexual and reproductive rights of women and girls with disabilities were protected by legislation. Sterilisation and termination of pregnancy could not be carried out without the permission of the person involved.
Singapore’s approach was to put protection for persons with disabilities in various pieces of legislation. This approach led to Government agencies taking ownership of legislation that promoted specific rights of persons with disabilities. To address gaps, the inter-ministerial oversight committee’s role was crucial.
Questions by Committee Experts
SAOWALAK THONGKUAY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about steps to abolish medical decision-making, proxy decision-making and guardianship regimes. What steps had been taken to ensure access to the legal system for persons with disabilities? Persons with psychosocial disabilities experienced harmful conditions in prisons. What steps had been taken to address these, and to end the practice of putting persons with psychosocial disabilities in solitary confinement in psychiatric hospitals? How would the Government ensure that the community-based support regime was harmonised with the Convention?
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that, to ascertain the “abnormality of mind” in death penalty cases, the State party used a medical approach, which was to be discouraged. The Convention did not allow for any person with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities to be issued the death penalty.
Although Singapore had an extended immigration programme geared towards attracting skilled entrepreneurs, access of persons with disabilities to the labour market was severely limited, and their level of unemployment was more than double that of other persons. What percentage of persons with disabilities had been accepted by the State party as immigrants?
Did article 12 of the Constitution, which dealt with discrimination, apply to private entities? Did it prohibit indirect discrimination? There did not necessarily need to be stand-alone legislation on discrimination, but monitoring the coverage of various laws was extremely demanding.
A Committee Expert asked about procedural accommodations for persons with disabilities facing the death penalty. What measures were in place to ensure that children with disabilities were not subjected to torture in institutions? What support services were provided for children with disabilities in institutions?
Another Committee Expert asked about the accessibility of redress mechanisms in courts. What rehabilitation services were available for offenders with disabilities? What support was provided by the State to enable persons with disabilities to live independently?
One Committee Expert said that persons with psychosocial disabilities could be involuntarily detained in institutions under currently legislation. What measures were in place to ensure that psychiatric interventions were voluntary and based on human rights? Was the State party aware that all persons with disabilities had a right to live in the community on an equal basis with others? What measures were in place to promote deinstitutionalisation?
A Committee Expert asked whether organizations of persons with intellectual disabilities were run by persons with intellectual disabilities. How many children and adults had intellectual disabilities?
Another Committee Expert asked about measures to support persons with disabilities in disaster situations.
A Committee Expert asked about steps taken to ensure that restraints, segregation, and drugging did not take place without the permission of the person involved.
One Committee Expert asked if there were persons with disabilities on the committee established to examine judicial safeguards. Was training provided to judges and court clerks on how to relate to persons with disabilities? Was the delegation aware that the death penalty was considered a form of cruel and degrading treatment?
CHIA YONG YONG, Consultant on Disability Issues, Ministry of Social and Family Development, said that she had found that building a culture of inclusivity through empathy was important. Parliament house had been made accessible through a change in mindset rather than through legislation.
The delegation said that Singapore had stepped up support for assistive technologies. Children with disabilities had access to assistive devices through therapists, who also provided training on using the devices. Schemes to make these devices affordable were being reviewed.
Guide dogs were permitted in public transport, taxis and licenced restaurants. Guidelines on identifying guide dogs had been developed. The State party was working on improving access to other assistance dogs for persons who needed them.
Under Singaporean laws, all persons were assumed to have mental capacity unless proven that they lacked such capacity. Singapore’s laws considered persons’ beliefs and culture when determining best interests. Supported decision-making was provided when required, but proxy decision-making was allowed if supported decision-making was not possible.
There were 913 adults living in institutions. Institutional care was a last resort. More than 97 per cent of persons with disabilities lived in the community. New institutions were being built to ensure that the State had sufficient capacity for persons who chose to live there. There had only been seven court-ordered appointments to institutions since 2020. Under the enabling masterplan, community mental health services were being expanded, and community intervention teams had been established to provide home counselling. These measures had led to a decrease in institutionalisation.
Singapore’s building regulations required all new buildings to be barrier-free and accessible. Accessibility facilities were also retrofitted to existing buildings.
Singapore was committed to ensuring effective access to justice for persons with disabilities. In criminal investigations and court proceedings, trained volunteers facilitated communications between police officers and persons suspected of having intellectual disabilities. Specialised prosecutors had been trained to work with persons with disabilities. Sign language interpretation was provided in court as needed. All defendants with disabilities could access Government-funded legal aid.
Measures were in place to ensure the ease of reporting and protection for victims of gender-based violence.
Singaporean immigration laws did not discriminate based on disability. When a foreign person sought employment in Singapore, they were not required to report disabilities.
The protection of persons with disabilities was a central part of the disaster reduction framework. Persons with disabilities were provided with text and audio notifications about disasters, and evacuation routes were required to consider persons with disabilities. Fire drills were conducted regularly, and the civil defence force was training to support persons with disabilities.
The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness was developing a law preventing discrimination in the workplace. Persons with disabilities who faced contractual discrimination could make claims in courts.
Corporal punishment was rarely used in schools, and only in cases where it was necessary. Teachers focused on preventative strategies.
Prison inmates had access to mental healthcare support and religious counselling. Psychiatric treatment could be administered involuntarily if necessary. Persons in custody could be housed separately to prevent self-harm. The involuntary mental health care act determined that mental health care could be implemented involuntarily to protect the person involved and others. A magistrate’s order was required for the detention of a person in a mental health institution beyond a certain period. Informed consent was required for tests, treatment and procedures in mental health institutions. Seclusion and forced drugging were not practiced. Electroconvulsive therapy and restraints were only used when necessary.
Training for social workers in the field of mental health was provided at universities. Judicial colleges featured training on how to engage litigants with personality disorders. Officers who worked with people with mental health illnesses were required to undergo training on providing support to those persons. Minor offenders with intellectual disabilities underwent a six-month guidance programme. Special services were provided to offenders on probation to assist their rehabilitation.
There were no persons with intellectual disabilities running intellectual disability organizations, but the State welcomed the participation of such persons in intellectual disability organizations.
The average employment rate of persons with disabilities was 30.1 per cent in 2021, an increase from 28 per cent in 2018. However, more could be done to facilitate the employment of persons with disabilities. Employers could access Government support regarding training and hiring of persons with disabilities. The Government’s target was to bring the employment rate up to 40 per cent in 2030. To achieve this, the Government was establishing “enabling business hubs” to support regional businesses to employ persons with disabilities.
Questions by Committee Experts
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that there were several indications that freedom of expression of persons with disabilities was curtailed in the State. Would the State party consider re-evaluating its approach to providing free expression and participation of persons with disabilities?
A Committee Expert asked about measures to recognise Singapore sign language as an official language. What efforts were being made to include a disability perspective in all policies and programmes, including international cooperation activates?
Another Committee Expert said that the law on mental disability established a substitute decision-making system. What legal capacity did a person with psychosocial disabilities have under this law? Had measures been adopted to promote reporting of violence from carers against persons with disabilities? What measures were in place to ensure that medical practitioners did not provide negative information on having a child with a disability?
One Committee Expert asked about measures taken to increase the awareness of employers of the needs of persons with disabilities, and to increase job satisfaction levels and support training for persons with disabilities. Had steps been taken to support persons with disabilities to participate in public life? Were persons with disabilities included in management boards of Government institutions?
A Committee Expert said that discrimination was occurring regarding the provision of health and life insurance for persons with disabilities. What measures were in place to eliminate this discrimination? What measures were in place to support persons with disabilities to access private health insurance?
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ enabling masterplan sought to protect the rights of persons with disabilities across the region. How did the State intend to involve persons with disabilities in measures to strengthen good governance and rights of persons with disabilities in the region?
A Committee Expert asked about measures to ensure access to affordable assistive devices. Did the State guarantee access to public housing programmes for persons with disabilities? Did the national monitoring board on disability comply with the Paris Principles?
Another Committee Expert asked about action taken to withdraw the reservation to article 25 (e) of the Convention. What measures were in place to support the provision of longer-term jobs for persons with disabilities?
One Committee Expert asked for information on the availability of accessible information within the healthcare system. Did the definition of disability encompass mental health? Did persons with disabilities have access to sign language interpreters in hospitals? What training was being provided to public officials on the human rights model of disability? More could be done to expand health insurance coverage as insurance industry practices violated the principles of the Convention.
A Committee Expert asked whether Singapore had taken steps to establish a national human rights institute?
Another Committee Expert asked about support systems for children with disabilities in schools. What measures were in place to prevent bullying of such children? How did the State provide support for autistic adults? Why were autistic persons’ applications for health insurance rejected? Were steps being taken to make reporting of autism voluntary to employers?
A Committee Expert said that children with disabilities remained segregated in special schools. What measures were in place to ensure that all children studied in an inclusive education environment? Bullying was common against children with autism. What measures were in place to prevent bullying and other harmful practices in schools? Were school graduation certificates of persons with disabilities annotated with details of their adapted education scheme?
Another Committee Expert asked if the State party would include persons with disabilities on committees examining legislation affecting them. Were persons with disabilities provided with support to run for elections?
One Committee Expert asked about what happened to persons with disabilities who spoke up about violence and abuse. Was a helpline on abuse accessible to persons with disabilities, and were helpline workers trained in dealing with persons with intellectual disabilities?
The delegation said that financial and tax support was provided to low-wage workers with disabilities. Persons with disabilities who were not able to work received additional cash, medical and employment assistance. All residential housing built since 2006 was barrier-free. Subsidies were provided for home ownership.
Singapore had a multi-layer health financing scheme. Various subsidies ensured that all citizens had access to healthcare. All Singaporean residents were provided with 75 to 80 per cent coverage of hospital fees under State medical insurance. The Government intended to draft guidelines on the issuance of private health insurance to ensure access for persons with disabilities.
Singapore had established a loan library for assistance technologies, and the assistive technology fund offered subsidies on the purchase and repair of devices.
Examination certificates included annotations explaining the conditions in which students undertook examinations. These did not indicate disabilities and were not used to discriminate. Some special schools were collocated with mainstream partners, and special and mainstream school students were encouraged to interact. Bullying of any form was not acceptable. Schools responded promptly to bullying, with trained staff implementing appropriate measures. Students were encouraged to speak up against bullying.
Since September 2021, the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness had organised consultation sessions with persons with disabilities, aiming to incorporate their views in upcoming anti-discrimination workplace legislation. Companies were instructed not to ask employees about disabilities unless there was a job-related requirement. Employers could receive subsidies for employing persons with disabilities. Job coaches were provided to persons with disabilities to help them obtain work and settle into new jobs. The Inclusive Business Forum was a networking platform on disability inclusion in the workplace.
Persons with disabilities had the right to form political parties and run for office. Since 2014, two persons with disabilities had held positions as nominated members of parliament. Two youth leaders with disabilities sat on the board of the Singapore Youth Council.
The State party intended to withdraw its reservation to 25 (e) of the Convention once guidelines for private insurers had been released.
Carers were restricted from being present when persons with disabilities voted. Funnels had been installed on ballot boxes and stamp pens had been introduced to make the voting process easier for persons with disabilities.
The State party recognised the importance of data on disability. Surveys of persons with disabilities were conducted using the World Health Organization’s quality of life index, and recently a survey had been conducted using the Washington Group’s short set of questions. Targets and indicators had been set in the enabling masterplans, and data related to these would be made available to the public on a regular basis. The Government also planned to develop a central disability register to identify the needs of persons with disabilities.
Singapore encouraged the participation of persons with disabilities in international disability support programmes. In April 2021, an Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ conference on disability rights post pandemic had been held.
The national anti-violence and sexual harassment hotline was manned by trained social workers, who were required to provide communication support to ensure that every case was followed up on. The Government intended to set up a web service to ensure that persons who could not use the telephone line could receive support.
Singapore ensured that Government communications were accessible and provided in various languages. All key communications were provided with sign language interpretation. Braille information was still provided, despite lower demand. Television broadcasts had sign language interpretation or captioning. The Government provided subsidies to students with disabilities to access supportive communication technologies.
Various resources on COVID-19 prevention measures and vaccination were made available to persons with disabilities in accessible formats. There were existing protocols to ensure effective communication with persons with disabilities in medical institutions. Sign language interpretation was available at such institutions. Medical students were required to attend courses on disability perspectives and needs. Sexual and reproductive health education was provided to children with disabilities. Hospitals provided counselling to parents of children with disabilities, and continued care was provided after birth.
CHIA YONG YONG, Consultant on Disability Issues, Ministry of Social and Family Development, said organizations of persons with disabilities had been key members of steering committees in the development of various laws and policies, including the “enabling business hubs”. The early intervention programme was also carried out in collaboration with an organization of persons with disabilities.
Closing Remarks
ERIC CHUA, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth of Singapore and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the open and insightful dialogue. Singapore had made significant improvements, but there was room to do better. The State party would consider the recommendations of the Committee seriously. It would continue to ensure that schools, workplaces and transport were accessible for persons with disabilities, and work to increase the employment rate of persons with disabilities. It would also work to support accessible communication, and to allow persons with disabilities to participate in creating legislation and policies that affected them. Singapore was fully committed to removing barriers for persons with disabilities, and to building an inclusive society that allowed persons with disabilities to achieve their full potential.
MARKUS SCHEFER, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the State party had provided detailed explanations of its efforts in employment, healthcare, education and other areas. Great efforts were still required to fulfil the provisions of the Convention. The Convention required States parties to broaden their views of human rights. The goals of the Convention could not be achieved with far-reaching adaptations of its provisions. States needed to support persons with disabilities to participate in society as equals, and revise legal systems accordingly. All persons with disabilities needed to be recognised as persons before the law. The Convention required Singapore to fundamentally re-evaluate domestic legislation, but the delegation had not exhibited this willingness. Mr. Schefer called on the State party to delve into the logic of the Convention and to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities from the Convention’s perspective.
