Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill
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.
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 Eric Chua (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development): 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.
