Singapore has a very long way to becoming an inclusive and neurodiversity-affirming society.

4 key themes emerged on why it is so difficult to get support for persons with special needs: Stratification, Stigma, Shorter Attention Span and Scoping down of complexity and commitment. 

Stratification starts with "Labels" which lead to "Categorizing" which lead to "Segregation" in schools. WIth segregation, stigma increases which results in fewer volunteers from mainstream society to our caregivers. Stratificaion also refers to the shift from kampung, joint or extended family system to the nuclear family system which restricts opportunities for social helping.

The amount of commitment it requires to help a family with special needs is very high, often to the point that people scope it down for fear of becoming "too involved".

We have structured our recommendations across 4 systems: Education, Economic, Social and Governmental and Political. 

1. Educational system

Broaden Singapore's Meritocracy to be Neurodiversity-Affirming

Singapore's meritocracy amplifies institutional ableism. We need a more inclusive and neurodiversity-affirming meritocracy that values the untapped abilities and potentialities of special needs and non-productive segments of society. 

The Neurodiversity Affirming Model® is a framework based on inclusion and acceptance. It was developed to intervene against the current oppressive models that center individualism and are inherently fatphobic, ableist and sanist. It challenges the medical model of disability, neuronormativity and pathological paradigm that currently pervades and anchors education and practice in dietetics and the mental health field.

It recognizes that neurodivergent people are essential to our society and deserve respectful and affirming care. It rejects the idea that neurodivergent people need “fixing and positions neurodivergent people as the experts in neurodiversity. It recognizes that to fight for collective liberation and promote healing, we must dismantle systems of oppression that impact those who are neurodivergent and marginalized. The model is a model on the move, continually being informed by different bodies of work, academic and non-academic. The five pillars that inform the model are not static but dynamic in nature, constantly transforming as un/re/learning happens, such as through the application of centring those who are the most marginalized and the most impacted. In this sense, the pillars are not static structures but mutually inform each other in an ongoing collaborative movement together. We need more research to uncover “deviant” abilities beyond numeracy and verbal linguistics for autistic children so that they are nurtured for their strengths and talents, not what society needs for a functional and productive society. 

https://www.rdsforneurodiversity.com/neurodiversity-affirming-model 

Broaden societal attitudes, values and standards of Developmental dimensions and pathways. 

Neurodiversity children are not lagging behind mainstream or neurotypical children. They are developing on different timelines. 

The husband of caregiver 6 shared that "neurodivergent children are developing on different timelines", they are not "lagging behind mainstream or neurotypical children". No kid ever needs to be subjected to meeting certain standardized milestones. Autistic children do not have fewer neural resources, those resources are just distributed differently. Overtherapizing autistic children will cause them to internalize that they are inherently broken, thus interrupting their natural development by working against their neurology and prevent them from focusing their neural resources on the development skills they are wired to focus on during the timeframe they are wired to develop those skills. Resources on when therapy is appropriate and when not necessary were shared among our community circles. One of the volunteers also corroborated this paradigm with the Son-Rise programme which is very enlightened in its approach. 

A Gradated Approach to Fully inclusive Schools / Sensibly Inclusive Schools

Neurotypical/mainstream children's development would be shortchanged if they are not taught together with or not have sufficient interaction with neuroatypical children. The benefits of inclusive schooling outweigh the costs from social and economic points of view. The costs of academically brighter students falling behind from inclusive schooling are over-exaggerated. The whole of society (benefit minus cost) from academically brighter students intermingling with neurotypical students are higher than the benefit minus cost of the current paradigm. Skills in empathy and sensitivity would translate into innovation-led, value creation economic gains for the whole of society. A tighter and more cohesive social compact would translate into a stronger will to fight in the military and other social/societal gains. 

One of the volunteers for circle 7, a very enlightened community artist, shared how Integrated Co-Teachin Group in Brooklyn, NY was intermingling autistic kids with neurotypical kids in the mainstream programme. This was a breakthrough model for us because it would solve root cause of the problem of not finding enough volunteers for caregivers of persons with autism, segregation. Each class would have more than 1 teacher or facilitator of which some would be special needs trained. Every instruction from the teacher would be given out in 7 different levels, so that they would cater to the 7 different learning pace or pathways of the kids profile in the classroom. We had never heard about such a radical model of schooling before. 

We realize that this is an ambitious or quite radical idea in Singapore. This is why we are proposing a more gradated transition to fully inclusive schools in 30-40 years time. We start with intermingling and intermixing for 5% of school time, followed by 10% (form class), and so on until we have fully inclusive, neurodiversity-affirming schools that allow mainstream MOE system to integrate neuroatypical children into mainstream MOE schools for part of or all of the MOE programme. This is to solve the problem of not having enough volunteers for caregivers of persons with special needs. As we dug deeper, the root cause of this symptom lay in the lack of intermingling between neurotypical and neuroatypical children from young. 

Another way to make this transtion to inclusive schooling is to work on both polarities at the same time:

a. Help special needs integrate with mainstream e.g. Son-Rise Programme and

b. Help mainstream integrate with special needs e.g. Integrated Co-Teaching Programme in NY or Billberries Blue Lighthouse in Singapore

As we work on a. and b. on both polar ends, we will slowly move towards the center of the polarity. a. is about equity, it is pragmatic and is a safety net in case the experiment fails. b. is about justice, it is ideal and it aims to Temple Grandin's vision of "the world needs all kinds of minds". We need to manage the continuums on the spectrum betwee the 2 polarities at the same time. 

Cultivate societal sensitivities to include a broader range of human expression beyond verbal and written communication

Privileged members of a society that value and excel in verbal english communication as the main mode or means of communication are usually oblivious to their privilege. What if the range of human expression was far wider than just verbal coherent and congruent english communication? What if it were the arts, drama, movement, etc? Society has not learnt the ability to cultivate a wider range of sensitivities to human expression. We all have very different sensitivities or antennas for receiving signals from within and outside of us and transmitting these signals to others. It is an entire life journey to comprehend and include our various sensitivities and antennas. Society cannot mould itself aroud the powerful and privileged but rather the people with the greatest needs. 

Rethink Societal definitions of "normal" and "typical".

How do we define "normal" and "typical"? "Who is normal?" "Which expressions and behaviours are considered normal and which are not normal?" Who gets to decide what is "normal"? These are questions that we have to ask our citizens as we unpack the hidden ice-berg of normative discrimination against neuroatypical people in Singapore. 

2. Economic Systems

Rethink and let go of societal values, standards and norms that unhealthily emphasise economically "functional" and productive' attitudes and behaviours. 

Also, why should neuroatypical children adapt to societal standards of "functional" and "productive" when it is much easier for everyone to try to accomodate to their standards. We just have not developed the sensitivities to tune into the untapped abilities and talents of autistic children. It is not about changing the natural state of the child but rather to understand and make sense of it. Their worlds make sense to them, but they may not makes sense of our world. Love is the essence that propels a mum to understand her child in depth or Jane Goodall to dedicate her entire life to study chimpanzees and their very sophisticated and rich life. 

Power Framing or Points of Reference is a very useful concept here. From the point of reference of the majority neurotypical people in Singapore, special needs people may be "disabled". But from the perspective of neuroatypical people, the majority could lack the social sensitivity to understand the language, expression and ways of being of neuroatypical people. There is so much untapped or latent potential that could be actualized if we saw neuroatypical people as asssets and not as liabilities to our economy. 

As a society, let's de-emphasize economic productivity and emphasize the holistic wellbeing of our citizens. 

Raise societal consciousness on the economics of carework. Contrary to economic orthodoxy, carework is actually economically productive and valuable.

Caregivers have not lost economically productive years. Caregivers don't really need to do more to constantly improve on the never-ending ladder of self-improvement. In fact, quite counterintuitively, they needed to do less, appreciate and see more value in what they were already doing. 

During the community circles journey, we were blown away by the ideas, gifts, talents and skills that were exhibited by our caregivers. Caregivers have to dig deep to cultivate very refined attunements and sensitivities to the latent and unexpressed gifts and potential of their children. This cultivated sensitivity is economically productive. 

Carework is actually very valuable non-market work. DPM Lawrence Wong has mentioned that we need to value hand and heart work as much as head work. 

Inclusion is they next frontier to Singapore's total factor productivity and shift toward an innovation-driven, value-creation economy

First we need to develop the argument that inclusion can contribute to economic productivity. The state would not invest resources in special needs children because they are not economically productive. We believe more research and development needs to occur in the field of economics to shed deeper light on this. 

3. Social Systems

State-funded, caregiver-led and community-drive support for caregivers of persons with special needs. 

We need locality-based, parent-led, community-driven support for caregivers of persons with special needs. A lot of what works in the US is community-driven and parent-led. We need to get the parents involved in Singapore since they know the difficulties of the child. The argument that every child’s needs is very different, so the state finds it difficult to support the child is weak. If you galvanize the motivated parents, and give them resources and autonomy, they will figure things out by themselves rather than the state trying to crack its brains with policies and programmes that are cookie-cutter in nature. There could be a time banking system for volunteers that is based on a quid-pro-quo mechanism. Community driven requires parents to not only state their needs, but also their offers on the table. For example, only a parent of special needs will understand late cancellations by another parent, because she herself has gone through that journey, she can empathize with the struggles and pain. So caregiver can teach a group of special needs children Mathematics while other parents take a break. Each parent takes up some class or activity for the kids and the caregiving load is distributed across many more caregivers. It is about bringing the kampung alive. 

In the blue/purple states in the US e.g. California, there is a lot of support for special needs people. They are all community-driven. There is a triangle model. State administers a list of qualified vendors that provide services and citizens can access these services and rate the quality of the services and feed it back to the government that is monitoring and assuring the quality of the services by the vendors. Also, wealthier families can pay full rates for the services while not so-wealthy families pay a subsidized rate for the services. People pay differently according to their income bracket. 

However, one caregiver cautioned against vendors receiving the funds which could lead to formation of an oligopoly. She suggested that the funds be channeled to trust funds to take care of special needs children directly. The less intermediaries the funds passes through, the better. 

The government could convene a taskforce to listen to parents on the ground and provide funds to prototype and scale ideas to meet parents’ needs. Let parents decide what they need, they know best. With less bureaucratic hurdles for disbursement of funds. Make it easy for parents to volunteer their time and energy. Most of our caregivers have concurred on the need for:

a. Post -18 plan- Environments for the provision of basic needs for special needs (meaningful engagement, food,)

b. Post parent-death plan - Environments for provision of basic needs for special needs (meaningful engagement, food,)

Develop systems and structures for a reliable pool of volunteers to distribute caregiving load of caregivers of persons with special needs. 

For special needs children, we may need a long-term, reliable and consistent pool of volunteers as compared to short-term volunteers. Volunteers' availability is another important factor to consider when designing circles. It is helpful to note that in Singapore, in the entire landscape of volunteering opportunities, helping caregivers is not as prominently profiled as other activities e.g. beach clean-ups and helping the elderly. We note that it is important for us to raise awareness and cultivate the spirit of volunteerism to solve this systemic problem. We need to rebuild this kampung of support around caregivers. There is a lack of civic awareness on the struggles of caregivers so that Singaporeans volunteer their time and energy to help them. This is difficult because everyone is so busy trying to survive and make ends meet. As caregivers struggle on a daily basis, we are asking for funds to pay volunteers for respite care for caregivers in the short and medium term i.e. paid volunteerism before transitioning to unpaid volunteerism. 

Time banking (for non-market heart/hand care work) could be another tried-and-tested idea to implement in Singapore. Some models of inspiration are: Volunteer Labour Network in Japan, Time Banks USA, Palermo Time Bank (Italy), Sawayaka Time Bank (Japan), or ElderSave (Singapore). 

Funds to subsidize programmes for special needs children in mainstream and special needs schools as well as in public and private spaces 

Within Mainstream and Special Needs Schools. For Special needs schools, we need a greater supply of special needs teachers who can spend more out of school time with the children so that parents can have respite. In Mainstream schools, currently we have 1 allied Special needs educator to 30 odd special needs child in 1 school. In order to enable more intermingling in classrooms through inclusive schooling we will need to increase that ration to 1 allied SEN educator within each class. 

Outside of School - We need human, financial and manpower resources that enable universal design. Public spaces like swimming pools can be redesigned with subsidized special needs trainers. Private operators should be given subsidies to offer  programmes especially for special needs children e.g. horse-riding or cycling.  

Gated-community to pool resources for families of special needs e.g Residential continuum 

Most of the caregivers seem to concur and converge on one very important need: a Residential Continuum idea by SG Enable https://enablingmasterplan.autism.org.sg/priority-area-residential-continuum.php The Government can provide tax relief for caregivers to sell their HDBs and purchase a space in the gated/walled-community. Some models to learn from are: Ideal @115 for Assisted Living Model of care for vulnerable seniors and people with dementia or Community Care Apartments @Queenstown / Bukit Batok. 

The economic and social benefit-cost of universal/inclusive design outweigh that of exclusive design

Neurotypical people are actually "temporarily abled". If we design for persons with special needs now we will benefit those who will be neuroatypical in the future. Also, the cumulative long-term costs for universal design will be much lower than the cumulative long-term costs of majoritarian/exclusive design.  

4. Policies and politics - Governmental and political systems

Political Philosophy and Policies that Center the Margins as compared to Majoritarian politics and policies

All 8 circles confirm the sentiment that: 

a. Majoritarian politics and democratic processes have the wrong paradigm of making the margins (i.e. special needs people) conform or adapt to the socially constructed "norms" imposed by the majority e.g. being productive and functional in a society undergirded by the forces of capitalism and colonialism. This way of thinking leads us to normative discrimination of special needs people and harsh penalities that they and their caregivers have to pay to conform or adapt to the norm. The majority is "blind" or oblivious to its privilege.

b. It is not even about both sides meeting halfway.

c. The answer lies in a new paradigm of "centering the margins" where policies and laws are designed to adapt to the margins first. As a corollary, if they help the margins, they will help the majority as well. 

d. We thus need to increase representation of caregivers and special needs people in decision making in parliament or in governmental policies. The neurotypical elite may be unconsciously blind to their biases due to the ivory-tower syndrome. Teo Yu Yenn mentioned in her book about "oats" - who are we to dictate what poor people need. Policies can benefit from participatory design or community-based participatory research approaches. 

Representation of caregivers and special needs voices in Parliament to enact laws and not just change mindsets for inclusion and universal design. 

We need more political will through increased representation of caregiver or special needs voices in Parliament. Singapore changes mindsets without changing the Laws e.g. campaigning for littering and plastic bags. Laws need to be instituted for us to move towards a neurodiverse-affirming or inclusive society.