Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Social and Family Development.

4.10 pm

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Families are the cornerstone of our society. It is where we learn our first lessons about values that will shape our character and identity. Families also provide a safe environment to nurture our children. A strong family can also help children develop into resilient adults who will then go on to contribute to society.

While parenthood is a fruitful journey, it is also one that has its challenges. The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey shows that the ability to manage costs of childraising as well as work and family commitments are key considerations of couples when making parenthood decisions.

The Government is committed to support couples as they embark on their parenting journey. One of the key ways in which we do so is through the Marriage and Parenthood Package, which comprises a suite of measures to support parents, such as parental leave and benefits and the Baby Bonus schemes.

To ensure that the Marriage and Parenthood Package continues to meet the evolving needs of parents, we periodically review our policies and introduce enhancements. Since the Child Development Co-Savings Act was introduced more than 20 years ago, we have made amendments to effect enhancements, such as the introduction of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave.

We have also introduced the Government-Paid Maternity Benefits to support mothers who are ineligible for the Government-Paid Maternity Leave because they are on short-term contracts.

The latest round of enhancements in 2021 saw the introduction of the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit and Government-Paid Adoption Benefits to support working fathers and adoptive mothers who are shorter-term contract workers.

This year, at Budget 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had announced the latest set of enhancements to strengthen our support for parents. They include an increase to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift by $3,000 and enhancing Government co-matching contributions to the Child Development Account for eligible children born on or after 14 February 2023. Deputy Prime Minister Wong also announced further enhancements to parental leave schemes, which include the doubling of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave from 1 January 2024.

The Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill that is currently before this House seeks to give effect to the leave enhancements announced at Budget 2023. This includes the enhancements to our paternity payment and reimbursement schemes, namely, the increase of Government-Paid Paternity Leave by two weeks on a voluntary basis and increase of the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit in parallel as well as the extension of the Unpaid Infant Care Leave.

First, clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 set out the main provisions for the enhancements to our paternity payment and reimbursement schemes. These enhancements apply to fathers of children born on or after 1 January 2024 or with an estimated date of delivery on or after 1 January 2024 as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of the application to adopt a child is on or after 1 January 2024.

Clause 10 will allow the Government to reimburse employers who voluntarily grant additional paternity leave of up to two weeks to eligible employees on top of the current mandatory paternity leave of up to two weeks. The additional two weeks of paternity leave will be implemented on a voluntary basis so that employers have more time to adjust. The reimbursement limits for employers will, as a result, be doubled to cover both the compulsory paternity leave and additional paternity leave. Employers who are ready to grant the extra paternity leave to eligible employees will be reimbursed by the Government from 1 January 2024.

4.15 pm

Clause 8 will double the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit from the current 14 days to 28 days of an eligible father’s total income. Fathers who cannot qualify for paternity leave under CDCA due to their employment arrangements may be eligible for this enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Benefit, which is a cash benefit in lieu of the paternity leave.

Clauses 7 and 9 will also effectively double the limits for the Government’s payment to eligible self-employed fathers for their loss of income when they stop work to care for their children.

We are encouraged by the increase in take-up rates of Government-Paid Paternity Leave since its introduction 10 years ago. Today, more than half of our fathers take paternity leave. Nevertheless, we want to encourage more fathers to be more involved in their children’s growing years. The enhancements we are making to the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit are critical steps that the Government is making towards normalising paternal involvement in our society.

We hope that this increase will allow fathers to be more involved in caring for their children from the very beginning. Research has shown that children whose fathers are more involved have better outcomes in their physical, cognitive and emotional development. Locally, data from the Singapore Longitudinal Early Development Study, or SG LEADS in short, has shown that paternity leave utilisation can increase marital satisfaction. It also found that taking a longer duration of paternity leave would significantly reduce children’s behaviour problems through the mediating effects of family dynamics.

Second, we will double the provision of Unpaid Infant Care Leave, from the current six days per parent per 12 months, to 12 days per parent per 12 months. All working parents will be eligible for the additional Unpaid Infant Care Leave if they have a Singaporean child below the age of two years on or after 1 January 2024. We hope that this increase will better support parents who require additional time to care for their children in the early years.

The Bill also contains other clauses to improve operational efficiency and clarity.

Clause 2 of the Bill will allow for a simplified revocation process for Approved Persons in specific scenarios. The Approved Persons are designated persons responsible for overseeing the administration of the Child Development Account (CDA), otherwise known as CDA funds, which can only be used at Approved Institutions. They ensure that the CDA funds are withdrawn according to the prescribed usages in the Child Development Co-saving Regulations (CDCR). The simplified revocation process will be set out in the CDCR and are intended to apply in scenarios where the Approved Persons for the Approved Institutions are clearly no longer able to perform the role, such as when the Approved Person is wound-up or dissolved.

There are also other clauses that clarify the total number of days of lost income that can be claimed by a self-employed person for childcare purposes in a calendar year, as well as to clarify the eligibility conditions and computation of benefits under the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit and discretionary reimbursements to employers under CDCA for employees employed for less than three months. This will ensure that the relevant benefits are disbursed according to the design of the schemes.

Sir, this Bill will strengthen our support for parents in managing their work and family commitments, as well as to encourage greater shared parental responsibility in caregiving. The Government is committed to this cause and will continue to review our measures to provide greater assurance to young couples as they think about starting and growing their families. Beyond our support schemes, it is important that, as a society, we also strive towards building a family-friendly culture.

One key challenge that couples contemplating parenthood often grapple with is how to balance their caregiving and professional commitments. Hence, it is most heartening when we see employers step up to address this issue. Since the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in February this year, there have been employers who have voluntarily started granting fathers the additional two weeks of leave, even ahead of the implementation date of 1 January 2024. Take the example of Telstra, a global telecommunications and technology company that has been operating in Singapore for more than 20 years. Telstra has more than 20 staff. They have moved to review their paternity leave policy immediately after the announcement and started offering the additional two weeks of paternity leave to their employees from 1 July 2023 before Government reimbursement will commence from 1 January 2024.

Since then, some fathers have enjoyed the additional paternity leave and feedback has been positive. On top of offering additional paternity leave, Telstra has also adopted other family-friendly work practices, such as a flexible working policy where employees can choose their work hours and location, with no mandated number of days in the office. This is a commendable demonstration of commitment towards adopting family-friendly practices. By doing so, employers will also benefit as they can improve their talent attraction and retention outcomes. Over time, we hope to see many more companies making it a priority to create a family-friendly workplace culture.

Sir, let me conclude. The Bill before this House today is part of our greater efforts to create a Singapore that values and supports family well-being.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is committed to supporting Singaporeans as they embark on their parenthood journey and will continue to work with our community partners, such as the Families for Life movement, to build up an ecosystem that nurtures strong families. To truly make Singapore a place where all families can thrive, we will need a collective, whole-of-society approach. Everyone has a part to play, from individuals and families, to employers and communities. Let us all work together to realise our vision of a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

4.22 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to increase support provided to parents in managing both work and child-caring commitments, encourage greater shared parental responsibility and to improve operational clarity for the disbursement of childcare-related benefits. However, I have some suggestions which I hope that the Government could consider.

Let me start by commending the Government’s efforts in supporting Singaporeans who wish to start a family.

In addition to the doubling of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave, the Government has also increased the Baby Bonus Cash Gift by $3,000 and enhanced co-matching contributions to the Child Development Account. Various Government agencies also prioritise families with children in areas, such as housing, and provide generous subsidies for childcare and education.

However, we must acknowledge that despite the Government’s best efforts, our total fertility rate continues to fall, reaching a record low of 1.05 in 2022. This signals that beyond the actual cost of raising a child, there are more deep-rooted issues that put off Singaporeans from starting a family.

During my house visits, I have met families with four, five and, sometimes, six children. They do not live in a big flat and everyone has to share their bedroom. But they tell me that they are happy that they get to share their joys and the simple pleasures in life with one another. But I have also met couples with one child, who tell me that it is too expensive to raise a child in Singapore and that they are unable to afford to have a second. The difference in attitudes reflects a difference towards what each value in life. I believe that this is shaped, in many ways, by their home environment and, crucially, their work environment.

Sir, several research papers have, in recent years, examined the interplay between work life and family life. The work-life balance or, in some cases, the lack of work-life balance, will affect decisions on how working people choose to allocate their time and energy when it comes to work and family roles. A 2022 study that examined stress in balancing between work and family among working parents in Hong Kong found that those who have children reported higher levels of work-life stress, possibly due to the additional load of balancing caregiving duties with work. I believe many Singaporeans will relate deeply with this.

I would, therefore, like to suggest for MSF to work with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to conduct a local study to examine companies that offer employees with the best work-life balance. The agencies can study if there is a correlation between quality of work-life balance and the number of staff in the company that choose to start a family. The outcome of the study can inform agencies with insights into certain work practices that need to be adopted, or perhaps even legislated, to provide Singaporeans with a more conducive work environment to start a family.

One such work practice would be flexible work arrangements, including work-from-home arrangements, where possible, if the work can be done remotely. COVID-19 has shown all of us that flexible work arrangements can work and the Labour Movement strongly believes that this should be an option when the job scope allows for it. There should also be clearer norms on after-hours work communications, so that we can give families protected time and for young couples to spend more time together and to start a family.

It has been close to three years since we launched the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces, guiding employers on establishing a work-life harmony policy to offer clarity on after-hours work communication. Three years on, can the Government consider elevating this advisory into a tripartite standard?

Flexible work arrangements are currently encouraged as part of a tripartite standard. We can certainly do more to encourage more companies to adopt flexible work arrangements for their staff. I, therefore, urge MSF to consider expanding Part 3 of the Child Development Co-Savings Act to allow for employers to claim benefits if they provide good flexible work arrangements to staff with children.

Sir, I often hear from our brothers and sisters working in the Public Service that the Public Service leads by example when it comes to offering flexible work arrangements. Some heads of department provide them with the flexibility to come into the office only when absolutely necessary, such as when there are in-person meetings and discussions. They also tell me that their senior management make a conscious effort in informing them that emails sent after office hours need not be replied until the next working day, unless the email is marked as urgent. These measures have allowed them to strike a better work-life balance, with more time to focus on the family. I urge other employers to mimic the Public Service in providing progressive flexible work arrangements and in setting clear after-hours work communication expectations to all their staff.

Lastly, I would like to ask MSF to consider providing adoptive and foster parents with a greater differentiation in benefits under the Act. Adoptive and foster parents often have to deal with a myriad of problems that are more complicated than a traditional family setting. We should, therefore, provide them with more support, such as more Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave.

Mr Speaker, it takes a whole-of-nation effort to raise the next generation of Singaporeans. While we acknowledge that the Government has done much in supporting Singaporeans who wish to start a family, we can do more to help shift some of the structural issues that discourage Singaporeans from having children. We should also provide greater support to adoptive and foster parents. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

4.29 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, children are the greatest joy, children are also the greatest source of worry and, as a society, we work together to find ways to ensure that we put the right support and structures in place to help Singaporeans fulfill their parenthood aspirations. Yet, we also wring our hands in despair at the stubbornly low total fertility rate or TFR despite over two decades of the Baby Bonus Scheme and its frequent enhancements.

Three years ago, this House debated the introduction of the Baby Support Grant (BSG), which offered an extra cash payment of $3,000 to encourage couples not to delay having children in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and the scheme was extended to eligible babies born before 14 February 2023. It was revealed that a total of $92 million was paid out in the first year that the scheme ran, a not insignificant sum of money. However, the birth rate in the years where the BSG payouts were made failed to go above the 2019 rate of 1.14% and in fact, dropped even to a record low in 2022 to 1.04%.

It should thus be more clear than ever that financial considerations are only a part of decisions that parents make about whether or not to start or add to a family. The amendments proposed by the Bill do go beyond cash payments to address the concerns that we have raised time and again in this House to bring in changes relating to the extinct parental leave system.

At the heart of parental leave is an acknowledgment of the important role that parents play in their children's lives, particularly in the early days, weeks and months. How often have we young parents heard people telling us that the days are long but the years are short? Time spent at work away from our little ones is time that we will never get back. After all, for those of us fortunate enough to have kids who go through the milestones of a first smile, a first step, a first word, the first wobbly tooth that falls, know too well the bittersweet thrill that accompanies these moments. It brings with it a flood of memories and also the realisation that your child is growing up.

Yet, on a personal and also societal level, we are torn by various considerations beyond the urge to want to seize every precious moment with our children. After all, we do not exist on fresh air and sunshine. So, how do we strike that delicate and constantly shifting balance between ensuring that economic and material needs are fulfilled, alongside ensuring the well-being of our child? This question gets evermore important in a rapidly disrupted world also facing the twin pressures of cost of living and climate emergency crises that show scant respect for borders.

Added to that, we have heard from many fathers about their desire to play an even greater role in bringing up their children, not only for reasons of personal joy, but also because there are benefits to children's development through more gender equitable socialisation. Some researchers, for example, argue that modelling of gender equitable relationships in child rearing correlates to girls being more ambitious in their working lives. These social and economic reasons are why the Workers' Party 2020 manifesto called for a total of 24 weeks parental leave to be made mandatory, to be shared between parents of all newborns as they deem fit for their family circumstances, with a minimum of 16 weeks to the mother and four weeks to the father.

Working parents would thus take comfort in the amendments contained in this Bill to tweak our existing parental leave system to increase paternity leave entitlements for working fathers. It seeks to increase the existing paternity leave entitlement from two to four weeks on a voluntary basis. The Government has also indicated that there are plans to make this change mandatory in due course, and this cannot come soon enough and I hope that we have a firm commitment about when this is expected to happen.

It is interesting too, that in Sweden with the highest levels of female labour force participation in the world, parents are entitled to a total of 480 days of paid parental leave, with 90 days reserved for each spouse that cannot be transferred. Single parents are entitled to all 480 days in recognition of the harder job that they have in bringing up their children. Latest statistics show that fathers currently take up 30% of all paid parental leave entitlements.

I am not suggesting that we blindly copy the examples in other countries. We have come far in our journey to support families in the workplace. We have mandatory parental newborn leave and childcare leave schemes that have been introduced. I do not doubt that this change is the result of the tireless work of all involved to change mindsets surrounding the support that parents and aspiring parents need from the workplace.

What I believe we can benefit from though, is to closely study the causative effect of flexible and generous parental leave entitlements where parents can exercise more choice in deciding what split works best for their family using the examples of, for example, Sweden described above, with its high female labour force participation rate and gender equity.

But to ensure continued progress, we should also automatically publicly track the uptake of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) taken by fathers. From a reply to a Parliamentary Question previously, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) says that just 40% of eligible fathers took the full two weeks of GPPL in each year from 2018 to 2020, with median GPPL taken increasing from 0.1 weeks to 1.2 weeks.

While tracking the uptake of the new four weeks of GPPL taken by fathers, could MSF also survey and study the reasons why fathers do not utilise their full GPPL entitlements? Anecdotally, we have heard that it is a matter of culture as well. Pressure from employers alongside wider societal norms are reasons why fathers do not take up paternal leave.

The Government has a responsibility to actively ensure that employers are not punishing fathers for taking up parental leave entitlement schemes and to see what effects this is having on our efforts to promote better support for young families and aspiring parents.

I also note that there is still a gap between an extension of such support to self-employed parents and those without full employment benefits. Self-employed parents or those not in full-time employment may end up feeling rushed to hurry back to work which in turn may end up with detrimental effects for both parents and children and also make it more stressful for such parents when deciding whether or not to have a child or to add to their family.

Beyond mandating mandatory leave days, we must ultimately look to the trust that we should and can build in the workplace in order to make it more conducive for young parents.

I myself benefited hugely from having had a boss and department where my team understood that sometimes having children makes it difficult for you to be at your desk in the office constantly and that a reasonable amount of give and take should apply. For us, this could come in the form of having to make an unscheduled school run to pick up a child who started having a fever in the middle of the school day or the flexibility to work from home in the mornings in order to spend more time with an infant who is still breastfeeding.

All of this was on the understanding that colleagues were ultimately responsible for doing their jobs conscientiously and timeously and that we would support each other in achieving our goals as a team.

This is similar to the conversation that we had about our medical certificate (MC) culture, which emerged during the coronavirus pandemic. This level of trust being common in workplaces may be dismissed as being unrealistic, as being naïve. But as the people of an improbable nation, I do not think that we do ourselves favours by selling ourselves short in thinking that this is an unachievable goal.

Beyond trust and empathy in the workplace. I hope that the upcoming workplace fairness legislation has specific measures to ensure that parents and in particular, working mothers do not end up being penalised and discriminated against, whether this is for employees being discriminated against for taking up the improved Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML) and GPPL entitlements or else for having to juggle childcare responsibilities with work.

While we are acutely aware that there are immediate business continuity costs associated with having to cover the work to be done with employees who are on parental leave, we must continue to look at the bigger picture. Businesses, ultimately benefit by being able to access a wider hiring pool when they are able to make reasonable accommodations for parents who have care responsibilities and the economy also benefits when we take these measures to support parenthood aspirations and address our low TFR.

While the amendment Bill today focuses on parental leave it would also be remiss of us not to bring up the importance of how it remains to look at the bigger picture. This means looking beyond traditional population and economic growth models and strategies.

As I said in my speech during the Baby Support Grant in 2020, we have to continue to seek sustainable solutions for how to afford the financial and unpaid cost associated with caring for an increasingly aged society while maintaining international and inter-generational fairness.

Finally, as we discussed building better support for parents, I feel that a segment deserves more attention. Families of children with special needs.

With latest data indicating that around 35,500 students have special education needs as of December last year, this is a significant group, especially as it does not include children who are not of school-going age, but whose parents are still responsible for their care. The number also does not include children who are suffering from other health conditions, both mental and physical, who also warrant extra care from their families and caregivers.

Greater awareness of an empathy for families of children with additional needs is undoubtedly growing but do we really understand and account for the larger amount of resources, mental load and emotional costs that parents bear when providing care for such children? Do we also pay attention and try to address the increased pressure that siblings of children with special needs often bear?

Parents of such children are often faced with both having to strive to give the best support available to their children while at the same time dealing with their own complex emotions, which may involve grief and feelings of loss associated with not being able to achieve dreams of their children doing things that so many of us take for granted sharing. Cheering their children on at football matches or Sports Days, graduation day, or even just curling up on the sofa with a book, and which can be quickly followed by devastating guilt for feeling such grief in spite of the deep love they continue to hold for their child.

I previously spoke about parental burnout and its lack of systematic quantification. I believe this is even more important for such families if we are to be serious about property supporting them. A workplace solution could become an increase support and flexibility when it comes to childcare leave arrangements.

While we call on our policies to do more, I believe that each one of us can start today by showing more empathy and understanding and non-judgement towards our fellow Singaporeans who may be finding it difficult to juggle it all. And if we are privileged enough to be able to take on a little bit more in any way in the hope that it can ease their burden, just a little, let us do so without complaint or expecting anything in return.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

4.41 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am glad we have introduced this Bill today which includes many things so many of us have been fighting for, for so many years now. The increase in paternity leave is very much welcomed. It is something very close to my heart and this change sends a strong signal about the important role that fathers play. It also signals that the Government is listening, listening to concerns on the ground and listening to our repeated questions in this House on these important issues, although we sometimes get the same repeated replies.

But this Bill also does not include many things that so many of us are still fighting for and I hope that changes will be made as we move towards a more inclusive society and a Singapore Made for Families.

I have three points of clarification. My first point is on equalising parental leave. This is a point I have raised repeatedly and will raise again and again, because it is an important point. Just last year, Minister Josephine Teo spoke about whether equalising parental leave would better reflect the desire for equal sharing of responsibilities. She said, “Questions like these should not be forgotten. Every now and then, we should revisit them. And even if we do not, Mr Louis Ng will make sure that we do.”

We should revisit this every now and then. I raised this earlier this year and will raise it again now. I am glad we have doubled paternity leave. But can go further to eventually equalise parental leave.

I am heartened that Minister Indranee Rajah has said that the Government will continue to work with the tripartite partners to review the scope for more parental leave provisions. Can the Government work with tripartite partners to come up with a roadmap to equalise parental leave? I fully understand this is not a one-year, two-year, or even three-year road map. Our four weeks of paternity leave will take time to catch up with the 16 weeks of maternity leave.

I agree with Minister Indranee Rajah who said that the two parts of the equation are fathers taking up paternity leave and employers being supportive of fathers going on paternity leave. Our employers will need time to adjust to equalising paternity leave. Let us help our employers by providing them with the roadmap they need for business certainty.

We should also remember that an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) study highlighted that our policies signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes. Equalising parental leave is a step forward towards reducing these gender stereotypes and I hope the Government will seriously consider this.

Next, I am heartened that as part of the Made for Families initiative, the Government is providing more support for families by increasing unpaid infant care leave. In the same spirit, I hope we can consider including introducing childcare sick leave for all Singaporeans. This, I have raised many times as well and I wish it was part of this Bill.

Civil servants already have childcare sick leave. Other Singaporean families should have this too. Childcare sick leave is a necessity. It is important for the health of our children and for families. Recently, a teacher emailed me to share her struggles with her child who is constantly falling ill. She told me that her child is always falling sick and had already been hospitalised twice for pneumonia and acute bronchitis. She told me that the number of childcare leave is really not enough.

She said: "I feel the horrible lack of childcare leave days in Singapore has resulted in parents sending their sick kids to school, which in turn increases the infection rates and causes kids to fall sick easily. I have personally heard colleagues and friends saying that they send their kids to school as long as they don’t have a fever because they just have no choice due to the number of leave days. As a parent who tries her best to keep her child at home till he recovers, this is very frustrating because my child falls sick again a few days after returning to school."

This teacher ended her email by saying that, “Although I am passionate about teaching and impacting the lives of the younger ones, such experiences leave me thinking that I should leave the service, which is a waste.” Her story is not unusual. If we are to be a Singapore Made for Families, will the Government consider providing childcare sick leave on a per-child basis for all Singaporeans? This is no different from what we are already doing for civil servants.

My final point is on a group of parents who are often overlooked and discriminated against – single unwed parents. I am glad we have previously amended this Act, the Child Development Co-Savings Act, to provide more support for single unwed parents, including providing the CDA component of the Baby Bonus. I hope we can now provide them the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I know this is not part of the Bill today, but it really should be. This money is not a luxury but a lifeline for so many single unwed parents.

Since 2016, I have spoken up nine times for extending the Working Mother’s Child Relief, the Parenthood Tax Rebate and the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. This will be my 10th time raising this.

This is also an issue of fairness. This is not about incentivising or disincentivising any behaviours. What exactly is the policy objective of not providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents?

Seventeen years ago, Minister Indranee who was a backbencher in this House said, “The third group of people who do not really feel included are the single unwed mothers who are not allowed to rent Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. I do strongly feel that this is an outdated policy. I have spoken on this before, and I understand that the rationale is that the Ministry of National Development (MND) does not want to encourage them to have babies out of wedlock. But if this is the policy objective, it is not working, because there are many children born out of wedlock. As I have said before, the availability of rental flats is not something that the couple have in mind when they engage in the activity that results in the child. That is the last thought on their minds.”

I am quite sure that before the couple have sex, they similarly do not think about the cash component of the Baby Bonus. I am quite sure we all agree they do not.

We have progressed and changed our outdated policy of not allowing single unwed parents to rent HDB flats. It is time to also change this outdated policy of not providing single unwed parents with the cash component of the Baby Bonus.

President Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in 2013 that single unwed mothers need more help than others, including in the area of financial assistance. He said, “We’re all in this together and the Government will do its part.”

It has been 10 years since his speech. The Government has, indeed, done more for single unwed parents, but it can do even more.

In our national pledge, we pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. On the issue of the cash component of the Baby Bonus and the Working Mother’s Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate, we are doing the single unwed parents an injustice, an inequality.

I am not asking for single unwed parents to have more; only that they have equal to what any other parent is entitled to. I hope we can review our policy and start by providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus to single unwed parents. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

4.48 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I support the amendments proposed by this Bill.

The Bill will make timely and necessary improvements to the Child Development Co-Savings Act as we continue to design and implement a Singapore Made for Families. Since 1987, when Singapore ended its "Stop at Two" population policy, a range of pro-natalist initiatives have been introduced. These include paid maternity and paternity leave, childcare subsidies, tax relief, rebates, cash gifts and grants.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to note that Singapore currently boasts one of the most comprehensive set of programmes and policies in East Asia to promote marriage, increase fertility and birth rates, and provide incentives and support to couples wishing to start or grow a family.

Despite these considerable efforts, Singapore is still struggling to encourage couples to marry and, when married, to have children.

In 2022, Singapore’s total fertility rate was 1.05, the lowest it has ever been. This decline can be attributed to two key factors. First, more people are staying single or getting married later in life; and second, married couples are waiting longer to have their first child and having fewer children overall.

Both of these factors are influenced by evolving cultural, social and economic circumstances. Women are increasingly questioning the expectation to marry early, have children and stay at home to look after their children. Women are increasingly able to access independent and financially rewarding careers, both within and outside the marriage. And women are increasingly aware of the significant cost of raising children.

Mr Speaker, our Government acknowledges these challenges and has taken steps to facilitate marriage, housing access, education and financial stability. These initiatives are particularly vital for women who historically bear child-rearing responsibilities.

Gender equality is crucial for Singapore's continued success, as emphasised in the 2022 White Paper on Singapore Women's Development. To achieve this, we must maintain women's rights, make family life enriching and continuously engage Singaporean girls and women’s perspectives.

On that note, I would like to highlight a study, “The Aspirations of Singapore Muslim Women”, carried out by the non-profit organisation, Singapore Muslim Women’s Association (PPIS), in 2021. The study revealed that Muslim women’s top family aspirations include work-life balance, financial stability and the ability to raise children well. Mr Speaker, at this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that I currently serve on the Board of PPIS.

It is heartening to note that over the years, our Government has implemented policies to encourage married persons in Singapore to have more children. As mentioned, I welcome the changes in the Bill as it aims to provide additional support to make child-rearing an appealing and affordable option for couples.

However, I seek some clarifications about some of the proposed amendments. Before I do so, I would like to share my personal experience as a mother who benefited from the Child Development Co-Savings Act.

In 2001, I was working full-time as a Probation Officer with the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. In May of that year, my second child was born and he qualified for the Baby Bonus Scheme. This greatly eased the financial strain of raising two young children.

I remember bringing my son home. My first-born, who was two-and-a-half years old at that time, was eagerly waiting for his "Thambi", or “brother” in Tamil, and could not understand why his baby brother spent most of his time sleeping. In his excitement to play with his brother, he threw a toy police car into his crib. Luckily, he missed.

Interestingly, both my boys later completed their National Service with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and I believe the toy police car may have played a part in that.

As a working mother, it was difficult to supervise and care for two children under the age of three and keeping them both safe was my utmost priority. My eldest child attended childcare, a direct benefit of the Baby Bonus Scheme, and my mother took care of the baby.

I was also very fortunate to have supervisors who believed in measuring performance by outcomes and who allowed me to work from home. This was an immense relief and I would not have been able to balance my responsibilities as a mother and a Probation Officer without the support of my supervisors.

I consider myself privileged to have received emotional support from my mother; financial support from the Government by way of the Baby Bonus; and practical support from my employer. These opportunities allowed me to work from home, excel in my career and continue my education. Importantly, these opportunities allowed me to be a mother to my two wonderful children.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments to section 7. These amendments will assist to ensure the quality and professionalism of health and educational services provided by approved persons to children and their families.

With regard to approved persons, what are the eligibility criteria for approved persons, and what support or training are provided to help them meet these criteria? In the last three years, how many approved persons had their approval suspended or revoked, and why? What support is given to approved persons when suspended to help them regain their approval? If an approved person can no longer serve a child or a family due to suspension or revocation, what are their obligations in arranging alternative care, especially if they provide childcare services? Will the proposed duties for officers and employees of approved persons include an understanding of policies and procedures necessary to safeguard children who access their services?

Mr Speaker, I also welcome the proposed amendment to section 12H. The amendment will provide greater financial support to self-employed men. I would, however, welcome additional information on the support that exists for gig workers facing income loss due to parenting responsibilities; and whether the amendment covers gig workers, including those with casual or temporary hours and who have irregular income?

Finally, I welcome the proposed amendments to sections 12HA and 12JA. These amendments, I believe, will send a strong signal about the Government's commitment to a family-friendly Singapore.

However, I note that strong gender imbalances with respect to parenting, family and household responsibilities still exist across many East Asian countries, including Singapore.

On that note, do we have current data on fathers' use of parental leave, particularly in the private sector, given that MSF reported that 84% of public sector employees eligible for paternity leave accessed this leave?

What initiatives are in place to encourage men to utilise their paternity leave entitlements and how do we plan to address factors like company culture and social norms that may prevent fathers from taking up the leave? How are we promoting more equal parenting roles in households, especially during paternity leave, considering gender imbalances? What measures are in place to encourage employers to support family-friendly environments for a healthy, respectful work-life balance?

Mr Speaker, by addressing the concerns raised, I believe we can collectively advance towards achieving the mandate, A Singapore (Truly) Made for Families.

I appreciate Members’ attention and I would like to conclude by sharing remarks from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat during the launch of "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" in November 2022. On that occasion, he noted, and I quote: "Establishing a supportive and adaptable work environment for employees to achieve work-life harmony is not only pro-family but also pro-business. Workers who can balance their work and family responsibilities are better able to contribute effectively at their workplaces." Clarifications notwithstanding, I conclude in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, for sharing your story. Indeed, support from all stakeholders is important. Ms Mariam Jaafar.

4.58 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, it has been 10 years since paternity leave was introduced in Singapore, during which time paternity leave has gone from one to two weeks, shared parental leave from one to four weeks, and take-up by fathers has gone up to 55%. More recently, amendments were introduced to avail benefits to birth, adoptive and stillborn parents in different employment situations. Ten years is a good time to take stock and see how the policy can be improved upon.

The experience of other developed countries suggests that prioritising paternity leave has a positive impact on parents, caregivers, their employers and, most importantly, the children. One of the most notable examples of this is Iceland, where parents now get 12 months of leave, six months for each parent, with six weeks of that being transferable. That shift that started in the year 2000, when paternity leave was increased from two weeks to three months was rapid and, today, more than 90% of fathers take paternity leave. It is normal and socially expected to see men out pushing their babies in a pram, and the research shows that men are experiencing the role as a father much more strongly and in a more positive way, for instance, being around for their babies’ first steps or first words.

Importantly, these early bonds are sustained. World Health Organization (WHO) research shows that Icelandic daddies enjoy the stronger position as fathers in the world, with children finding it easy to go to daddy whenever they have a problem. The statistics also show that it has reduced the gender pay gap, as mothers are able to return to work and normal working hours sooner, because childcare is more equally divided between both parents.

We are some way away from this in Singapore, where women still take on much more childcare responsibilities, even when working full-time. But if we want greater equality of opportunity for women, we need to provide greater equality for men at home. I repeat. If we want greater equality of opportunity for women, we need to provide greater equality for men at home.

And so, Mr Speaker, while the increase in paternity leave from two to four weeks, including for self-employed workers, is a step in the right direction, one wonders: is it bold enough? Is it a missed opportunity to signal the will to take firm steps, by making this shift voluntary rather than mandatory? Is it a missed opportunity to signal an intent to work towards narrowing or closing the gap between maternity and paternity leave, even if a practical approach is taken in implementation?

Many multinational companies already provide significantly longer paternity leave than the current two-week requirement, some equal to maternity leave and with no tenure requirement. These companies see a generational shift in their workforce. Paternity leave is part of their strategy to attract, engage and retain talent. In doing so, they have also had to be more intentional in rolling out supporting measures like flexible work arrangements, in line with the direction of travel that we have already set out on.

More companies should be made to see this as a first step, by making it mandatory or at least committing to a timeline in the not-too-distant future, rather than the current wait-and-see stance and by kickstarting a conversation about the importance of parental leave equality in promoting shared care. At this point, I would like to ask a clarification of the Minister. What are the markers that would signal that we are ready to move from voluntary to a mandatory increase in paternity leave?

Moving to the increase in unpaid infant care leave from six days to 12 days, on paper, sounds good. But what is the current take-up rate of unpaid infant care leave today?

In a recent response to a Parliamentary Question from Mr Louis Ng, the Minister of Manpower said that the Ministry does not track the utilisation of unpaid infant care leave. So, we are left with anecdotes. And the anecdotes suggest that above and beyond the subtle pressures that discourage fathers from using paternity leave, many fathers experience sometimes not so subtle pressures when it comes to taking unpaid infant care leave, even if they are willing to forgo the pay.

I have heard anecdotes from my Woodlands residents that taking any form of unpaid leave leads to an automatic zero bonus, that unpaid leave can only be taken when paid leave is exhausted, that shift workers are not allowed to take unpaid leave and so on.

So, for this laudable move to not turn cynical, it is important that the use of paternity and unpaid infant care is enshrined in the proposed anti-discrimination legislations. I would also like to ask a clarification to the Minister if the use of unpaid infant care leave will be tracked going forward.

I would like to devote the remainder of my speech to something that has been asked many times in this House but has been left out of the current Bill – increasing childcare leave from the current six days per year, for families with two or more young children. For many, six days is simply not enough. These are the real-life stories of my Woodlands residents.

Like Mr E, who has 4 children aged one, three, five and eight, who works 12-hour shifts at a manufacturing plant. His wife works 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. So, they are lucky to have their children in infant care and childcare at PCF Sparkletots so she can drop them off and pick them up after work. But every once in a while, one of the children will come back from school sick and when one child gets sick, it is an inevitability that it gets passed to one or more of the other children. And suddenly, they are faced with having to keep the kids at home for three, four, five days, a week. This happens three to four times a year. And we know that one bout of HFMD means seven days of MC for the child. Since six days of their childcare leave are already used on the six days that the centre closes, they end up using a fair chunk of their annual leave when their children are sick.

Mr K is a private hire driver with four children aged nine, 12, 13 and 15. His nine-year-old is a special needs child. His wife is a homemaker, caring for the children and for her mother who is a stroke patient. Each morning, he drives his children to four different schools, before starting to accept jobs, even though this means he misses out on some of more lucrative driving slots. Sometimes, he gets calls from the school to pick up his daughter when she is sick or from his wife to bring her mother to her medical appointment or his daughter to her developmental assessments, which further reduces his driving hours. He sometimes thinks about going back to the IT sector which will likely give him better career development prospects. But he feels he needs the flexibility that being a private hire driver gives him given his family circumstances.

And Mdm S, a single mother with two children aged eight and 17, who works in the healthcare sector. Each weekday morning, Mdm S sees her daughters off to school and then goes to work, secure with the knowledge that her mother will be there to watch her daughter when she is back from school at around 2.00 pm. But her mother recently suffered a stroke and is now in a nursing home. So, now, when her younger daughter gets out of school, she relies on a combination of friends, neighbours and her siblings' care to watch over her until her shift ends at 9.00 pm. And given that a 17-year-old often has other plans, that often means leaving the eight-year-old child alone for several hours a day. As a single mother, there are only two days of childcare leave available for her when her daughter falls ill.

Mr Speaker, Mr E, Mr K and Mdm S, they are not outliers. Their stories demonstrate the increasing varied situations and complex challenges working parents face and the trade-offs that they make on a daily basis to care for their children, including when they get sick. Each of them must weave together a different patchwork of solutions often based on family-specific factors, such as income, the number and ages of their children, along with the availability of grandparents, relatives, neighbours and domestic helpers and on the nature of their work and workplace dynamics.

The Government has stated that one of its key priorities is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable childcare and for their parents, and is increasing the number of childcare spaces. But the cost of childcare is still cited as a reason for couples to delay or forgo children.

And what happens when the child falls sick? For many parents, there is no alternative or safe place to take their child when he or she needs to be taken out of childcare for the day. Grandparents may be too old or live a distance far away or deceased, while leaving the care of a sick child to a helper may not be a solution they feel comfortable with. And indeed, some young parents find the mere suggestion of these solutions to be quite triggering.

Fortunately, there are an increasing number of progressive companies that have implemented family-friendly practices – childcare leave, flexible work arrangements and more broadly, a supportive workplace culture. In the Public Service, there are Ministries that grant six days of childcare leave per child below 12 years old, capped to a maximum of 10 days. I believe NTUC grants five days of childcare leave per child, capped at 15 days.

Yet, the Government has been slow to move to legislate further enhancements to childcare leave, citing a need to strike a balance in addressing the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. This is especially so for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), some of which may still be grappling with the effects of the pandemic. There is concern that mandating more childcare leave might affect employability.

These concerns are not unwarranted. It is not uncommon to hear managers and co-workers, especially singles or adults with no children, expressing annoyance or frustration with having to cover for colleagues who go on childcare leave at short notice. Singles or adults with no children often complain that they often end up caring for their elderly parent while their siblings with children excuse themselves, with even less support for parental care leave and financial support. And on the flipside, some parents with sick children who have to take more days, speak of feeling resigned to what they see as retribution in their performance appraisals and bonuses, particularly if they have ambitious single bosses or older bosses who have forgotten what it like to have a young family.

Mr Speaker, clearly, it is not a just a matter of legislation or guidelines on flexible work arrangements. Fundamentally, we must all have more empathy for others, more respect for all. This cannot simply be a campaign slogan for one, but a movement for all and we must work, Government and citizens, to make it happen.

But there are things we can do in the nearer team. The Government has committed significant funding to making a Singapore Made for Families, from higher Baby Bonuses, contributions to Child Development Account (CDA) and the proposed increase in paternity and unpaid infant leave. At the same time, a slew of initiatives are underway to support women's development, especially towards women at the workforce and in the community. There is also growing focus on our ageing population, on single moms, on special needs children.

In 2024, new TAFEP guidelines for flexible work arrangement will be released. Meanwhile, even with the sceptre of a recession, some sectors are still struggling to get enough manpower, including high demand sectors like healthcare and education, which also hire more women. The stars therefore seem to be aligned for stakeholders to act on the importance of sufficient childcare leave.

Given these, I urge the Government to consider two further enhancements today.

First, legislating more childcare leave for parents with two or more children. There seems to be enough parents across a range of family and work circumstances for whom an additional two days per child would make a material difference and enough evidence that improved benefits drive employee engagement and business results. The total number of days can be capped, say, at 10 days, but recognising the increased childcare burden with more children, can be really important to drive consistency with the policy of encouraging two or more children.

Second, taking an industry specific lens to enhancing childcare and childcare leave and driving customised solutions for each industry in partnership with employers and unions.

Working parents faces different constraints and preferences for key aspects of childcare, such as type of care, location and hours. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. This calls for a more de-averaged approach that pays attention to the difference in caregiver experiences, looks for gaps in care-specific to each industry and develops customised solutions that better meet those employees' needs.

For example, transportation workers and warehousing workers often require care starting as early as 4.00 am, while IT and retail workers may need more flexibility for later pick-ups. In high demand sectors like healthcare and education, the need to attract and retain employees and the high proportion of employees in the public sector afford the opportunity to drag along the rest of the industry in granting more childcare leave. Just as we have industry transformation maps that drive skills, that drive productivity solutions and workforce development at the sector level, the transformation to more family-friendly environments can be driven at the sector level.

Mr Speaker, making a Singapore Made for Families is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Our approach must be to give all families, parents and children, more help, whatever their choices and ambitions and around increasingly varied needs. We have made progressive enhancements to providing this support and choice, while maintaining our pro-business stance. But we need to go further and faster. I am confident we can continue to find innovative solutions to this. Notwithstanding my suggestions for further enhancements and clarifications, I support the amendments in this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.

5.12 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as a representative of the Labour Movement.

I count myself lucky to be a Singaporean. Did you know? Singapore ranks as one of the best countries to live in for a woman. We advocate equal rights for women and men, at work and at home. In this regard, I thank the Minister for the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is progressive and empowering. Yet, it could be more encompassing.

We can do more to advance gender equality and empathy for working caregivers at three levels – Government, organisation and the individual.

First, at the Government level.

When his newborn arrives on or after 1 January 2024, a self-employed man can count on the Government for paternity leave of 24 days or six days a week for a four-week period of lost income. Yet, this troubles the self-employed private hire car driver or hawker. Why is this so?

Regardless of the circumstance, the self-employed private hire car driver or hawker must pay rent for his car or hawker stall, seven days a week and rent is a significant expense.

Likely, he must dip into his savings to cover rent, other expenses and lost income. This is a tall order for many self-employed persons. The Institute of Policy Studies found that more than six in 10 private hire car drivers would fall into prolonged financial hardship if they had to stop working.

A self-employed driver or hawker thus hopes that the Government can enhance the calculation of paid paternity leave, from 24 days to 28 days. Doing so would allow the self-employed person to wholeheartedly embrace his duties as a supportive spouse and a father to a newborn. Therefore, could the Minister consider providing paid paternity leave to the self-employed father for the full four-week period of lost income?

Second, at the organisation level.

Employees' expectations of work and work-life balance have changed. Staffing is leaner, families are smaller. Many individuals are doing more. They take on multiple responsibilities at work and juggle various caregiving roles at home.

Employees thus seek balance and fulfilment, even as organisations pursue rejuvenation and growth. Bosses must therefore lead with new lenses. They must also evolve structures, policies and processes to meet changing aspirations.

Imagine these possibilities: structures that make work schedules and back-ups predictable? They give employees the leeway to balance dynamic family and work needs. Policies that facilitate time and work flexibility? They allow employees to prioritise tasks and manage deadlines. Work processes that accommodate both organisation and employees' needs? They empower managers to be empathetic and employees, especially frontliners, to be comfortable about making time for themselves and their families.

Like getting organisations onboard digital solutions, we can transform these possibilities into reality. We can expect forward-looking organisations to turn to the Government for guidance and resources to create family-supportive workplaces. These organisations are keen because they know that their employees want to be empowered as professionals and supported as breadwinners and caregivers. Could the Government consider helping these organisations to create work environments supportive of caregivers in their workforce?

Lastly, at the individual level.

Singapore's old-age support ratio declined to 3.8 in 2022. This means that 3.8 working-age people of ages 20 to 64 were providing economic support to a dependant aged 65 years or older. Compare this with 10 years ago, when nearly two times more working age people were supporting a mature dependant.

As society ages and family units shrink, every working person matters more so than ever. Women are especially taxed.

Duke-NUS' Centre for Ageing Research and Education found that women made up three in four of the 278 caregivers in their study. Many of us might know of women in our networks who had to give up their careers to become full-time caregivers because they felt that support was lacking. This is regrettable.

Therefore, could the Government consider expanding caregiving support to cater for more types of caregiving needs? For instance, caregiving-related leave would benefit workers, especially those in frontline roles.

I recall negotiating for urgent leave on behalf of a union member. She was a retail assistant who had to leave work halfway because an older family member suddenly took ill. It was a trying ordeal for her and me. She was also very stressed because she had to offset the urgent leave against her meagre earned leave balance.

Caregiving leave would have been a more direct and immediate way for her and other frontline workers to respond to urgent family needs.

Organisations that establish flexible work and family-supportive policies would welcome more recognition and support as these encourage their employees who are caregivers to stay on. Women, especially, would feel more supported.

A monologue from the recent movie, "Barbie", took the world by storm because it shone a light on the unrealistic expectations that women are held to. I quote a memorable line that proclaims that women "have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people." How true that is!

Mr Speaker, the Child Development Co-savings (Amendment) Bill affirms equality as a reality. It could be enhanced by providing a differentiated approach for self-employed individuals. For self-employed parents, they hope to be granted Government-Paid Paternity or Maternity Leave that is calculated using a weekly index of seven days. They also hope that the Government could consider disbursing the claim amount at the start of the paternity or maternity leave period than after the leave period has concluded. Disbursing at the outset of the leave period would help to alleviate the financial strain that the self-employed person has during this period of lost income.

Organisations play a role in supporting employees' use of the enhanced leaves set out in this Bill and the Child Development Co-savings Act. Organisations could benefit from more recognition and support to develop and sustain family-supportive workplaces.

More importantly, the Bill sets the stage for the Government to consider introducing a broader spectrum of caregiving support. Establishing caregiving support as a norm in workplaces dignifies caregiving and caregivers. It lays the foundation for an inclusive workforce and strengthens the resolve of workers to cope. It makes for equal and empathetic workplaces and a kinder society. With this, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.20 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, fostering active fatherhood and shared responsibilities within families are important for healthy and happy families. At its heart, this Bill calls for an embrace of a collaborative journey that encompasses fathers and mothers alike in the nurturing of our future generations.

I would like to seek several clarifications on the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the adoption and effectiveness of the policies.

To ensure success, we must address the matter of take-up and track its efficacy. As recent data indicates, approximately 40% to 50% of fathers availed the entitled paid paternity leave last year. The median number of weeks taken stood at 1.2 weeks out of the available two weeks.

While it is heartening to witness fathers exercising their leave entitlement, there remains concerns and apprehension about negative performance evaluations due to extended leave-taking. This worry is likely to persist even when employees are wholly entitled to their leave privileges.

How can we ensure that fathers who fully utilise their paternity leave will not face hindered career advancements or negative performance evaluations? How will the Ministry work with companies to explore practical avenues to encourage more fathers to utilise their entitled leave allocation?

Undoubtedly, there are numerous advantages to greater paternal involvement. The proposed amendments currently provide that the Government will reimburse employers who voluntarily allow extra paternity leave for a period not exceeding two weeks. Could we not take a more assertive stance? Could we consider making this extended paternity leave mandatory rather than voluntary?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should examine the financial implications and mechanisms of administering these provisions. What is the Government's estimated annual commitment for these new paid paternity leave and benefits?

An important parallel concern pertains to the authenticity of claims for such leave and benefits. Drawing lessons from past experiences such as the over disbursement during the COVID-19 Jobs Support Scheme, we need robust measures in place. Does the Bill empower the Ministry to retrieve funds that have been erroneously disbursed? Furthermore, is there a dedicated unit within MSF that handles such disputes?

While clause 11 clarifies how the Government may recover funds from individuals who have been paid inappropriately, what is the time period for these individuals to make repayment? What measures are in place to recover funds from employers who may have inadvertently allowed the error to take place?

I ask this because lower-wage employees may have spent the money and may not be able to make repayment as quickly.

Also, putting some responsibility on the employer may resolve some of the administrative issues that the Government may face as regards to the disbursements of these funds.

A broader perspective necessitates us to examine the impact on the workforce left behind who shoulder the responsibilities of those on paternity leave. How do we ensure that the workplace remains efficient and productive during these absences, safeguarding against undue strain on those who continue to serve? We must acknowledge the valid concerns raised by singles who often find themselves shouldering additional responsibilities due to their marital status, which can lead to feelings of inequity and being discriminated against.

Thus, we must delve into the effects these changes might have on businesses. How do we strike a balance that supports families while recognising the operational challenges businesses might face? How do we support companies like SMEs who have lesser employees and may feel more constraints when employees go on paternity leave?

Additionally, it is worth considering the consolidation of various existing leave schemes. At present, an array of leave options is available, classified under marriage and family leave by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). These include childcare, eldercare, maternity, paternity and a more encompassing family care leave.

Not all of these are obligatory. TAFEP merely recommends potential leave schemes for companies to adopt.

Given the current landscape, can we explore amalgamating these leave schemes and rendering them fungible? For example, we could introduce a family care leave scheme to heighten flexibility for both parents and caregivers. The move toward amalgamation aligns with the evolving needs of our society as more people are choosing to prioritise their loved ones over work if they may afford to do so.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, expanding paternity leave and benefits is a promising step towards fostering a family-friendly culture. Drawing from my experience as a father of five, I have witnessed the pivotal role of paternal involvement in shaping our children's lives.

Research reinforces this notion, indicating that the impact starts prior to birth. Partner support during pregnancy links to improved maternal health and better outcomes for mothers and infants. Extensive studies consistently highlight the positive effects of active father involvement on children, spanning from enhanced self-esteem and reduced behavioural problems to heightened social competence.

Remarkably, these benefits often shape the trajectory of the next generation, with children raised by engaged fathers becoming involved parents themselves. But embracing the role of an active and engaged father presents an array of challenges.

I know this from first-hand experience. Utilising my designated paternity leave to care for my newborn was but a fleeting moment within the grander journey. If you ask my wife, she will say that those two weeks flew by so fast, they were almost negligible! This stems from the fact that child-rearing is an uninterrupted, daily commitment we undertake as parents – a commitment that extends until our children reach a stage of independence.

Undeniably, appealing for more leave is not a viable solution. As a small, competitive nation, we must weigh these advancements against its potential effects on businesses, ensuring a balanced approach. We must vigilantly track the impact of these policies to discern whether they truly move the needle in the desired direction.

Transformative change cannot be achieved through a single or few policies within a short timeframe. Moreover, we cannot simply replicate solutions from other countries due to our unique context. But we must concede the indisputable significance of work-life balance and the cultural ethos in nurturing a society that offers Singaporeans the confidence and assurance to embrace parenthood.

Encouraging fathers to embrace an active role in nurturing their children goes beyond the allocation of paternity leave. Beyond this defined leave period, fathers must continue to strategise their time during work weeks to cultivate meaningful family connections. This transcends remuneration and leave benefits. It necessitates purposeful allocation and investment of time.

In times of family emergencies, the understanding and accommodation of employers and colleagues become paramount. Employees should not be made to feel guilty or worry about their career progression because they had to take time off to care for loved ones. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to conclude in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Therefore, we need a collective whole-of-society effort. That is really important.

I urge everyone, every stakeholder, including the Government, businesses and the people to build a common vision and make Singapore a strong Singapore that is made for families.

Thank you, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for boosting the total fertility rate, Mr Yip.

I still recall when I first entered the Chambers in 2006, paternity leave was zero. I am glad that we have made lots of progress since.

Let me now call on Mr Ong Hua Han. I look forward to hearing your maiden speech in Parliament.

5.29 pm

Mr Ong Hua Han (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Child Development Co-savings Act (CDCA) was first introduced in 2001.

At that time, Singapore was alarmed with a declining birth rate. The Government had to act. The response? The popularly known Baby Bonus Scheme was born. Its message was clear and unmistakable – to encourage family building and to renew our population.

Fast forward to the present, family dynamics have shifted and the Government's response? Key amendments to the CDCA, among them, a decision to double paternity leave from two to four weeks.

I wholeheartedly welcome this decision and I support the change. It again sends a resounding message – parental responsibility is a joint effort and not just a mother's duty. This House is no stranger to the undeniable benefits of active fathers and I commend the Government for championing this. It is clear when the Government recognises the changing needs of our society, the Government responds and acts.

Mr Speaker, while I applaud the Government's proactivity in addressing our society's changes, there remains still a group of Singaporeans facing additional challenges. This group I am referring to are parents of children with disabilities. They too deserve the attention and response from the Government.

Disability is estimated to affect 3% of our population. This means that about 30 newborns out of a thousand live births are born with disabilities every year.

Children with disabilities often require more specialised care and incur higher expenses than their peers.

Their parents shoulder additional financial, physical and emotional challenges. These are challenges they do not see coming; challenges that affect all income levels.

It also goes without saying that the early years of a child are a critical period. Tapping into their growth potential through early intervention ensures greater independence in their later years.

Children with disabilities, like all Singaporean sons and daughters, have the same access to the Child Development Account (CDA). They could use the funds in the CDA to pay for childcare centres, kindergartens or even assistive technology like hearing aids. While it is heartening to see an inclusive range of services that caters to most needs, assistive technology can become very expensive very quickly. Cost of living is also rising.

Here I pause to ask if MSF can consider more financial support through the First Step Grant or boosting co-matching of the savings of such parents. By enhancing support, we not only ease their financial burden, but also send a strong message to these parents that the Government stands with them, recognises their added challenges and is committed to ensuring that all children have an equal start to life.

Today, there are many support schemes available for persons with disabilities. We live in a blessed age and we can be thankful for much. Among these schemes, some use a means-testing approach. This is a good thing – it is sensible to allocate more to those in greater need. While those in extreme circumstances surely benefit, I worry if these schemes place the same support out of reach for many other Singaporeans.

Consider the Assistive Technology Fund (ATF). The ATF has the potential to greatly aid persons with disabilities. When used in early intervention, assistive technology offers immense benefits to children with disabilities. For instance, a quality pair of hearing aids can cost thousands of dollars to purchase. And then there are also regular maintenance costs to account for. Yet, their value is undeniable. They provide enhanced sound quality, crucial for early language development and social communication.

While the ATF’s lifetime cap of S$40,000 seeks to account for ongoing costs that could stray well into the tens of thousands, access to ATF is very limited. To be eligible, per capita household gross monthly income must strictly fall below S$2,000.

Similarly, there is the Enabling Transport Subsidy (ETS), which subsidises dedicated transport fees. Among others, children with disabilities attending early intervention programmes can benefit. Again, the reach of the ETS is limited. For Singaporeans to access the subsidy, per capita household gross monthly income must be no more than S$2,800. According to Singstat, median per capita household monthly income from work has risen to almost S$3,300 in 2022. This means a typical household with substantial assistive technology and transport expenses would not be supported by these schemes.

These families, often with one full-time caregiver, need and deserve help, too. To address this, could we consider revising the income threshold of such schemes to align with median per capita household income? Or, perhaps, look beyond household income as the basic qualifying criteria. May I suggest that we factor in actual costs borne by these families in means-testing? This further calibrates our approach, ensuring that our well-intentioned policies truly serve those in need.

Mr Speaker, these are very real issues – issues that, when addressed well, can lead to a brighter future for many young Singaporeans, in turn, benefiting our community exponentially down the road.

To share my own personal experience, I was born with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. This genetic condition gave me brittle bones. During the most challenging period of my childhood, I could sustain up to six fractures a year. I was confined at home, often in a cast, when my friends were out there playing in the sun.

Needless to say, frequent hospital trips, treatment and surgeries also meant that medical costs were high.

Raising children is already a monumental task for most young parents. Caring for children with disabilities adds to the cognitive load. Yet, my parents were unwavering in their care. They are the reason why I have become who I am today.

Up until junior college, my father drove me religiously to school and back. My mother made the swift decision to become a full-time caregiver shortly after I was born. During primary school, she accompanied me daily, buying food for me during recess and helping for toilet breaks. She even tried to find ways to enrich my learning, bringing me to art and piano classes, long before it was obvious I had zero artistic talent.

Mr Speaker, my story is certainly not an isolated one. Children with disabilities need additional support from their parents. And their parents, in turn, need support from the community, their employers and, ultimately, sound policies.

Not all parents have the same ability or resource to do what mine did for me. For struggling parents, finding opportunities to enrich their children's lives can be overwhelming. Some parents come from more difficult backgrounds. Some are single mothers. Some just need a bit more help, some encouragement and support.

We need to encourage all parents to look at their child as beacons of potential, despite disability. As assets, not liabilities. Learned helplessness must be unlearnt right from the beginning.

Children with disabilities can grow up to become world-class musicians, neuroscientists or elite athletes. We have living examples right here in Singapore. Clearly, disability alone does not prevent one from success.

I am glad that the Ministry recognises that each and every child is precious and can thrive under the right environment. I commend the Government’s effort to improve upon the CDCA. It is a small step towards better parental support for young Singaporeans and it benefits all children, whether they have a disability or not.

As we reflect on the Government’s proactivity towards societal changes, I urge MSF to consider this third response, to share the parenting load of children with disabilities more extensively. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications above, I support the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Ong, for sharing your story. Ms Hany Soh.

5.37 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which aims to enhance support for aspiring as well as existing parents with young children to better manage their work and family commitments, as our nation moves towards building a society that is Made for Families.

In July 2021, the PAP Women’s Wing and Young PAP jointly presented a paper on women’s development. Titled "Take Action for Women in Singapore", it was drafted based on our engagements with over 1,500 people comprising different age groups and backgrounds who were surveyed on issues faced by women in schools, workplaces and home.

One recommendation which I resonate with – and more particularly so currently as an expectant working mother in my third trimester – and of which I have been advocating for during the White Paper debate on Singapore Women’s Development in April last year, is to further encourage equal sharing of childcare responsibilities amongst mothers and fathers – something that we have aimed to achieve since as early as 1961 when the Women’s Charter was first enacted. Section 46 of the Act specifically sets out that "upon the solemnisation of marriage, the husband and the wife shall mutually bound to cooperate with each other… in caring and providing for the children" and "the husband and wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household."

Increasingly so, fathers are playing a more active and significant role in caring for their children, from bringing their kids for medical appointments to walking them to and back from school. My Woodgrove residents have often shared with me that the role a father plays has been expanding and this is keenly felt within each family. Many more fathers have also been seen doing so, signifying a change in public attitude towards the sharing of parental responsibilities. Notwithstanding, the rebalancing exercise sought to be undertaken by this Bill should also be accompanied by a re-examination of the support given by the state in order to ensure that it remains fair to our children, mothers, fathers and, not to forget, the employers.

I, therefore, applaud the additional enhancements which will be introduced through this amendment Bill, such as the increment of Government-paid paternity leave and other benefits. Nevertheless, I wish to take this opportunity to seek several clarifications and make several suggestions.

Firstly, providing parents with the flexibility to decide how to share their parental leave. This was one of the recommendations set out in our Women’s Development recommendation paper.

Currently, a working mother can share up to four weeks of her 16-week maternity leave with her husband. With the increment of the Government-paid paternity leave or benefit from two to four weeks, I wish to take this opportunity to seek clarifications if couples will still be able to enjoy this flexibility of enabling the working mother to apportion up to four weeks of her maternity leave with her husband, such that her husband can have up to two months of paternity leave to support his wife and their new-born child.

In relation to this, I would further urge the Government to consider providing full flexibility to all couples to decide how they wish to share their maternity and paternity leave between themselves.

Through my many interactions with the young parents that I have met in Woodgrove during our Embracing Parenthood-themed community engagements as well as during my house visits, I have realised that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution for parental leave arrangements. Every family has its own unique set of circumstances and preferences. Some mummies may prefer to have their husband to play a more supportive and active role after childbirth as they look forward to resuming work sooner, while others would much prefer their maternity leave to be extended further so that they can fully concentrate on their new-found state of motherhood, nursing their children and being present for significant milestones before returning to work.

My second point pertains to clarifications on the period of a female employee commencing her Government-paid maternity leave.

Under the Bill, female employees may only commence their maternity leave no earlier than 28 days before childbirth. However, we have seen cases where expectant mothers have had to be warded for more than 28 days from their estimated or actual delivery date or were intermittently required to go on medical leave for treatment even before their child was delivered due to pregnancy complications. In such situations, the working mothers had to rely on their own paid or unpaid medical leave as they were still considered ineligible for Government-paid maternity leave.

Mr Speaker, the current debate presents an opportunity for us to further improve the support measures given to aspiring and current parents. On this note, I would like to ask whether MSF would consider additional amendments that will allow some flexibility on the commencement date of the maternity leave for those medically certified cases. For example, instead of a continuous period of no earlier than 28 days from the date of confinement, could expectant mothers be given the aggregate 28 days of Government-paid maternity leave that may be consumed in their final trimester? Or while all medical appointments are important and necessary, there are some which are straightforward and which will not take the full working day. For situations, such as this, could the Bill perhaps provide for the flexibility of the "time-off" and/or half-day consumption of such leave days?

My third point pertains to the readjustment of Child Development Account restrictions to include other child-related expenses.

When I attended Woodgrove’s Bonding with your Child Day just yesterday alongside 80 of our Woodgrove residents with young children at an indoor activity playground theme park, I took the opportunity to gather more feedback about the challenges faced by our young parents.

One common reply was the concern over rising inflation and increased cost of living. They shared that while they appreciate our local community’s effort in cushioning such impacts, they also hope that more flexibility can be exercised on how monies in the Child Development Account (CDA) can be utilised.

For example, monies in their child’s CDA can be utilised to pay for preschool fees, but not the optional extracurricular activities organised by the preschools. Although many parents still see the need to enrol their kids for these optional activities to prevent them from "losing out", doing so would require the parents to pay out of their own pocket an amount ranging from a few hundred to several thousands of dollars per month as they are not allowed to tap on their CDA funds.

Fourth point is in relation to the introduction of family care leave.

In a recent focused group discussion which I co-organised in my capacity as the Head of Policy for PAP Women’s Wing, one resounding feedback gathered from over 70 participants was a consensus call for the introduction of family care leave, in order to provide some flexibility for Singaporeans to deal with various family issues that may crop up from time to time. These issues would, of course, vary from household to household, for example, managing the effects of post-partum depression for mummies; accompanying toddlers for speech therapy sessions; or attending to the medical needs of ageing parents or relatives and so on.

The fifth point and my final clarification pertains to employers’ buy-in.

While we strive to achieve conditions that will better support Singaporeans to embrace families, I am also mindful that we must take care to ensure that employers’ interests are not forsaken as this will ultimately affect the livelihood of the employees. To this end, can MSF share, based on the feedback that they have gathered from its various engagements conducted with employers, what are some of the issues that employers have been facing, or expect to face in this regard and whether such concerns were shared with their employees so as to arrive at a win-win outcome?

Mr Speaker, it is my belief that these suggestions, if implemented with the endorsement of employers, will address the evolving needs of every Singaporean while they play their part to support their families, further reinforcing the notion that Singapore is Made For Families.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

5.47 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker Sir, the proposed amendments support our young families, particularly on the pivotal role that fathers play in a child's upbringing. Societal norms, work and family structures are evolving. Families are faced with competing caregiving responsibilities for their young and old. Fathers want to actively participate in their child’s upbringing, and both fathers and mothers want to share the duty of caring for their elderly parents. These amendments can help families to better cope with their caregiving responsibilities. Fathers will have the support and encouragement to be more engaged and present in the precious moments of their children's lives. It will also indirectly help to provide support to their wives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on two aspects of the Bill: (a) the enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL); and (b) the enhanced Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL). I will also be highlighting the importance of workplace support in line with the proposed enhancements.

First, on the enhanced GPPL. The enhancement is a clear signal of the Government's steadfast commitment to supporting fathers in their pursuit of shared parental responsibilities. These enhancements will benefit both employed and self-employed fathers.

The GPPL will be doubled from two to four weeks for fathers of Singaporean children born from 1 January 2024. As a start, employers have the option to provide the extra two weeks of leave voluntarily, and the Government will reimburse them. This transition period is critical for employers to adapt their work and operational systems to the new normal. Some companies have taken the lead, such as H&M and Electrolux, which are amongst some of our nation’s employers who have taken an early start in providing paid paternity leave of four weeks since 2022.

Standard Chartered Bank has taken a giant leap by offering 20 weeks of paid paternity leave. This is commendable, but at the same time, I recognise that not all companies can do likewise and will need time to adapt. But clearly, companies see this as an important HR policy and have taken the lead to do so.

Would the Ministry consider also setting a clear timeline on when the enhanced GPPL benefit will be made mandatory? Such a clear signpost would give both clarity and impetus to companies.

In legislating these enhancements, we must also recognise the importance of supportive workplaces and awareness regarding the enhanced GPPL. Many fathers would be assured if their management comes out strongly to support them in taking leave to care for their newborn. Ensuring that eligible fathers are well-informed of the benefits will enable them to make full use of their GPPLs.

Can the Ministry broaden its work with the trade associations and chambers, and the Labour Movement to spread such support and awareness? This becomes even more critical for self-employed fathers, such as freelancers and gig workers, who may not have the same level of workplace support and awareness of such schemes.

Next, a requirement for self-employed fathers to be eligible for GPPL is that they must be engaged in a particular trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months before the child’s date of birth. This effectively means that the self-employed father would have to be working continuously until the date of the child’s delivery. There would be instances where the self-employed father would need to support his wife in the pre-delivery phase. I hope that we can provide flexibility in meeting the continuous three months criteria. It would help our self-employed fathers to cope with their responsibilities better.

Next, on the UICL. Enhancing the UICL by six days per parent per year for children under two is important. Parents would know that young children under two require frequent visits to the doctor. There would be routine checks and the unavoidable catching of viruses and bugs. The UICL will indeed go some way in helping parents attend to the needs of their children while being employed.

To enhance the usefulness of the UICL, we should enhance the flexibility of its usage. Rather than mandating that employees take the entire entitlement of the proposed 12 days in a single year, it would be beneficial to allow parents to use it flexibly during the child's first two years.

Moreover, could the Ministry consider a measured increase in the number of UICL days based on the number of children? Families with multiple young children may have different caregiving needs, and tailoring their allowances accordingly would be a good step forward.

Furthermore, we must also address the concerns of parents facing financial constraints, as the UICL is currently unpaid. We must ensure that the intended benefits of UICL are accessible to families across the socio-economic spectrum, including low-income workers. It might be difficult for low-income workers to use the UICL. Perhaps we could consider offering a partial subsidy or support for lower-wage workers in taking the UICL. This would alleviate financial burdens and make it more feasible for them to utilise this support.

Next, on the importance of workplace support. Offering paternity leave is not sufficient in isolation, and this is reflected by the low take-up of paternity leave of 55% in 2019. One of the commonly cited reasons was the lack of workplace support. Could the Ministry share the latest take-up rate of paternity leave?

Promoting such a workplace culture can start small, beginning with raising awareness among employees about the availability and importance of paternity leave. The longer-term goal would really be to dispel stigmas associated with men taking time off for family responsibilities.

Offering flexible work arrangements, such as remote work options or adjusted schedules, can further facilitate fathers' involvement in childcare without compromising their professional commitments. Additionally, companies can provide resources, like parenting workshops or support groups, to help fathers navigate their roles and responsibilities more effectively.

For example, Citibank has been running a “Maternity Matters” programme, aimed to support mothers throughout their motherhood: from providing support in designing handover plans and also buddy programmes to help mothers assimilate back into the workforce post-delivery. We can also similarly develop such programmes for fathers.

Such initiatives exemplify the corporate world's potential to contribute to the well-being of families. Employers should look into implementing such programmes for both mothers and fathers. Where required, the union, the Labour Movement, stands ever ready to help our SMEs with developing such policies.

Mr Speaker, the nation has been significant strides in supporting families with young children. However, there are also families facing pressures with having to care for both the young and elderly. Increasingly, as our population ages, more of our workers will have to assume some caregiving responsibilities for their elderly. The families that we are supporting today to raise their young children would also need support to care for their parents. The instances when they have to bring their elderly parents to the doctor are comparable to that for their young children. We must not forget that our workers who are single would also face caregiving responsibilities for their elderly parents.

As we work towards providing support for our workers to care for their young children, I hope that the Government can also look into providing more support for workers with caregiving responsibilities for the elderly.

Mr Speaker, in Singapore, where family values are the cornerstone of our society, these proposed amendments represent more than just legal adjustments. They signify a progressive stride towards recognising and facilitating fathers' active involvement in their children's lives. As Singapore ages rapidly, I urge the Government to also consider how we may also recognise and facilitate our family members’ active involvement in the caregiving of their elderly family members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: It is now my pleasure to call on Ms Usha Chandradas for her maiden speech.

5.56 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. But I have some comments to make that I hope the Government will take into consideration.

The proposed extension to paternity leave from two weeks to four weeks in the Child Development Co-Savings Act marks an important milestone in Singapore’s commitment to gender equality. It aims to reset traditional perceptions that child rearing should be the sole responsibility of mothers.

In some ways, these legislative changes are in step with what is already happening in multinational enterprises, in recognition of how the world is changing. In fact, Minister of State Sun Xueling mentioned the example of Telstra as a business that has already started to adopt expansive family friendly policies.

Standard Chartered Bank is another example that I would like to cite. Employees at Standard Chartered Bank will now get a minimum of 20 weeks of paid parental leave "irrespective of gender", or how a child comes to permanently join an employee’s family. HSBC also recently announced extended paternity and maternity leave for its employees. For HSBC, paternity leave will increase to eight weeks, up from the current two weeks; while maternity leave will increase to 26 weeks, up from 16 weeks.

While the present legislative amendments that we are addressing today, do not go as far as what these private institutions have done, they signal to me the Government’s broad commitment towards adapting and making changes where necessary, when traditionally-held societal norms start to change. Whether it is a question of perhaps, eventually equalising maternity and paternity leave entitlements, or perhaps giving recognition to the needs of different kinds of family units, it is my hope that the Government continues to keep pace with the times and that it will display the same fortitude in future policy reform that it has demonstrated today with these proposed amendments.

With the present expansion of paternity leave, it is also important to bear in mind that pressing family needs may well go beyond the care of children and newborns. We are very concerned in Singapore about our falling fertility rates, but let us also not forget that we have a rapidly ageing population. By 2030, almost one in four Singaporeans will be over the age of 65.

While there is much discourse about empowering our elders to continue learning, working and remaining productive for as long as possible, it remains critical that we acknowledge and find solutions towards supporting those who are no longer able to work. Frail elders are more likely to suffer from chronic health issues and are thus more likely to require full-time caregiving. As our population ages, more seniors will need care and there will accordingly be more caregivers who will need support. Based on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s 2022 labour force survey, about 90,300 residents outside the labour force cited caregiving responsibilities as the main reason for not working, and 12,400 of these caregivers were looking after aged, ill or disabled parents.

While we enhance leave entitlements for the care of newborns, better support for caregivers of the elderly remains just as important an area for policy-makers to look into.

While flexible working arrangements go some way towards alleviating caregiver stress, they also fundamentally assume that eldercare duties are not serious or taxing enough to require dedicated days off from work. Flexible work arrangements also do not necessarily assist self-employed persons.

Certain communities, for example, the arts community, have large percentages of its members in self-employed roles. In the arts, according to the latest Singapore Arts Plan, at least one-third of the workforce operates on a self-employed basis. Anecdotally, I have heard from members of the arts community that eldercare duties can be not only isolating but a source of extreme financial stress while juggling the demands of freelance jobs that do not offer leave provisions.

I know that this is not the subject of the Bill today, but I do urge the Government to consider paid eldercare leave entitlements for all and especially for the self-employed, in a similar manner to what is presently being proposed for paternity leave.

Finally, workplaces must also do their part to reassure staff that although greater amounts of paternity leave are now being contemplated, it is not the case that childless employees, who may well be facing other stresses, will simply be left to bear the brunt of work that has been left behind and with no ostensible reward. Feelings like these, if left to simmer and brew, will only result in greater workplace tension and resentment, and these may well reverse any positive steps taken towards the ending of maternity discrimination.

Sir, notwithstanding my comments today, I stand in support of this Bill. The changes proposed today are very welcome ones towards "ungendering" workplaces. These changes will render much-needed support to workers, in recognition of the many challenges of family life. It is my fervent hope the Government continues this push towards inclusiveness and the caregiving needs of our country as a whole and as societal norms continue to grow and evolve over time.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yeo Wan Ling.

6.02 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, it takes a village to raise a child. Back in the day, when families were larger and when extended families lived together, there were economies of scale in households to take care of the young, almost by the batch. Close neighbourly relationships also meant that there was usually a set group of women in the neighbourhood who would help with babysitting. However, shifting attitudes and social trends, such as dual-income families and smaller households, would need us to redefine what a "village" means in modern-day Singapore.

I believe that Singapore parents will welcome this Bill and the providence of more paid leave for parents, especially for fathers, as they heed the call for a more balanced share of child caregiving duties. The Labour Movement appreciates that the Ministry has listened to our workers' feedback and has considered our calls for more caregiving leave.

The amendments to this Bill is a great start to supporting Singaporean families by providing them with additional resources to alleviate their financial and time pressures and indeed, it makes allowances for fathers to be more present during the early development of their child.

However, two practicalities need to be taken into consideration in the roll-out of such leave support: (a) the workplace cultural norms which need to be developed to catch up with legislative calls for more parental leave; and (b) the long-term sustainability of continually increasing paid and unpaid parental leave for workers as well as businesses.

Let us talk about the current state of workplace norms. The reality is that for many workers, when it comes to taking time-off from work, it is sometimes a sticky conversation. It is not always so straightforward. Workplace policies to create allowances for working parents do not necessarily translate to these allowances being realised. For example, merely 40% of eligible fathers made use of the complete two-week duration of Government-Paid Paternity Leave between 2018 and 2020.

And why is this so? In an ideal world, the process goes like this. A working parent is faced with a home emergency. They approach their employer with a leave request which is readily approved and the working parent goes on leave to resolve the situation. However, ground realities can be quite different. Many face the dilemma of how taking more time away from work may negatively impact the impression their bosses and colleagues have of them. They may worry about their career progressions at work, or even finding alternative employment if they find themselves victims of discrimination.

If you think about it, how many times has the "office" congratulated a "co-worker" on the birth of their child, while also in the same breath, complained of how much more "productive" they need to be as they cover their colleagues' work while they are away on leave. Of course, the unions have our workers' back should they be faced with unfair treatment, but many working parents seek for favourable work relationships, choosing not to rock the boat and thus not fully utilising their full entitlement.

Mr Speaker, as such, we must take a holistic view of the reality that working parents and caregivers face. Providing more paid leave for working parents and caregivers to tend to their families is welcomed, but we need our work cultures and work arrangements to catch up with legislative moves.

While we empathise with new parents who feel the sheer physical exhaustion, especially sleep deprivation, that comes with taking care of a newborn infant, let us also not forget the many other types of familial duties – parents with older kids who need help in school, or in navigating the sensitive period that is adolescence; parents who are raising children with special needs; and sandwiched working parents who are also caregivers to elderly parents or relatives. These are the everyday caregiving burdens that many households in Singapore face today – the challenge of juggling of work and family. All of these efforts require more than just a few weeks of time away from work. It is an intense balancing act, constantly juggling between responsibilities at home and commitments at work. This is a lifelong balancing act that perhaps, calling for leave, is just a start.

It is therefore timely that we begin to explore more sustainable options for work-life harmony to complement the increasing number of days of leave. The Labour Movement has been advocating for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) for decades, and we continue to believe that FWAs is the catalyst for changing workplace norms when it comes to work-life harmony and it is the long-term solution to keeping our working parents in the workplace. In a recent survey by the NTUC's Women and Family Unit on FWAs, 87% of 2,711 respondents, both men and women, said that FWAs are an important factor in their decision-making to stay or leave their current jobs.

During the pandemic, FWAs were implemented as the defacto way to work and companies scrambled to find ways to implement FWAs with existing technologies and resources. In the post-pandemic modern workplace, companies have started conversations with their workers on implementing enforceable, practical policies around providing FWAs as a long-term solution. FWAs are not only about working from home but FWAs can mean flexi-time, flexi-place and even flexi-load. FWAs are an important way for companies to reinvent their company's work cultures, their attitudes towards caregiving leave, paving the way for more engaged workers and in return higher productivity.

At the NTUC Women and Family Unit, we recently introduced the C U Back at Work Programme, or what we call CUB programme for short. This programme piloted with a Singapore-based company which provides fully flexible work hours, flexible work locations and even flexible training hours in an effort to attract and retain working parents. This programme was launched to much fanfare and with successful return to work applicants, both mothers and fathers They shared that the programme enabled them to come back to work as the company had a work culture which not only tolerated but embraced working parents' needs for leave and flexible work. However, in the same period of time, the company also went through, with the help of NTUC, e2i and company training committees (CTCs), a continued process of work redesign, including investing in a new HR team, a new scheduling system, a policy of recognising employees who have covered the work of co-workers on extended leave and a clear policy of career progression and performance appraisals.

Legislation alone will not be able to change the existing culture in our workplaces. Employers must continue to play a part to encourage working parents to leverage family-friendly workplace policies, such as paid leave and FWAs. In the equipping of our companies in long-term adoption of FWAs, the Government can consider supporting our employers in their job redesign processes, which often can be costly and may be disruptive to current business processes. MSF can also consider awarding companies which adopt and embrace family-friendly workplace policies a form of recognition, so that their best practices can be shared and further propagated.

Today, the news of a baby on its way is still very much met with joy, but the "village" now consists of not only of just mothers and fathers, neighbours and extended families, but of employers, bosses, co-workers, human resources and the Government. I agree that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but for greater sustainability of work-life harmony, let us consider the levers of a modern workplace in flexible work arrangements, which not only supports new parents, but all working parents and caregivers alike. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Let me now call upon Mr Mark Lee for his maiden speech in Parliament.

6.11 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. As a father of three children, with the youngest being just 14 months old, I am intimately acquainted with the immense joy and profound responsibility that parenthood gives to us. Within my household, I have proudly taken on the role of the elected or rather, nominated vaccination officer, ensuring my youngest daughter attends all her vaccination appointments. There is no privilege greater than cradling our little ones in our arms, offering comfort when they are gripped by fear and pain, especially after the prick of that daunting vaccination needle. In such moments, we are starkly reminded of the irreplaceable role that parents play in their children's lives.

Overwhelming scientific evidence reinforces the importance of active father involvement in a child's life. Esteemed institutions, like the "Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry" have convincingly demonstrated that children, particularly during their infancy, reap immense benefits from the presence and engagement of their fathers. Their cognitive, emotional and social development receives a substantial boost, laying a strong foundation for their future.

Beyond the personal joys and individual benefits, the father-child bond holds profound implications for our society as a whole. It moulds the future we are shaping for our children and the society they will inherit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the business community champions the family unit as integral to the fabric of society. Policies that support parenthood enhances socio-economic resilience and maturity, which are fundamental to a thriving economy anchored by vibrant businesses and a productive workforce.

The proposed bill seeks to double Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL), Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL) from 1 January 2024. Businesses appreciate the pragmatic approach taken with GPPL enhancements, such that the Government will reimburse companies for the additional two weeks of paternity leave taken by employees and implementation by companies will be voluntary for a start.

Paid paternity leave entitlements vary worldwide, ranging from zero days in the USA to over 50 weeks in Japan and South Korea, though usage often falls short of what is allowed. Singapore's calibrated increase in paid paternity leave reflects the pragmatic approach to reinforcing our social compact through healthy familial bonds and progressive workplace practices, all while maintaining economic vitality in a tight labour market. Mr Speaker, let me now continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government and businesses care about the well-being of employees and their families. Besides paternity leave, businesses also must navigate the challenges of nurturing employees' skills, promoting career advancement and fostering social emotional well-being, all the while maintaining the operational efficiency in a demanding operating environment.

Singapore's economy will continue to face strong headwinds ahead. We narrowly avoided a technical recession in the previous quarter and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has reduced the upper bound of 2023's GDP growth of Singapore from 2.5% to 1.5%.

The recently released Singapore Business Federation (SBF) Manpower and Wage Survey indicates that businesses expect that economic conditions will remain weak, with increased business costs as their top challenge. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce's 2023 survey also came out with similar concerns as the SBF survey, indicating that over 85% of companies expect costs to increase, with more SMEs, expecting a higher cost increase of about 10% to 25%, compared to large companies. Despite this, Singapore's labour market remaining robust, with seven consecutive quarters of employment growth and a low unemployment rate of 1.5% as of June.

The introduction of GPPL and UICL enhancements may post significant challenges for certain businesses, especially SMEs. With their streamlined workforces, each employee's role is crucial to daily operations. Frontline service-oriented industries may need to recruit temporary personnel to cover for employees taking extended leaves so that they can maintain minimum staffing levels and service requirements.

I will continue in English.

(In English): The Bill aims not to create an uneven playing field or unfairly disadvantage companies constrained by their operating structure. To address these limitations and facilitate higher adoption of GPPL and UICL, we can consider the following measures.

The Government could revise the reimbursement schedule for GPPL and GPML.

Currently, these leaves can be taken intermittently within 12 months from the child's birth date, with reimbursement claims permitted only after the last day of leave is utilised.

With potential increases in paternity leave days, employees may choose to spread their leave over time, causing delays of up to a year in Government reimbursement to companies. To alleviate the cash flow strain on SMEs, the Government could consider allowing pro-rated reimbursement filings for GPPL and GPML at more frequent intervals, such as quarterly.

The Government might also consider a tiered support structure to incentivise SMEs and frontline service industries to voluntarily adopt enhanced GPPL arrangements.

This could take the form of higher reimbursement rates for smaller enterprises or enhanced Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) support to assist these companies to adopt staffing and scheduling solutions in managing their workforce deployment effectively.

There exists also an opportunity for essential stakeholders, including Government agencies, labour unions, trade associations and chambers, to collaborate with frontline service sectors in creating a consolidated pool of skilled workers. This pool could be deployed to provide immediate workforce support for SMEs within these industries.

Current job platforms facilitate ad hoc job matching but lack a structured approach to organising this workforce pool, ensuring they receive training, insurance and other forms of support for swift and effective deployment to SMEs, especially on short notice, a pressing need in regulated fields like the security industry. The Government could consider providing initial funding to key players for piloting such initiatives.

Also, such an enhancement to GPPL and GPML, taken together along with initiatives such as Tripartite standards and Progressive Wage (PW) Mark accreditation are necessary for us to build a fairer and more inclusive workforce.

I would like to suggest using this opportunity to establish a comprehensive framework for recognising companies that support these national-level initiatives. Such a framework would empower companies, especially SMEs, to enhance their workforce support, aligning it more effectively with their operational and strategic requirements. This framework could also evaluate a company's contribution and credibility in aligning its practices with national objectives and could be used to acknowledge companies that excel in this area.

Finally, beyond recognition, the Government could consider linking this framework with practical economic incentives such as inclusion within Government procurement methodology, currently linked to PW Mark accreditation, and even temporary enhancements to foreign workforce access. This would serve as a powerful incentive for small and medium enterprises.

In conclusion, through collaborative efforts, we can advance our pro-family, pro-worker and pro-business objectives in a synergistic and mutually beneficial manner.

This Bill goes beyond extending parental leave. It is about recognising the profound role fathers play in their children's lives, strengthening families and, ultimately, building a better future for our country. Let us take this important step together, for the benefit of all.

Resumption of Debate on Question [18 September 2023], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Social and Family Development].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Hwang.

3.06 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, our family dynamics is evolving. Parenting today is a shared responsibility between mothers and fathers. Fathers today are eager to take an active role in parenting and we should support this.

According to a McKinsey study on paternity leave, 100% of fathers surveyed expressed that they were glad that they took paternity leave and would do so again; and 90% of fathers noticed an improvement in their relationship with their partners.

In many countries, the views on paternity leave are changing as well. According to a study by the World Economic Forum, more countries and companies are offering paternity leave benefits to new fathers. Worldwide, 90 out of 187 countries offer statutory paid paternity leave, with four in 10 organisations providing paid leave above the statutory minimum. In OECD countries, men's use of parental leave is increasing overall, even though the number of days taken is still fairly minimal. This is a good trend.

Increasing paternity leave is an unequivocal endorsement that fathers play an important role in the family on the arrival of a newborn. Fathers should be given adequate time to bond with their newborns or adopted children. More can be done.

In Sweden new parents are entitled to 480 days of leave at 80% of their normal pay. In Estonia, after the end of maternity leave, parents get an additional 435 days off, with compensation calculated at the average of both earnings. In Slovenia, fathers have a guaranteed 90 days of paternity leave, with the first 15 days at 100% while the remaining 75 are paid at minimum wage.

According to the World Economic Forum, numerous studies have shown that policies promoting father's involvement at home is good for the economy, gender equality and families. Other studies have also shown that active fatherhood is also good for the men's own health and well-being as well as their relationship with the partners. Research shows that when men are more involved in the early care of a child, they are more likely to remain connected to that child and to carry out a more equitable amount of care work.

This Bill is a good step forward, but our work does not end here. Let us continue to take more progressive steps to be a more equitable and compassionate society where we give our families and children the best possible outcomes. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.09 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill is a testament to our nation's commitment to supporting families, recognising the shared responsibilities of parents and ensuring the well-being of our children.

The doubling of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four is not just a commendable move; it is transformative.

As a father of four, I remember the joyous yet challenging sleepless nights when my children were born. Those initial weeks were a blur of diaper changes and feeding schedules. Having an extra two weeks would have made a whole world of difference in sharing the load with my wife and bonding with my newborn.

Sir, the introduction of the Shared Parental Leave, allowing parents to share eight weeks of maternity leave, is a progressive step. It promotes flexibility and choice, allowing families to decide what arrangement works best for them.

By providing additional paternity leave, we are, too, acknowledging the importance of mental well-being of both parents. Shared responsibilities can alleviate postpartum stress and anxiety, ensuring a healthy mental space for parents.

I recently spoke to a couple who were both working professionals. The wife, unfortunately, suffered from postpartum depression that lasted a few months and the husband felt really helpless during that period. His leave was exhausted and he had to return to work. This extension of paternity leave would have allowed him to be there for his wife and the newborn in such a critical period.

Sir, while I support this Bill wholeheartedly, I also recognise that there are some concerns.

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) might be concerned about the operational challenges posed by extended leave periods. I spoke to an SME owner who questioned the possible productivity loss during extended leave periods. While he supports the idea of paternity leave, he was concerned about the short-term impact on his business. And while the Government's commitment to reimburse wage costs is reassuring, the potential disruption to business operations is a valid concern. I urge the Ministry to consider additional support measures for SMEs, perhaps in the form of temporary manpower assistance or even further training to ensure smooth business operations in such times. Perhaps, the Ministry could also carry out a comprehensive review to gauge the long-term effects on SMEs.

Sir, with increased flexibility, there might be concerns about the potential misuse of these leaves. I have heard that there should be checks in place to prevent any potential misuse. While the term "potential for misuse" often come up in discussions about increased flexibility leave policies, I want to challenge that notion.

In my interactions with constituents and even within my own circle of family and friends, I have found that the overwhelming majority are responsible and would not misuse such a vital support system. I believe that the key to the success of policies like this is trust – trust in our citizens to use these leaves for the intended purpose of nurturing their families.

So, in that regard, I urge companies, rather than implementing checks that could deter people from taking leave and perpetuate stigma, we should focus on fostering a culture of responsibility and integrity. In fact, the more we trust one another, the more we empower them to make ethical choices. These, in turn, strengthen our social fabric and make policies like this more effective in the long run. While it is natural to have concerns about potential misuse, let us not let these concerns overshadow the larger goal here to support and nurture Singaporean families. Trust begets trust and it is time we place ours in our people.

Sir, while the Bill provides for these leaves, there might still be a societal stigma attached to fathers taking extended leave and we must ensure that there is a robust public awareness campaign to normalise this and emphasise the importance of shared responsibilities.

The real question is – are we doing enough to foster a society where employers genuinely value and support the family commitments of the employees? In that regard, could the Ministry share on their efforts to apply, educate and promote the benefits of shared of parental responsibilities and, in the bigger picture, the shared notion of a Singapore Made for Families?

Sir, the gig economy is growing and many of our citizens work in non-traditional employment structures. It is crucial to ensure that they, too, can benefit from these provisions. So, I urge the Ministry to consider how these benefits can be extended to all working parents, regardless of their employment nature. Are there plans to pilot a programme or study to assess the best ways to extend these benefits to such workers? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support the amendments to this Act. This amendment is not just a piece of legislature, but it is also a reflection of our values, aspirations, and commitment to the future of families in Singapore.

Firstly, the extension of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four is a commendable move. This allows fathers to play a more active role in the early stages of their child's life and also underscores the importance of shared parental responsibilities. Furthermore, the introduction of the Shared Parental Leave, allowing parents to share up to eight weeks of maternity leave, is a progressive step. It provides flexibility and choice, allowing families to decide what arrangement works best for them.

I am aware that stigma towards utilising family leave is present in our society. Therefore, we must ensure that we have a public awareness campaign to emphasise the importance of shared responsibility.

In conclusion, this amendment is a significant step forward in our commitment to supporting families. It recognises the needs of modern families that is constantly evolving and provides the much-needed support. But in line with this progress, let us remember that policies alone are not enough. We need a paradigm shift in our societal values, where we give priority to holistic development and foster a strong sense of community.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, this Bill is a significant step forward in our commitment to supporting families. It recognises the evolving needs of modern families and provides the necessary support. This Bill is not just a piece of legislation. It is a reflection of our values, our aspirations and our commitment to our future.

But as we move forward, let us remember that policies alone are not enough. We need a paradigm shift in our societal values where we prioritise holistic development and foster a strong sense of community.

While we must address the concerns raised, they should not deter us from the primary objective of this Bill – to support and nurture Singaporean families. I commend the Ministry for introducing this Bill and hope to see its successful implementation, ensuring a more supportive future for all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

3.17 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which will assist and support couples in raising children. The amendments will help them to better balance their work responsibilities and the critical task of bringing up the next generation.

One of the most noteworthy provisions of this Bill is the expansion of parental leave options.

The Bill proposes to increase Unpaid Infant Care Leave for Singaporean parents with infants under two years old by six days per parent per year for the first two years, with amendments requiring companies to offer this additional time off to all qualified Singaporean parents who have worked for at least three months.

Longer parental leave periods not only foster stronger parent-child bonds but also contribute to healthier emotional development in children. By extending the duration of paid leave, we empower parents to be present during those crucial early stages of their child's life.

Furthermore, this Bill addresses the need for fathers to be more involved in the care and nurturing of their children. Research has shown that the greater involvement of fathers is beneficial for children, contributing positively to their children's physical and cognitive developments.

The enhancement of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit schemes are much welcomed. More shared parental responsibilities will also support mothers who need to juggle work and household tasks in addition to childcare.

I urge the Ministry to continue to study the effects of these policy reforms on child development, parental well-being and worker productivity. This information will be used to drive future legislative changes. For more effective implementation, tighter and more comprehensive collaboration amongst Government agencies, educational institutions and the commercial sector is needed in order to develop a complete support network for families.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Ministry to launch a public awareness campaign to enlighten parents about their rights and advantages with this Bill, ensuring that all eligible families may benefit from its provisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Lastly, like what Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Mark Lee mentioned yesterday, we need to be mindful of the challenges that SMEs face when dealing with additional parental leave even if it is unpaid leave. These challenges include staffing gaps, business continuity issues and increased operational costs.

SMEs often operate with smaller workforces compared with larger corporations. When employees take extended paternity leave or additional Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL), it can result in significant staffing gaps.

Relative to large corporations, SMEs are more vulnerable to the impact of employee absenteeism. The absence of even one key employee can disrupt the day-to-day operations and put added pressure on the remaining staff.

To manage staffing gaps during extended leaves, SMEs may need to hire part-time or temporary staff. This can lead to increased operational expenses, which can be especially strenuous in sectors like retail and F&B, where staffing needs are often instantaneous. The cost of recruiting, training and paying temporary staff can strain the SME's cashflow momentarily. Can the relevant Ministry explore the possibility of reimbursing and recognising these SMEs which are supportive towards their employees?

Mr Speaker: Minister of State, Ms Sun Xueling.

3.21 pm

The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Sir, I thank Members for their general support for the Bill. I am heartened that most of us agree that a collective, whole-of-society effort is needed to build a conducive environment that values and supports families on their parenthood journey.

Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised.

Mr Shawn Huang has shared in his speech that the use of paternity leave among the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries is increasing overall. We have observed a similar trend in Singapore.

To Mr Desmond Choo and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's question, since the introduction of Government-Paid Paternity Leave, take-up rates have increased from about 25% in 2013 to 53% in 2021.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked if there is research on the role taken by those fathers who utilise their paternity leave entitlements. From the Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2021, 97% of the married respondents agreed that paternity leave allowed fathers to play a bigger role in their newborn's life. Our research also showed that fathers found paternity leave useful to support their wives after birth and to settle into the role of fatherhood.

To Ms He Ting Ru's question, we do survey the reasons why fathers do not fully consume their paternity leave. A key factor affecting fathers' utilisation of paternity leave is workplace support. This includes whether supervisors are adequately assuring that using paternity leave will not affect fathers' career prospects and that colleagues are willing to cover the fathers' duties in their absence. We will continue to explore ways to encourage employers to support all fathers to use their paternity leave such as by raising awareness of the benefits of providing a family-friendly workplace culture.

Ms He Ting Ru also expressed concern on the gap in support for self-employed fathers and those without full-time employment. Ms See Jinli Jean further asked if the Government can consider providing paid paternity leave for the full four-week period of lost income to a self-employed father who stopped working for seven days a week for four weeks.

The weekly index of six days takes reference from the Employment Act, which stipulates one rest day per week. This makes for a common base of reference to employees who receive Government-Paid Paternity Leave. For fathers who are not eligible for Government-Paid Paternity Leave, such as those on short-term contracts, they may receive the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit, which is a comparable cash benefit in lieu of the paternity leave.

Mr Desmond Choo asked if we could allow parents to use Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly during the child's first two years and whether the number of leave days can be increased based on the number of children. I would like to clarify that parents can take 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave flexibly as agreed with their employers during the initial 12-month period, following which they will be entitled to another 12 days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave in the second 12-month period in which the child remains under two years old. Employees may discuss their leave plans with their employers to see how best to meet their needs.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked if childcare leave can be increased. I think many of us as employees would like childcare leave to be increased. I fully empathise with the challenges Ms Mariam Jaafar had shared that her residents face.

The difficulty is not so much the cost to Government but rather the difficulties faced by employers and businesses who are impacted when leave is made compulsory. Already, based on the current set of proposals to increase Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and Unpaid Infant Care Leave (UICL), Members in this House have highlighted concerns from employers that the increased leave provisions will adversely impact their manpower costs and operations.

Mr Mark Lee in his speech yesterday said, "the introduction of GPPL and UICL enhancements may pose significant challenges for certain businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises with streamlined workforces where each employee's role is crucial to daily operations. Frontline service-oriented industries may need to recruit temporary personnel to cover for employees taking extended leaves."

Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared in his speech yesterday, I quote, "appealing for more leave is not a viable solution. As a small, competitive nation, we must weigh these advancements against its potential effects on businesses, ensuring a balanced approach. We must vigilantly track the impact of these policies to discern whether they truly move the needle in the desired direction."

These seemingly divergent views show that we need to strike a practical balance between supporting parents in their caregiving responsibilities and meeting employers' manpower needs. Our leave provisions need to take into account not only the roles of parents as caregivers but also the roles parents play in workplaces as employees.

I understand that parents with more children will require more leave to take care of their children, should they fall ill.

Currently, the Civil Service provides childcare sick leave on a per child basis. Based on the latest available survey data from 2020, 27% of private companies voluntarily provided additional paid childcare sick leave to employees.

I would like to encourage private sector employers to consider providing childcare sick leave, which is available in the Public Sector on a per child basis. This can greatly alleviate parental stress from taking care of more children.

To Ms Mariam Jaafar's suggestion, we will look at means, such as surveys, to gauge the take-up rate of UICL.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Mariam Jaafar asked for the equalisation of parental leave. Mr Melvin Yong asked the Ministry to consider providing adoptive and foster parents with more GPPL and UICL.

Let me clarify that the current leave provisions are differentiated to meet the needs of the respective parents. Maternity leave is provided for mothers to recuperate physically from childbirth and care for and bond with their newborn. Hence, it is longer than paternity leave, which allows for fathers to care for their wives and bond with their newborn child. This is also why maternity leave is longer than adoption leave.

Couples who wish to have the father spend more time with their newborns can have the father tap on Shared Parental Leave for up to four weeks from their wife's Government-Paid Maternity Leave or Adoption Leave.

To Ms Hany Soh's query, we currently do not intend to change the Shared Parental Leave provision under this Bill.

I would like to assure Members that the Government is on the same page as Members in wanting to encourage shared parenting. This is why beyond the minimal stipulations for maternity leave and paternity leave, any additional leave that the Government may consider in future will likely be of a shared nature, as per our move on shared parental leave in 2013.

On fostering, unlike adoption, fostering is a temporary care arrangement. Hence, foster parents are not eligible for Government-Paid Maternity or Paternity Leave. However, they are entitled to the same quantum of childcare leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave as biological or adoptive parents.

To better support adoptive and foster parents, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and our community partners offer a range of services to meet their needs. All new foster parents are also trained by the Social Service Institute to care for foster children and can receive advice from more experienced foster parents through peer support networks. To defray the costs of caring for a foster child, MSF provides a monthly fostering allowance as well as childcare and medical subsidies for the foster children.

Mr Desmond Choo expressed concern that some self-employed fathers may not qualify for GPPL if they take time off from work to support their wives in the pre-delivery phase. Let me clarify that in such cases, self-employed fathers remain eligible for the Government-Paid Paternity Leave as long as they have been carrying on their trade, business, profession or vocation for a continuous period of at least three months prior to the childbirth. They will not be disqualified simply because they took some time off work during this period.

Ms See Jinli Jean has asked the Government to consider disbursing a self-employed person’s claim for lost income at the start of his or her leave period rather than after it has concluded. I wish to clarify that claims for leave or income lost are processed on a reimbursement basis to ensure that the leave has been taken as intended first before payment is made. This also helps with the computation of the actual amount of income lost to be reimbursed, which would not be possible to ascertain until the leave has been taken.

Ms Hany Soh asked if flexibility could be exercised to allow expectant mothers to consume their maternity leave earlier in their final trimester. The primary intent of maternity leave is to provide mothers with time to recover from childbirth and to care for their newborns. We allow flexibility for mothers to start their maternity leave earlier, up to 28 days before delivery, but the bulk of their maternity leave should still be used for post-confinement. Expectant mothers who need to absent themselves from work earlier than 28 days before can tap on their sick leave or hospitalisation leave if they feel unwell, for example, if they suffer from severe nausea in the first trimester.

Members such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Don Wee and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum have asked about the Government’s efforts in encouraging fathers to utilise paternity leave as well as to normalise paternity leave and the importance of shared parental responsibilities.

As Ms Yeo Wan Ling has stated, societal norms must be considered in the discussion of encouraging take-up of parental leave. It is important that the society adopts a mindset that embraces paternal involvement from the onset. To promote active fatherhood and the importance of shared parental responsibilities, we have been working with community partners such as the Families for Life Council and the Centre for Fathering on three key family movements in Singapore – the Families for Life, Dads for Life and Mums for Life movements. These movements look at strengthening family ties and resilience with the aim of increasing marriage stability as well as advocating the importance of shared parenting and household responsibilities between mothers and fathers. For example, the Centre for Fathering runs several campaigns throughout the year to reinforce and signal the importance of fathers’ active involvement in their child’s development. One of the campaigns is the Great Companies for Dads Awards, which engages and recognises companies that nurture a family-friendly work culture through their policies and initiatives.

The attitudes and mindsets of supervisors and colleagues also make a big difference in helping fathers feel assured that they are not being discriminated for using their leave. We also hope to encourage self-employed persons to recognise the benefits of parental leave and how the Government tries to support them through the provision of Government-paid paternity benefits and Government-Paid Paternity and Maternity Leave. To Ms Hany Soh’s questions, we had indeed sought employers’ views and feedback on the leave enhancements through our consultations with the tripartite partners.

We will continue working with our tripartite partners to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures that will better support parents in managing their work and family responsibilities. We also encourage employers to be supportive and understanding when fathers take paternity leave. This would help employees be more motivated, like what Ms Yeo Wan Ling has shared. In the long run, progressive employers can stand to benefit from better talent attraction and retention.

To Mr Melvin Yong's suggestion to conduct a local study to examine companies that offer the best work-life balance, we will look at best practices today to identify what other companies can adopt.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked whether gig workers would benefit from the increase in Government-Paid Paternity Leave, and if not, what support is available to compensate them. Dr Wan Rizal stated that it is crucial to ensure gig workers can also benefit from these leave provisions. I would like to clarify that working parents who do not qualify for Government-paid leave schemes due to their employment arrangements, such as those on short-term contracts and gig workers, may be eligible for equivalent parenthood benefits in the form of Government-paid benefit schemes – that is the intent of Government-paid paternity benefit and Government-paid maternity benefit. These are cash benefits granted in lieu of the Government-paid portion of paid leave.

Mr Don Wee suggested launching a public awareness campaign so that more parents are aware of their leave entitlements. Mr Desmond Choo also asked if the Government could broaden its work with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) and the Labour Movement to spread awareness of the enhanced Government-Paid Paternity Leave, especially among the self-employed.

We thank Members for the suggestions. The Government will work closely with our tripartite partners to raise awareness of these benefits among employees and the self-employed, including gig workers, to encourage them to utilise their leave or benefits. For example, we have developed an infographic and produced a video on parental leave targeted at raising awareness among self-employed persons. The infographic was disseminated through our tripartite partners’ networks. We will continue to build on these efforts and look for ways to further raise awareness and encourage parents to utilise their leave benefits.

Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Don Wee asked if we will consider conducting a review to assess the impact of leave enhancements. As Mr Shawn Huang and Ms Usha Chandradas have said, it is a continuous process to review our policies to meet the evolving needs of parents and to make our society more family friendly. We will monitor the impact of our leave enhancements.

Mr Mark Lee suggested revising the reimbursement schedule of the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Paternity Leave to more frequent intervals to alleviate cash flow strain on SMEs. I would like to clarify that claims for reimbursement can be submitted for any part of the Government-Paid portion of the leave that has been taken and are not restricted to only after the last day of leave has been fully utilised. This applies to self-employed persons too.

We recognise that some employers may have concerns with parents taking additional parental leave due to the nature of the work and challenge of finding covering arrangements. Mr Don Wee, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have highlighted that companies, especially SMEs who have fewer employees, may face operational challenges, and have suggested providing additional support for them. We have introduced the additional two weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave on a voluntary basis, so that employers have some time to make adjustments according to their manpower and operational needs. We intend to make this provision mandatory in due course and we will be conducting the necessary stakeholder consultations with tripartite partners before any such move.

In the meantime, employers and employees may exercise flexibility in the parents’ utilisation of parental leave, such as by taking the leave in more than one period within their child’s first year, to minimise disruptions to business operations. Parents should also play their part by discussing their leave arrangements with their employers in advance, so that their employers can plan for the necessary covering arrangements and any additional resources that they may require. I also thank Mr Desmond Choo for sharing that the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) is ready to help our SMEs to develop policies that will better support parents.

Another important strategy for companies to build agility in manpower needs is through the adoption of flexible workplace arrangements (FWAs). As mentioned by Ms Yeo Wan Ling, FWAs are more sustainable options and can benefit not just parents of young children but also other caregivers. When implemented well, FWAs can increase productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, which in turn can help companies mitigate the effects of manpower constraints.

Mr Melvin Yong suggested expanding the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) to provide incentives to employers who provide good FWAs to employees with children. We review the scope of the CDCA periodically to best serve the needs of parents. For FWAs however, they benefit not just parents but also caregivers of other familial members. As such, incentivising FWAs may take other forms other than through amending the CDCA.

We share Members’ views on the importance of having FWAs. And the Government is on the lookout for positive examples of such companies to share with others at opportune times. We take heart that some companies have already walked this path and found success.

Take, for example, 1AND8 Singapore Pte Ltd, the company behind the Museum of Ice Cream. They have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements and allow their staff to fully telecommute, only returning to the office for physical meetings when required. The company also practises staggered hours and has part-time work available for their frontline Guest Specialist Experience positions. This approach has helped the company to boost work productivity while also enabling their employees to achieve a better work-life balance, leading to increased job satisfaction and higher morale. The positive outcomes are evident in their employees staying with them for extended periods, contributing to a lower turnover rate.

Mr Mark Lee suggested establishing a comprehensive framework to recognise companies that support national-level initiatives such as the Tripartite Standard and progressive wages. Today, companies that adopt the Tripartite Standards will be profiled with the TS logo on MyCareersFuture job portal. This allows them to gain greater visibility in talent recruitment. Companies who pay their lower-wage workers progressive wages can also adopt the Progressive Wage Mark to profile themselves as responsible employers that support the uplifting of lower-wage workers. This can encourage consumers and service buyers to prioritise purchases from them.

I will now address comments raised by Members about extending support to caregivers of other dependants.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the different leave schemes could be amalgamated into a family care leave scheme to provide flexibility for parents and caregivers. Today, the leave schemes are differentiated to cater to the needs of different caregivers. They are also calibrated to balance between employees’ caregiving needs and employers’ business costs and manpower needs.

Ms Usha Chandradas, Ms See Jinli Jean and Mr Desmond Choo have also called for more support for familial caregivers. Today’s Bill is on the CDCA and so we are discussing maternity and paternity leave and benefits.

On the broader topic of support for caregivers for the elderly, I would like to assure Members that your feedback will be provided to the agencies looking into this topic. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is important that we bring all stakeholders including employers to build a family-friendly work environment, so that caregivers can better manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities.

On the Child Development Account (CDA), Ms Hany Soh has asked for greater flexibility on how funds can be utilised. I thank her for her feedback. The range of approved CDA usages is circumscribed to ensure that the funds are well-utilised to the benefit of the child. Nonetheless, we do regularly review the CDA scheme, together with our suite of marriage and parenthood policies. Over the years, we have enhanced the CDA scheme to provide more support to parents. For example, we have increased the Government co-matching contributions and also introduced the CDA First Step Grant. We have also expanded the areas where the CDA funds can be used and will continue to review how this can be further refined.

Mr Ong Hua Han asked if the CDA co-matching or the CDA First Step Grant could be increased to better support children with disabilities to cope with the cost of living. These schemes are designed on a broad basis to support all parents in raising their children. We fully recognise that families caring for children with special needs face more financial challenges. Hence, the Government provides funding support and means-tested subsidies for children enrolled in early intervention programmes, Special Education (SPED) schools and Special Student Care Centres (SSCCs) to keep fees affordable for families with children with special needs.

The Government is also working to expand places in early intervention services, SPED schools and SSCCs to ensure that children with special needs can access an education that develops their potential and equips them with knowledge and skills to participate meaningfully in society.

Mr Ong Hua Han also asked if the income threshold of means-tested schemes such as the Assistive Technology Fund and Enabling Transport Subsidy can be revised to align with the median household per capita income. He suggested factoring in actual costs borne by families as part of the means-testing calculations.

I thank the Member for his suggestions to help families with children who have special needs. MSF regularly reviews the income thresholds for such schemes to ensure that households receive the help that they need and we will take in his inputs when reviewing all these schemes.

We recognise the critical role that caregivers play in caring for their loved ones with special needs and the importance of supporting families with persons with disabilities. Support for caregivers is indeed crucial to the children's well-being and development. Our support for caregivers is thus multifaceted.

Early intervention centres provide caregiver engagement and training so that caregivers are equipped with the skills and knowledge to support their children at home. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has also started the Inclusive Support Preschool pilot to integrate early childhood and early intervention support for children with developmental needs within a preschool setting to provide a more inclusive learning experience and reduce the need for caregivers and children to shuttle between preschools and Early Intervention (EI) centres.

We continue to improve access to knowledge and skills for parents with special needs children to carry out their caregiving duties and connect them with support networks.

For example, ECDA launched a Parents' Guide last year to provide parents with information on ways to access EI services, support available to facilitate the child's transition from the preschool years to school-age provisions, as well as self-care strategies and resources. SG Enable has also worked with CaringSG, a caregiver-led organisation, to launch the Step One programme in July 2023.

Mr Louis Ng asked for the equalisation of benefits to single unwed parents, starting with the extension of the cash component of the Baby Bonus scheme. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. Many of the existing benefits are already equalised. These include subsidies for education, healthcare, infant care and childcare, the foreign domestic worker levy concession as well as CDA benefits. Rather than see the Baby Bonus cash gift as discriminatory to single unwed parents, it should be seen as a separate benefit to specifically promote parenthood within marriage. Hence, it is extended only to married parents.

I fully empathise with the challenges faced by single unwed parents, in particular, those who are lower-income. I would like to assure Members that additional help is available for them. Currently, single unwed parents requiring support with their basic living expenses can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs). Our SSOs will assess their households' needs and circumstances and provide ComCare financial assistance if they meet the criteria. Our SSOs may also refer them to other Government agencies and community partners for further support.

Family Service Centres also work with single unwed parents and their children to address their social and emotional needs, not forgetting that there are bottom-up initiatives such as the Northeast Community Development Council's "North East Growth Fund", which provide subsidies for formula milk and diapers to young children up to six years old so as to support new mothers.

Let me now turn to issues relating to implementation and governance.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal have raised concerns about potential misuse of parental leave. These are valid concerns as the annual commitment for the enhancements to Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Benefit amounts to about $57 million.

MSF has measures in place to verify the authenticity of parental leave claims. Claim information that cannot be validated against Government data will be verified by our processing officers against supporting documents. In addition, disbursed claims will be selectively reviewed to detect erroneous payments to employers, employees and self-employed persons.

If any erroneous payment is identified and verified to have taken place, the CDCA grants the Government powers to recover such monies from employers, employees and self-employed persons, as the case may be. We will undertake the recovery of such monies in a timely manner.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum asked several questions regarding Approved Persons. The primary role of the Approved Person is to oversee the withdrawal of CDA funds in respect of an Approved Institution. Approved Persons must be able to fulfil their roles and responsibilities specified in the Child Development Co-Savings Regulations as well as MSF's Terms and Conditions for Approved Persons and Approved Institutions.

For those who have not been proper in carrying out their role as an Approved Person, MSF will suspend their approval. The suspension safeguards the child's CDA funds but does not mean that the relevant Approved Institution has to cease service provision for the child. For instance, a preschool can continue its delivery of services as long as it remains licensed by ECDA. In the past three years, one Approved Person has been suspended due to their failure to keep proper records.

The amendments to section 7 provide for a simplified process wherein revocation of the approval granted to these Approved Persons does not need to be approved by the Minister. This would be applied in specific situations that can be determined objectively, such as where the Approved Institution is no longer able to provide services because it has ceased operations. This serves to improve operational efficiency.

I hope these clarification address Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's questions.

Sir, let me now conclude. The amendments being made to the Child Development Co-Savings Act via this Bill is a clear signal of the Government's continued commitment to increase our support for parents in managing their work and family commitments. We will continue to do our best to provide such assurance to Singaporeans who are planning to embark on their parenthood journey.

At the same time, we are fully aware that schemes and subsidies alone are insufficient. At the broader level, we must strive to nurture a society that embraces family and is family-friendly. Every one of us has a part to play in building a Singapore Made for Families, where families are valued and supported. With that, Sir, I beg to move.

3.52 pm

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Minister of State Sun Xueling? I do not see any hands.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sun Xueling].

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.