Aspirations of Singapore Women

Resumption of Debate on Question (3 April 2017),

"That this House affirms the familial, social and economic contributions of Singapore women and its support for them to fulfil their family and career aspirations and to be future-ready." − (Ms Tin Pei Ling).

Question again proposed.

2.30 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I stand in full support for this Motion put up by Ms Tin Pei Ling and the other Members of the House.

There has been much ongoing debate about women's rights all over the world and through the decades. Women have been held back from full and equal participation in their societies because of narrow definitions of gender roles that have not evolved with the times. Even today, the global movement for women's rights and gender equality continues the struggle to make progress.

In Singapore, we have, indeed, made some progress. We can be proud of our own notable women politicians, such as Chan Choy Siong, an activist for women's rights who was key to the creation of the Women's Charter, and Dr Kanwaljit Soin, the first female NMP. Today, young girls − just like young boys − must attend school, because of our longstanding commitment to compulsory education. Today, women take up 45.8% of our total labour force, based on MOM's report in 2016. Clearly, their importance as economic contributors of this country cannot be under-estimated.

Because of these achievements, there are people who believe that gender equality is no longer an issue here. Yale Prof Deborah Rhodes described this as the "no-problem problem", that is, the erroneous perception that the problem of women's rights has been solved because there is evidence of growing opportunities for women.

The fact is, women continue to be constrained by discriminatory attitudes and practices, preventing them from participating in public life as full equals. In 2015, the World Economic Forum predicted that it would take 117 years for women to completely fill the gender gap. Let that figure sink in − 117 years. In that same year, YouGov released a report that saw Singapore ranking 12th in gender equality amongst 24 countries − behind China and Hong Kong.

In the last two general elections, female candidates for Parliament faced sexist scrutiny. An example to demonstrate the pervasiveness of this bias is this: a newspaper introducing several candidates on the same day, described three men in its headlines as "banking executive, engineer and professor", while a woman entrepreneur became "mother of two". Being a mother is undeniably very important and deserves recognition. Yet, putting women in the same frame implies that women only belong at home and are defined only by their family.

Now, some may say that these choices of words are merely turns of phrases by the media. But words are never merely words. Our language reflects our socio-cultural mores, attitudes and relationships. How we describe women has a direct impact on how gender relations are socially constructed. When we resort to terminology about gender stereotypes, we entrench these same stereotypes into society; in short, we normalise them. The media play a crucial part in promoting positive gender roles and eradicating gender stereotypes.

We should not assume that gender stereotypes will automatically go away over time. One survey from AWARE spoke to over 1,300 respondents. Of those aged 18-29, 66% of men believed that men should be heads of households, compared to only 43% of women in that age group. Similarly, 58% of men in this age group believed that women should take care of household chores and caregiving, compared to only 38% of women. It seems that young women have much more equitable views than young men. What are we going to do to inculcate fairer and more progressive views in young men and not just in young women?

We often hear of "traditional values" being passed down from one generation to the next. These "values", however, are often rooted in patriarchal constructs. And despite most family units now being dual-income ones, there remains an inequality of roles in housekeeping and caregiving, which women are expected to take charge of.

In Singapore, because many families engage foreign female domestic help, men are further excused from doing household chores or tending to their children or elderly parents. There is also an unwillingness to let go of these "traditional values" because they are "how things are meant to be", or they are "natural". They are how things have always been, as dictated by religious and cultural beliefs. It is in the "nature" of men to be breadwinners and head of households, and of women to bear and raise children.

I work in Drama Box Ltd, a theatre company, and I am the only man in this company. The rest, all seven of them, are very capable women. At this moment, all the seven women are in Rotterdam, as the company has been invited to participate in the International Community Arts Festival, showcasing our work. Leading the team is a woman, Associate Artistic Director Koh Hui Ling and then, at the same time, she brought along her young toddler, three-year-old Eunice, with her. And the rest of the team would be there to help her to take care of Eunice whenever she is busy. And then, I wonder how many of us men here, who travel a lot, would bring our toddlers along?

There is, of course, no biological or behavioural science that can back up the assumption of gender stereotypes. Nobody "naturally" knows how to operate a washing machine, soothe a cranky newborn or help an elderly relative take medication at the correct time, or clean and shower them. These activities, like many, many others, transcend gender.

But the sad fact is, we educate girls and boys very differently, with gender stereotyping already taking place at the earliest age. Little boys are told how strong they are and little girls are told how sweet they are. They are told stories where their whole lives and fates are bound up in their gender, instead of being allowed to develop as individuals. I have heard anecdotes from a parent, who shared that her child's preschool teacher had bought presents at the end of the school term. The boys in the class received books about superheroes. The girls received presents, too − books on how to become a princess.

How can we change the education system, so that every child, whatever their gender, can develop in the way that is best for them? Can our pedagogical materials explicitly include gender equality, rather than imply stereotypes and biases, both wittingly and otherwise?

We see this sort of reductive stereotyping in state policy- and decision-making as well. One clear example is how there is much less paternity leave than maternity leave. This extends even to adoption leave being available only to adoptive mothers and not adoptive fathers, though there is no biological argument about recovery from pregnancy and childbirth or breastfeeding which can justify this.

In addition, the lifetime income and CPF accumulation of women are lower than that of men − despite women having longer lifespans. This means women actually have a higher risk of experiencing poverty at old age than men. In a greying society like Singapore, this, in itself, should be cause for great concern. Greater strides must be made to bridge this gender divide to ensure the well-being of our female citizens.

These policies reflect the gender stereotype that childcare belongs to women. This reinforces the idea that women can, and should, "choose" to "focus on the family", as opposed to furthering their careers. As a result, it entrenches a discriminatory attitude that rationalises income disparity between men and women, hiring policies and even promotion prospects.

Is it any wonder then that Singapore's female labour force participation rate is lower than that of countries of similar income levels? Is it also any surprise that women are under-represented on company boards, at only a mere 9.5% of directorships in all Singapore Exchange (SGX) listed companies as of 2015?

One of the markers of a first world nation is gender equality and, by that, I mean equality not just in economic terms, but also in social ones. In our efforts to galvanise national economic growth, how can we better harness the potential of over 50% of our population? Statistics from MOM show that women still earn less than men, never mind that they have the same working hours and qualifications. How can we strive towards parity, so that we can reward our best workers according to achievements, rather than their gender?

We celebrate when women are appointed to new positions of leadership – the first female Speaker of Parliament, Madam, the first female full Minister. We call this "historical", using phrases like "big strides for women". However, such a mindset is archaic. As it stands, only 24% of people in Parliament are women. Some say it is better than a decade ago. But equality should not be granted based on time. It should be expected right here and right now.

A society that truly embraces gender equality is one that offers protection from harm towards men and women alike. Yet, today, we allow for contentious legislation that permits domestic violence. By that, I mean our laws that exempt marital rape from the criminal offence of rape unless certain conditions are met. How can we turn a blind eye towards a brutal act of violence like rape simply because it is committed by a family member? How can we, as a society, or as policymakers, protect vulnerable members of our society?

Our conversation has not even begun to address the rights of the transgender community. It may be an uncomfortable topic for some but, nevertheless, an urgent one. Our stand as leaders and our actions as lawmakers impact how society views and treats the transgender community. The more we talk about these issues, the more embracing and positive we are about their rights, the better they will be treated in school, at work and in their own families.

I bring this up because, at some point, we should go beyond gender altogether and just look at human rights the rights of all humans, the equality of all humans.

As a forward-looking society, we must take active steps towards a strategy of "gender mainstreaming". This term, established by the United Nations (UN), as a strategy for promoting gender equality, involves "ensuring that gender perspectives and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities − policy development, research, advocacy/dialogue, legislation, resource allocation, planning, implementation and monitoring of programmes and projects."

In short, the state must take on a proactive approach in establishing policies, be they in terms of education, employment or social welfare that promotes a mindset shift towards gender equality. In doing so, we not only strengthen our economy, but also ensure that we help citizens, regardless of gender, to achieve their aspirations, develop a positive sense of self-worth, as well as ensure their long-term well-being. We, as policymakers, must advocate for change and take firm steps to eliminate this discrimination for the betterment of our nation.

Virginia Woolf wrote this thought-provoking line in chapter 1 of A Room of One's Own, "Call me Mary Beton, call me Mary Seton, call me Mary Carmichael or any other names you, please. It is not a matter of importance". Yes, women have many different identities, multiple voices and perspectives and cannot be seen only through work, one lens.

In the same way, we men have to do that. We have different identities and we can assume many, many different roles. Then, we have a much more enriched human experience. With that, I thank you, Madam.

2.41 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, a woman living in this era, in this country, is very fortunate, compared to a woman living in another time or place. Here, a woman has access to education, healthcare and can make various choices. The fact that we have this opportunity today to speak about the aspirations of Singapore women, and are joined by the men, is a telling sign of our progress.

The reality, though, even in a country like Singapore, is that there is much still left to be done to improve the situation for women. My colleagues have addressed various issues. I would like to raise another aspect − financial well-being and retirement adequacy.

I was fortunate to have been involved in the drafting of the PAP Women's Wing paper issued in July last year and would like to share some insights. As we looked at some research and reviewed the milestones in a woman's life, we observed that various life circumstances lead women to make significant decisions and commitments which impact on her current and future financial well-being.

For example, as highlighted by several Members, women tend to be the primary caregivers for their family members. If she is working and she has children, there will, inevitably, be some impact on her career as she takes some time away for child birth, recovery and caring for the child. She would have to decide on the commitment she puts into her work versus the time she would spend with the child.

There may also be those who fall into the category of vulnerable women because of unfortunate life events like divorced women with children and single mothers. We also see that the current generation of retired elderly women tend to depend on their spouses and children for financial sustenance. The fact is that women generally live longer than men and may outlive her spouse. The children tend to have their own financial commitments. Therefore, some women may not be able to retire and need to continue working to earn income to sustain their expenses.

Yes, we have seen many women overcome these challenges and do well to balance their career and family life. The reality though is that various life circumstances result in many women being unable to fully exploit career opportunities. This takes a toll on her ability to work towards financial well-being and building her nest egg. Further, if a woman decides to stay home to care for her family, she should not be penalised and be financially disadvantaged because the work she does at home is equally significant to what she does in the office.

It is important for us, therefore, to look at certain measures to safeguard a woman's financial well-being and improve her retirement adequacy in the long run. There are three recommendations.

One, we should promote financial literacy and do this early. Financial education should be institutionalised and implemented as a core life skill to students. In this regard, we should look at embracing this life skill in MOE's 21st Century Competencies and integrate this into the teaching of other subjects, with increasing levels of sophistication as our students progress.

There is a slew of financial planning courses, mostly for adults. This is insufficient. MoneySENSE is a good platform and its efforts should be developed further. Outreach needs to be enhanced and more collaboration should be developed to implement more target-specific programmes.

Further, adding to the wish list for SkillsFuture, I believe we should also use the SkillsFuture platform to create intensive and meaningful financial literacy programmes which can help people plan their finances throughout life and to navigate difficult times.

Two, there is a need to promote retirement adequacy and this could be done through the CPF scheme. I note that there are already top-up schemes in place and, in this regard, I support the proposal made by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah yesterday.

A woman and her family members should be further incentivised to top up her CPF account up to the Basic Retirement Sum by offering a certain amount of dollar matching for the top-ups made. This would nudge women to work towards a target and, hopefully, develop a saving habit. In reviewing this, we should also look at how to further encourage and incentivise family members to recognise the efforts of unpaid caregivers or homemakers who are not in the workforce and to help them build on their retirement monies.

Three, a specific SkillsFuture package to be designed for mature or retired women who are seeking to return to work and in acquiring skill certification. In this regard, I echo the sentiments made by other Members and note that Minister Ong Ye Kung had yesterday touched on this in his speech.

I would like to highlight that many of these women may not have been engaged in any formal work and their expertise lies in caregiving. Typical situations we see are of homemakers whose children have grown up or long-term caregivers whose loved ones have passed on. Recognition should be given to their experience in long-term caregiving, household management and related skillsets. Back-to-work preparatory, conversion or certification programmes should be developed to help them monetise their skills and meet the national demands for caregivers. Mdm Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Women in Singapore today are fortunate. Life in our country is so much better, compared to life in the past and in other countries. Our rights are protected and we have many choices to improve our lives and the lives of our families. However, women must possess a sense of self-responsibility, the motivation to continue improving their capabilities and be informed about programmes and assistance that are available, as well as of opportunities to upgrade themselves.

On this matter, one aspect that I feel we should pay attention to is the financial situation of a woman and her retirement adequacy. The ups and downs in a woman's life often compel her to make decisions that will have an impact on her financial situation, not only in the short-term, but also for the long run.

For instance, if a woman chooses to stop working to take care of her children or parents, her ability to be financially independent and prepare for retirement will be affected. We can also find elderly women who are dependent on her husbands and children. The situation is quite worrying, especially if their husbands are no longer around and their children cannot afford to take care of their elderly mother.

Therefore, I feel that it is important that we try to increase awareness and put in place certain mechanisms to safeguard the financial health of women in Singapore.

Amongst other things, I have proposed that financial education begins at an early age. The principle and awareness on the importance of taking care of our financial health should be inculcated in schools. This is important, especially in an increasingly challenging world. I also suggest that incentives should be given to women and their family members for topping up the women's CPF account. If the top-up is supplemented by the Government, it will encourage women to want to reach a certain amount in their CPF accounts and this will at least ensure that she has money for her retirement, especially if she is not working and could not receive CPF contributions from an employer. In addition, I also hope for SkillsFuture programmes tailored specifically for women who have not worked for a while to take care of family members who do not require their care any longer, perhaps, because their parents have passed on and their children have all grown up.

These are the things that I feel can help improve a woman's financial situation as well as her retirement adequacy. However, what is more important is a woman's awareness and desire to continue improving and to take care of herself so that she will not suffer when she faces challenges or when she is in her golden years.

I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the men within our community to also pay attention to this matter and support women to achieve their aspirations together. A woman who has confidence and skills will improve the lives of her family and the community around her.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I am very privileged to have this opportunity to speak in this House, before you, a woman Speaker, and be amongst intelligent and inspiring women and men, doing our best to lend our voices to those whom we represent.

We have made much progress in supporting the aspirations of Singapore women over the years. We should continue in this effort so that women, regardless of their age, family circumstances and challenges, may continue to contribute towards the development of this nation. I stand in support of this Motion.

2.50 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): "Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country."

These were words uttered in 1979 on the campaign trail by the late Margaret Thatcher, a trail that led to her election as Prime Minister of the UK and a trail that she then blazed as The Iron Lady.

The actress Meryl Streep who played The Iron Lady summed up her legacy as "(having) given women and girls around the world reason to supplant fantasies of just being princesses with a different dream: the real-life option and possibility of leading their nation; this was ground-breaking and admirable."

The immediate past Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, said recently that, "Countries with higher levels of gender equality have higher economic growth. Companies with more women on their boards have higher returns. Peace agreements that include women are also more successful. Parliaments with more women take up a wider range of issues, including health, education, anti-discrimination and child support."

In our own local political sphere, we have many more women actively participating and contributing to the growth of our nation in recent years. Today, we have 21 female Members of Parliament and, amongst them, we have a Minister, four Senior Ministers of State and one Parliamentary Secretary, not to mention two Mayors, a Chairman of an opposition party and, of course, an enlightened and capable Speaker. We can and should have more in this august Chamber, but we are getting there.

Outside of this Chamber, the world is changing as well, but perhaps not as fast as we should. We live in a world almost evenly split between men and women, but women worldwide have been fighting for equal rights, equal opportunities and equal pay for long, and yet, regrettably, their efforts have yet to bear abundant fruit in many countries. Why is this so?

I would like to make reference to the recent position papers put up by the PAP Women's Wing titled "Strengthening Gender Diversity in Corporate leadership", which was submitted to the kind attention of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Only one in 10 on our corporate boards is a woman. Even China, India and Hong Kong register a healthier growth in this index. And our female board members get less than half the remuneration of their male counterparts. This is deplorable, especially here in Singapore. In fact, recruitment specialist, Robert Walters, in a report that was published last year, stated that 75% of working women in Singapore feel that they are inadequately represented in leadership positions.

Mdm Speaker, 50 years ago, when this little red dot of a nation was formed, its people were its source and strength. It is still relevant today. However, it should sadden us that half of our population are not getting their just dues.

Women in Singapore are an inspired lot. They know what they want − as chief executives, as businesswomen, working women and also not forgetting some as homemakers and mothers. They aspire for the best and will not stop at anything lesser than that.

In this House we have many capable and inspirational women, talented in different fields and, in the course of the debate on this worthy Motion, much will be said about and suggested on how we can achieve better gender parity on corporate boards as we journey towards achieving the aspirations of Singapore women. So, I shall not attempt to make a weak attempt at claiming to have any solutions that are better than those already put on the table. Instead, I hope to raise three related points that need to be said amidst this debate.

Firstly, stay-at-home mothers and caregivers, mentioned by a number of speakers already. As we work on the top end of the ladder, strengthening the diversity of talent at the mid-level and also open doors at the entry level, we must not forget that there is one group that has decided not to be on the ladder, either temporarily or permanently. These are our stay-at-home mothers as well as family caregivers. Some make conscious decisions to take on a role that they feel very passionate about; others, perhaps through circumstance, have had to take on the roles and also put their hearts into being the best in their unique areas and responsibilities.

Their roles are, therefore, no less important in society, but the challenges that they face are also no less worthy of our solutions. Many make sacrifices on income, healthcare, personal aspirations, all so that those they are closest to can either have a good start or a comfortable end. Often, it is women who are expected to take on these roles.

So, firstly, I repeat my call made in previous speeches and echoed by many Members of this House for stay-at-home-mothers and caregivers to be provided the same grants and tax reliefs that working women are granted. We are a society today that is fast consumed by productivity and even our policies towards women are somewhat driven by that same desire. Thus, it is unfortunate that it appears that a working mother seemingly becomes more highly valued than a stay-at-home-mother or caregiver. It is not easy for working mothers and they should rightfully be supported. But the converse, that stay-at-home-mothers or caregivers have it easier, is a fallacy.

If we can all acknowledge that mothers in general have an important role to play in their children's development, so why should mothers be differentiated between those who are working and those who are not? We have come to the realisation that fathers, too, play an important role in parenting and we have made moves for fathers to be more involved. But again, if we do not make a distinction for them, why skew it for women?

Secondly, encourage husbands to top up their wives' CPF accounts so that they have retirement adequacy even if they are just stopping work for a short period. To encourage this, I urge MOM to consider raising the interest rate returns for voluntary top-ups and increase the CPF Cash Top-up relief from spouse to spouse, or from child to parent. There have been suggestions for a mandatory system of contributions but I think we should encourage a voluntary system first.

Thirdly, for those who wish to return to the workforce when their children are older or when their caregiving roles have evolved, then they should be provided sufficient support to reintegrate them into the workforce. It does not have to be only about re-entry into full employment as the transition can sometimes be very difficult. Promoting more flexi-work arrangements, part-time work, targeted at stay-at-home-mothers and returning caregivers, will make the transition easier.

On a separate topic, on mindsets. Even as we urge for greater meritocracy so that women have better representation in the workplace and leadership positions and in society, what is perhaps missing in the statistical equation at the moment is that we do not have a lot of concrete studies on current perception of gender equality in Singapore, especially amongst younger Singaporeans.

In the maelstrom of information out there, the UN Human Development Report ranks Singapore at the top in Asia for gender equality in 2015. Yet, we are also one of the worst performing when it comes to gender equality in the boardroom.

Just last month, recruitment firm Hays conducted a survey and released the result on workplace gender equality. This report also pointed out a very large perception gap − 83% of Singapore men think that there is pay equality between men and women at their workplace, but only 63% of women in the same companies shared that view. Seventy-nine percent, in the same survey, of men believed that meritocracy already exists in career opportunities regardless of gender; for women, only 65% believed so.

While there is not a lot of available perception surveys for young Singaporeans, the just released findings of the Gender and Millennials Symposium on Gender Equality perhaps is telling. Prof David Cotter and Dr Joanna Peppin looked at 40 years of gender surveys and since the 1990s, 17- to 18-year-olds have overwhelmingly endorsed the idea that men and women should be equal at work and in politics − 90% and higher − that is, 17- to 18-years-olds believed that gender equality is important. Yet, the same study found that the idea of gender equality at home had conversely slipped. Close to 60% of those who were surveyed believed that the best family arrangement is where the man was provider and a woman was the carer. This contrasts with only 40% of respondents holding this view in the early 1990s.

Therefore, addressing this perception gap is an important step towards better understanding of gender equality. We cannot talk ourselves into a vacuum. There needs to be better studies on gender perceptions in Singapore because this will allow us to make better decisions and also address the root causes of the lack of gender equality at the workplace. And perhaps also educate younger Singaporeans on the importance of gender equality.

On a lighter note, the last point I wish to make is that we also need to acknowledge that stereotypes do not just affect women. They affect men as well. When we fight gender stereotypes levelled against women, we also need to be conscious that we do not end up confirming male stereotypes.

We move rightfully away from the perception that women are not the weaker sex. I think it is important for us to also realise that men are often boxed into needing to appear to be tough, to always have no emotions, to be stoic and always not express their feelings.

Former US First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt famously remarked, "A woman is like a tea bag − you cannot tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water." Today, we have showned that women are strong and can rise to the challenge and excel above even men. Men on the other hand should be free to express their feelings and not just feelings of hunger!

Mdm Speaker, Singapore women, if accorded the opportunities, have risen to the top, as you yourself so worthily personify. Therefore, we, both men and women, must ensure the aspirations of Singapore women, as well as men, should be met. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

3.02 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, in discussing the Motion that is being tabled, that is, "Aspirations of Singapore Women", various integrated and collective efforts must be made to support Singapore women in achieving these aspirations. The Government, community, family and every individual must play their respective roles.

Madam, in my speech, I would like to discuss three matters on the efforts to empower Singapore women so that they will be able to fulfil their familial and career aspirations and be more prepared for the future. Firstly, I would like to touch on several policy changes which the Government should embark upon to help women who are categorised the "vulnerable group" or the single mothers facing life's trials and tribulations. Secondly, the role of husbands in nurturing a more favourable and supportive cultural value at home so that their wives are able to balance their familial and career responsibilities, and, lastly, regarding the aspirations of Singapore Muslim women.

Madam, as many are aware, the lives of single mothers are extremely challenging. They are both the caregivers and the breadwinners. The difficulties faced by single mothers should receive concern from all quarters, including the Government. Government policies should be more directed towards alleviating the burden shouldered by this group.

Madam, in April last year, the Government made two positive policy changes to assist and alleviate the challenges and burden of single unwed mothers. The Child Development Account (CDA) scheme was extended to children born out of wedlock and the 16-week maternity leave was also extended to these single mothers, similar to other mothers. This is a very encouraging change and is well-received by Singaporeans who are very concerned about single mothers. I hope that these policy changes made last year do not end there but instead represent an initial step for the Government to continue helping this group.

Madam, apart from alleviating their financial burden, many of these single unwed mothers also hope for a change to HDB's housing policy. A home is one of the basic requirements for every person. The lack of a proper dwelling will affect the quality of life and human development as well as the family's development. For this group of people, they are not allowed to buy a house under the family nucleus scheme as children born out of wedlock are not regarded as part of a family nucleus. They are only eligible to buy a house under the "single" scheme, which has an age limit of 35 years and above. Unfortunately, a majority of these single unwed mothers are not even 35 years old, and, hence, do not fulfil this age requirement. They are also not allowed to rent a flat under the Public Rental Scheme based on the same reason, that is, their children are not regarded as part of a family nucleus.

Madam, one of the conditions under the Public Rental Scheme is that renting of flats is not allowed for a period of 30 months following the sale of a flat, which then becomes a barrier to divorced single mothers seeking proper and affordable dwellings.

Lamentations of "misfortunes seldom come alone" are often heard amongst these single mothers. Not only do they have to bear mental and emotional stress while undergoing divorce and being abandoned by their husbands, they now have to strive relentlessly to fulfil their responsibilities as their family's caregivers and breadwinners. Stranded in these situations, single mothers should not be further burdened with difficulties to seek out proper and affordable homes.

Madam, many Members of this House, past and present, have voiced their concern on the impact of this criterion imposed under the public rental scheme and I believe this concern has prevailed for years. I shall not belabour this point as I believe that the HDB is aware of it.

Many hope that this criterion will be revoked and exemptions given to single mothers who have gone through divorce. It is also hoped that HDB will outline policies that are more inclined to help and empower single mothers in their efforts to meet their basic living needs, that is, a conducive and affordable home, especially while they and their children struggle through this challenging time. A more positive support from HDB will enable single mothers to fulfil their familial and career aspirations.

Madam, the second matter I would like to touch upon is the role of husbands in nurturing a more favourable and supportive cultural value at home for their wives so that they can balance their familial responsibilities and careers. I will share this perspective based on my experience as a family and marriage counsellor and also as a husband.

Madam, marriage is a life partnership where husbands and wives are partners looking to achieve a harmonious and strong family. The values that should be inculcated in order to achieve such a family comprises mutual respect, trust in one another and understanding. These values have to be nurtured, practised and instilled within a family. In facing a hectic and challenging life, couples must be prepared to help one another in bringing up their children, household chores and also personal development, for instance, pursuing further education, as well as advancement in their respective careers. Married couples, especially husbands as the head of the household, should fashion themselves as a counselling and motivational expert to their spouses so that they will be able to provide moral, emotional and spiritual support and be the motivator for their partners to strive with perseverance and confidence. Such husbands will help their wives become more motivated and positive in balancing and fulfilling their familial and career aspirations.

Madam, the last matter I would like to bring up is the aspirations of Singapore Muslim women. We have heard spirited speeches from hon Members to convince the House to unanimously support the Motion that is being tabled, that is, to affirm and support Singapore women in fulfilling their familial and career aspirations. I hope that Members in this House will not exclude Muslim women who wish to fulfil their career aspirations in line with their religious obligations, that is, allowing the use of the headscarf or tudung in the nursing and uniformed vocations, such as the Home Team and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

Madam, many countries like Australia, UK and the US allow the use of the headscarf for Muslim women in their uniformed organisations so as to allow their Muslim women to fulfil their religious obligations whilst fulfilling their career aspirations. My question is, when will Singapore take a similar step?

Madam, this House has repeatedly discussed about building an inclusive society in Singapore, where every community, despite living in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, are able to feel that their concerns and aspirations are given due attention. As a Singapore Muslim, a husband as well as a father to a daughter, I appeal to the Government to make into reality this call for inclusiveness that is often heard in this Chamber. My hope is that the Government will reconsider the Muslim community's request for Singapore Muslim women to be given the chance to fulfil their career aspirations and, at the same time, meet their religious obligations.

Madam, I would like to end my speech with these words of wisdom: "Women are the pillars of a nation. If the pillars are strong, so will be the nation. And if the pillars are weak, so, too, the nation." Madam, a country where family, social and cultural values, as well as Government policies are inclined towards empowering women, will produce a nation strong in every aspect − family, social and economy.

3.11 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. In Singapore, human capital is our mainstay in attracting foreign investment and growing our economy in this first world era. Given that female enrolment at local Polytechnics is 89% of male enrolment and at university level for first degree is at 95% of male enrolment, the Government has been spending almost an equal amount on educating our young women as our young men.

Therefore, it is critical that investment in our people see good returns, that is, having its people remain in the workforce, remain economically active and contributing to civil society. With women labour force participation rate at 60.4%, 40% of women are not working, with family care being the main reason for dropping out of the workforce. I think it has been quite well-established that, given a choice, women want to have a career and still be able to fulfil their roles as caregivers in the family.

The Government has done much in supporting working parents through the Baby Bonus package, which comprehensively includes parental tax rebates, parental leave and cash support. The introduction of paternity leave is a bold step in the right direction in inculcating the culture of shared parenting. However, more can and needs to be done to level the playing field for women.

Until we have a pervasive family- and women-friendly work culture, two groups of women need to be supported if we are serious about tapping on the 40% of women who are currently out of the workforce − the working women in danger of dropping out of the workforce due to family-care reasons and the women who would like to return to the workforce after a period of intensive caregiving. We need to do more creatively to enable women to remain at work.

Now, I touch on flexible work arrangements to support women in the workforce as well as women returnees. We need to decisively plug the leak of experience out of Singapore's labour market by enabling women to remain in the workforce. This can be done through the implementation of flexible work arrangements (FWAs).

Flexible work arrangements are becoming an increasingly viable option for both businesses as well as employees as we move into the digital age and grow our pool of knowledge workers. With more workers in professional, managers and executives (PME) roles, job-sharing, where one full role is shared among two to three employees, is a viable role especially suited for PMEs who wish to scale up on their family-care roles while their children are young. Young working parents, especially mothers, can still have a meaningful career and contribute to the economy. On a lighter note, the last point I wish to make is that we also need to acknowledge that stereotypes do not just affect women. They affect men as well. When we fight gender stereotypes levelled against women, we also need to be conscious that we do not end up confirming male stereotypes while nurturing our young.

However, employers have been reluctant to offer such options, citing increased manpower costs when taking into consideration the whole salary package, for example, employees' insurance costs. Until they experience the tangible benefits of retaining their female talents, there will be inertia to move.

Is the Government able to defray part of the increased cost of rolling out flexible work arrangements, such as job-sharing, so that businesses are more willing to embark on exploring the viability of such working arrangements on a more permanent basis? This is more than Work Pro that is provided for FWAs.

Other than stopping the leak of experience, such flexible work arrangements, like job-sharing, can also attract women back into the workforce. After spending some time away from the labour market for family care, these women may want to step up gradually to help their families as well as themselves transit back into the working world. If the women can work in meaningful part-time or job-sharing roles, they will have more opportunity to reskill or update their skills while contributing economically.

We need to support women to return to work. Earlier this year, the National Trades Union Congress made a call for the Government to support women PMEs who wish to return to the workforce after a period of absence through a returnship programme where companies take in women PMEs with work experience for three to six months to help them to assimilate back into the working world. At the end of the returnship period, employers may choose to offer these women a position in the company and the women can decide if they would like to be part of the company. Can the Government support enlightened employers who are willing to embark on the returnship programme through funding and recognition, and handhold them in guiding these women returnees?

FWAs should not be seen as a privilege or entitlement for working women, but for all employees with responsibilities and aspirations outside of work. Perhaps it is timely for MOE to look into incorporating education on gender equality and shared caregiving between genders.

At the heart of the unlevel playing field is the issue of unequal caregiving roles between genders. Women may be better caregivers by nature. I am confident that men can also rise to the occasion if they were properly nurtured into the role and given the right support. This is especially important as our population ages and more working adults are called to provide caregiving to their elderly. Whether parenting or eldercare, it cannot be seen as a woman's job just because we are good at it.

Setting targets to enable more women to take on leadership roles is equally important.

Finally, I would like to touch on the topic of target-setting to improve women representation on boards. On 24 March 2017, BoardAgender and People's Action Party Women's Wing called for the 2020 target setting of working towards having at least 20% of women on boards of directors by 2020 as an aspirational goal. Looking at the lack of progress in getting women on board, I would urge the Government to adopt the recommendation.

Equally important is how we can adopt similar target-setting at different levels of the career ladder. This is to ensure that we will have a continuous stream of women talent being nurtured at different levels of leadership so that we will not be at a loss while finding women directors to make up 20% of the board. What can the Government do to encourage a more systematic inclusion of women at various levels of leadership so that more women may take on top leadership positions or boards of director than the current 9.7%?

One way is to include programmes or curriculum in tertiary institutions that will allow women to have a mock experience. While they are in employment, under talent management programmes, these women can be further identified and put through programmes that will enable them to further shine in their roles. We need to have deliberate means of providing women with these opportunities if we want to see real progress in the next 50 years.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng, do you have a clarification?

3.20 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, just one clarification. I listened to Mr Faisal Manap's heartfelt speech. As a fellow Singaporean, I would like to understand his views better and learn more. I was wondering whether Mr Faisal Manap feels that the tudung issue is the most important issue faced by women in the Muslim community today, in particular, whether it is a very significant and most important issue.

Secondly, I am also wondering what the Workers' Party's collective view on the tudung issue might be. I am hoping I could learn more about the Workers' Party's views and Mr Faisal Manap's views as well.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I thank the Member for his clarification. First, I would like to answer his point on my personal view. As a Muslim husband and a father to a daughter, yes, it is an obligation for Muslim women to don hijab in whatever circumstances.

In terms of the Party's stance on this, the Workers' Party had actually issued a statement sometime in November 2013. The gist of the statement is that Workers' Party does not oppose wearing of tudung, but we call for more dialogues amongst the stakeholders as well as the larger community and it should be based on mutual understanding.

3.22 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): I would like to start by applauding the unity of the women in our Parliament in coming together to move the Motion on Aspirations of Singapore Women. This is important because only in unity do we find strength. I am heartened that our men, too, have stood up to help lend their voice in support of this Motion, which is a positive and forward-looking Motion.

The speeches affirm the importance of the role of women in our multi-racial society and our economy. It is a far, far different cry from what we have heard maybe 50 years ago. They gave many practical suggestions to the Government on how to support all women in Singapore comprehensively: in leadership and social impact, employment and entrepreneurship, family and caregiving and financial well-being.

However, I find the approach of Mr Faisal Manap worrisome. He has used this Motion, which is focused on the aspirations of all women in Singapore, to raise again the issue of the tudung, to focus on differences instead of rallying people to be united. He dwells on issues that can injure or hurt the feelings of the community rather than to inspire them. In fact, Mr Faisal Manap has used many occasions to raise potentially discordant issues in this House.

I sat listening to him many times, championing divisive issues many times, like the need for halal kitchens in our naval ships and his perceived discrimination of the Malays in the army. Is it his or his party's position that these issues are the top concerns of the community? There are real socio-economic problems we have to deal with in our community − education, housing, jobs.

Mr Faisal Manap spent some time on these issues but he does not fail to leave behind a semblance, trails of these divisive issues relating to the community, everything from halal kitchens on ships to the issue of Palestine. He leaves behind to linger in the minds of our community not only to make them feel different, even to make them feel unjustifiably treated unequally.

The Government has responded to Mr Faisal Manap's queries on the tudung issue and other issues, and I will not elaborate today, except to emphasise that we are a multiracial society. And we all have a role to play to enlarge our common space. This is not to say that religious aspirations are not important. In fact, they must never be set aside. Religion is, indeed, important to many of us.

I assure Members that I, too, want to see progress on the tudung issue and religious matters that are dear to Muslims. I am also a father of a daughter. I am also a husband of my wife. That is why Government leaders and community leaders of all races and religions have been actively discussing such sensitive and deeply emotive matters in a number of closed-door platforms. It is not easily resolved, considering all the moving parts on this matter, but I am glad it continues to be under review.

The process entails understanding workplace requirements and operational needs in the wider scheme of things. I caution the Member against making this a state-versus-religion issue.

All these years, our approach has been to win people over slowly but surely, through mutual exchange and meaningful interaction to help Singaporeans understand one another, to understand every community's aspirations. We do this in the spirit of mutual respect, recognising that other communities, too, come with their own perspectives on how they want to live in these common spaces. And this will take time to accept.

There is a right time, a right place and a right way to discuss this. This approach has achieved for the community progress in recent years, which includes the extension of Edusave to madrasah students in 2013, waiving national examination fees for secular subjects taken by madrasah students in 2015 and better supporting madrasah teachers who teach secular subjects from this year. Likewise, the community can trust the Government and Muslim leaders to work together on the matter of the tudung.

The community and its religious leaders know that this is a religious matter best resolved and progressed naturally with the acceptance of our larger society. Our religious leaders do not choose to be strident on this matter. I wonder why the Member chooses to be so.

Mdm Speaker, the fundamental priority of this Government is to build harmony and trust among the races and religions and to protect this progress we have made so far. The issues of Malays in the SAF, tudung, even halal kitchen that the Member has talked about, are not issues of religion only. Even if they are put up that way, they are difficult issues to resolve. But, clearly, the way to make progress is gradually and quietly, working under the radar, to strengthen mutual trust and understanding among Singaporeans, so that we can move forward step by step. Indeed, that is how we have got here. Championing them in a high-profile way, which the Member does once in a while, using them to score political points, will not strengthen trust. It will only raise the temperature and actually make the problems harder to solve.

Mdm Speaker, we are fortunate because, by far, we have many among us who are clearly level-headed. Many of us, I understand and I believe, do not support the strident way to solve our problems. Indeed, even on the Internet, I have read about people who criticise Mr Faisal Manap for the way he has taken matters forward.

However, there are people who support Mr Faisal Manap. I saw a posting where he was posing at the "Wear White" campaign with Mr Zulfikar Shariff, who was arrested for his views and support for the ISIS terrorists in 2016, I think, for the "Wear White" campaign. It makes us wonder if Mr Faisal Manap is supporting Mr Zulfikar or is Mr Zulfikar supporting Mr Faisal Manap, or are they in together because of a common cause? But, indeed, are there common causes they are in together?

I would like to bring the discussion back to the core of the Motion. Many Members have spoken on this Motion and focused on how well we have done. Our women have achieved aspirations in education, supporting women at work and taking care of their families. These are things the Government will consider carefully, seriously. And these are matters all of us must work very hard on.

Indeed, many of these policies have helped Malay families tangibly. We are putting our efforts in education, raising the levels of achievement, helping to retrain and reskill older Malays, and getting Malay families living in rental flats to own them. There is a lot of work to be done but we have made steady progress.

Let me end by highlighting the great strides that Singapore Malay/Muslim women have made in a society that allows people of all races, all religions to make progress. One such example is Mdm Zuraidah Bte Abdullah, who is the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police, the highest-ranking Senior Officer in the Police; Chairperson of the Malay Heritage Foundation and a member of the National Library Board. She is the Commander of the Training Command.

Another is Ms Rahayu Binte Buang, CEO of MENDAKI. Prior to this, she served as the Director in the Family Education and Support Division and Office for Women's Development, also took care of probation, family issues before she joined MENDAKI. Yet another is our colleague, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, a Senior Consultant at SGH Emergency Medicine. And let me not forget to mention yourself, Speaker, who has done so well. We are very proud of you, the community is very proud of you. You also led NTUC as the Deputy Secretary-General.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to once again thank Ms Tin Pei Ling and all the women present here moving this Motion which, I hope, will help women, regardless of their race, religious beliefs or practices, make a mark in our society. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

3.32 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I would like to clarify some of the points made by the Minister who is trying to paint a negative image of myself.

Madam, firstly, I disagree with Minister's claim that I am causing discord and divisiveness. My point is that I choose to use Parliament as a platform, an official platform as an elected Member, to voice out the community's concerns.

I did not choose or post any kind of comment, negative comment, on social media, even though I have my own Facebook page but I did not choose to do that because I know such matters are better discussed officially.

So, I believe that as a Member of Parliament, elected through the GRC system, I do have the right to voice the concern. Some of the concerns that I have voiced out, for example, the halal kitchen issue, was not initiated by me but was mentioned by Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen. I was just reiterating what he had mentioned and asked him for clarification on whether there would be effort made to address that issue.

As for the point that the Minister made on Zulfikar, I was there to support the "Wear White" movement. I just want to repeat one more time: I was there to support the "Wear White" movement. I am not so sure what is behind Minister's mind when he tried to link me to Zulfikar. I am a bit distraught by his effort to paint me negatively when what I was trying to do was to voice out the concerns of the community on an official platform and avoid myself from being entangled in this kind of discussion on the social media platform. So, I believe that I have explained enough and I would appreciate if the Minister would be more positive in his remarks towards me.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Masagos.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mdm Speaker, Mr Faisal Manap is not repentant nor apologetic. He insists his strident approach is the correct way to do what he wants to do, he needs to do. Perhaps, it is the spirit of the first world Parliament. I put to Mr Faisal Manap that his strident approach is putting Singapore's multi-racial harmony at risk.

What we say about our religious rights, what we say is our right to do things in this multi-racial context may appease a part of our community, maybe it is even because we have to carry it out as a religious responsibility to voice it out. But remember others are listening, too. They are watching us. The Member may have spoken in Malay but everyone else understands the translated version, Members in this House and, later on, maybe he is posting to say that "I spoke about this".

Yesterday, the imam who made offensive remarks about Christians and Jews was found guilty by the Court and fined for the offensive remarks. Two others who traded barbs over the new media were given stern warnings. But I want to quote what the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore told TODAY newspaper.

He said, "Religious teachers must be aware that they are not just addressing their believers but also the world as well, and what they say can be heard by others, so they must be more cautious not to be seen as slighting other religions." This may not be about slighting religions but it also stirs emotions within our community and other communities who also have things and rites and rituals that they may want to do but may not be able to do because we value our common space. So, I believe this applies to all of us, all political leaders, when we raise issues on religion or race or language.

In Singapore, we have allowed large doses of freedom in our religious practices, especially those that do not impinge on others. But when we have to do something that is in the common spaces when we are working together, what we do as what we call our religious rights sometimes have push backs, uncomfortable feelings about what we do, by other communities, and we must recognise this.

Indeed, if each community pushes its own claims aggressively, there will be pushback, there will be animosity. Can we imagine that here we are campaigning for our Muslim ladies to put on their tudung, what are employers thinking? Do we also compromise the equal opportunity that these employers would have employed them on the basis of their competence, on the basis of their ability, and now they have to also consider whether they should be allowed other religious rights that they claim to be theirs?

Thankfully, all of us, most of us, are patient and rational voices and, unlike Mr Faisal Manap, I do not believe things like this should be discussed openly, publicly and then left hanging without answers. I believe that we should call for constructive engagements like he said. But we must not do it at a place that upsets social harmony. We must not do it among people who have other agendas who we may not be able to control and then may have consequences we never thought about.

Mdm Speaker, yesterday, like I mentioned, the imam was found guilty by the Court, two other fellows were given stern warnings but, today, there is calm in Singapore. I think if we put diary entries today, we would say "nothing of import happened today".

But not so in 1950 when the Court awarded custody of Maria Hertogh against the wishes of the Muslims who consequently rioted.

This calm that we have today is not, I believe, the level-headedness of Singaporeans. Yes, it is in a way, but it is because we have tended to our racial and religious harmony fastidiously. And, therefore, I will not take Mr Faisal Manap's tactic lightly and let him needle the community's sensitivity subtly and frequently. It leaves a lingering feeling of unsolved, unsolvable and impatience that, one day, I believe, will explode. Is that what Mr Faisal Manap wants?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Madam, I would like to clarify the point made by the Minister.

Firstly, I am not hiding behind my usage of my national language. It is the Malay language, it is the national language and it is my mother tongue. I am proud to use my national language in my speech.

Secondly, I would like to again ask the Minister if he provide to me or explain or share with me or share with the House any specific, particular situation where I tried to cause discord or divisiveness. What I have been asking since I was elected in this House is for the Government to address the issue. I called for a committee to be formed, a commission to be formed to look into the concerns of the Malay community. How does that cause divisiveness and discord?

I have not imposed any of my thoughts and I did not mention even for the sake of the Muslim community we have to compromise the national or the social cohesiveness or integration. So, I would like to ask the Minister can he provide, can he explain any examples where I am sowing discord and divisiveness.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Masagos.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member does not need to intend to sow discord. But the practice of subtly and frequently bringing issues that are sensitive to the community, knowing that these are not easy to resolve and cleverly turning it into a state-versus-religion issue. These are all very dangerous moves.

I actually wonder whether the Workers' Party and its leadership are committed to the racial and religious harmony which underpins the security of this country. Do we want to go back to the politics of race and religion of the 1960s, the politics we wanted to avoid when we left Malaysia? If we do not want that, why do we let a Member constantly raise these issues to stir the community, to tell them "you are different", to subtly suggest to them "we are not able to address your issues now because the Government won't do it"?

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: The Minister has not answered my question of an example of where I have caused discord and divisiveness. On what Minister mentioned earlier about the issue faced by the community being not easy to resolve, hence, I have been asking persistently and consistently for the Government to address the issue. That is the point that I have been making since I was elected and I have even started to make this point after the Suara Musyawarah Report was made public, based on that concern voiced in that report, as a basis for my point that I bring up in Parliament.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: If I have not heard the Member, the Member also has not heard me. The Government does not address this in public forums, in debates, in places like this where sensitive matters can be discussed out of context, emotionally and, sometimes, because they are not easy to resolve, because they cannot be quickly resolved, leaves a lingering, unhappy feeling in a community. It may not be our community, it can be any community.

Therefore, the approach of the Government is to address this within closed doors, with the community leaders and people who are responsible to carry the message for us and with us.

Like I mentioned to Mr Faisal Manap, what is worrying me is not so much about whether he intends to sow discord. The imam did not intend to say anything to hurt the Christians or the Jews. But the Christians and the Jews, now that it is out in the open, do feel insulted.

It is not only our intention that matters. It is our action and how people interpret it. I met some students in Mecca at Medina very recently and they were unhappy. They were concerned that many people think people who study in Mecca, Medina would have what they call Salafi thinking, not moderate, very extreme. And they say, "We do not do all these things. We say all the good things. We tell people to do only the right things as a Muslim." But I asked them, "Have you ever checked what people think and what people do after what you said and what you teach them? Have you ever gone to the ground to check the impact of what you teach them?"

As an example, I told them there was a divorce that happened after they got the wife to become very religiously observant. The wife, because the husband is not so religiously observant, divorced the husband. And what were they doing? Only telling good things.

And, therefore, as responsible Members of this House, I hope the Member just does not do this as a matter of course because it is a responsibility to do so, even if it is your right to do so, but do this responsibly because we have a context, we have a very precious social fabric to preserve. I ask the Workers' Party and everybody here, respect that, preserve that. Because this is something we can leave for our children. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap, please keep it short. We are running out of time.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Thank you, Madam. I just like to address one point that was brought up by the Minister. He mentioned that public consultations, including in this Chamber, are not the right places to discuss such matters. I believe that this is the best platform, an official platform for me as an elected Member of Parliament to bring up the issues.

Indeed, last November, we did mention a very sensitive issue regarding having a Malay or minority to be elected as the Head of State. I believe that is a sensitive issue that was discussed openly in Parliament. Again, the result was to proceed with the reserved Elected President based on, to brush aside the perspective that a Malay cannot assume the highest position in the state both by the Malays themselves as well as the non-Malays.

So, I believe this is the right platform for me to bring up. If not here, where else, can I, as an elected Member of Parliament, voice out the concerns of the community? Thank you, Madam.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Even when I was not a Member of Parliament, I could talk about this. I remember in 2002 – please look up the reports – when I was involved in discussions with the Government on a similar issue about uniforms in schools. What did I say? What did I do? I have a platform. Yes, I do. Did I have to go out and go and try and create havoc? No, I did not. I did not. This is exactly the spirit we want.

We do not need a place in Parliament to voice things out when we know that it is sensitive. I engaged the Government quietly. I met Ministers, Senior Ministers of State ─ at that time, it was Dr Aline Wong ─ to discuss the issue quietly. We had an agreement that there are things that we discuss here openly and do not share out there because there may be things that may be misunderstood and we have to move on.

Finally, the outcome of that particular episode was one where the Mufti, knowing very well what is the priority of our community, made a statement to tell us knowledge is more important for us to pursue, not just the covering of our heads. The community moved on. But why did the community move on? Because after that, the community leaders came together to calm the situation down and got everybody to move on.

I would bet you, a similar situation elsewhere will not happen. It will continue to rile the community. It will continue to make the community upset because nobody will cede what they think is their right.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Intan, present your speech.

3.51 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Madam. Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of this Motion. Policies and initiatives to support working women and women in general have been encouraging and have helped women better manage their multiple roles in the home, at work and in the community. However, there is still more that needs to be done.

In my speech, I would like to touch on three areas, that of (a) work support for women; (b) shared responsibilities; and (c) financial planning and retirement adequacy, all of which have also been put forward in the PAP Women's Wing position paper published in July last year.

Work support. For many women, the desire to work or stay at home is shaped by different reasons − personal goals, family responsibilities or the family's economic situation, among others. The choice is really up to each woman and in consultation with their significant others.

However, for women who have decided to stay at home to take care of their children or elderly parents or even family members with special needs, and who, thereafter, decide to return to work, they would need the necessary conditions and provisions to (a) choose between returning to full-time or part-time or flexi-work; (b) have adequate support for their caregiving responsibilities; and (c) learn and re-learn relevant knowledge and skills needed for the work they are returning to.

I am glad to see greater support for women for childcare and elderly caregiving, be it in terms of financial, social or emotional support. It is not yet ideal, but we are headed in the right direction.

I hope to see more provisions given to our women to have easier access to learn and re-learn relevant knowledge and skills that are needed for the work they are returning to.

To elaborate, under the SkillsFuture initiatives, specific course packages can be designed to help women in areas, such as information technology skills, effective use of social media, issues on cybersecurity, or even an overview of financial or social assistance schemes and policies that they need to know and can leverage on to help our women manage their multiple roles and responsibilities.

I would like to see more employers, including the public sector, design a returnship programme for women to ease back to work after taking some time off for child or elderly caregiving. This returnship programme can provide our back-to-work women with a flexi-work or part-time work arrangement in the first instance for a period of three to six months, before they decide to resume full-time work.

The returnship programme can also include a work placement support and internship programme for our back-to-work women to have enough time to learn about the company they are joining and the work they will be doing. I hope that our unions also will be able to support such a returnship programme for our back-to-work women.

In addition, I would also urge our public sector and private sector employers to make greater provisions for flexi- or part-time work for both mothers and fathers as well. For instance, flexi-work in the form of allowing several weeks of working from home when family exigencies come up, with no disruption to salaries or performance appraisals, would be ideal. Allowing working mothers and working fathers to work as a work-team will make it easier for flexi-work to be implemented and taken up, as teammates can cover office duties when a working mother or father needs to do flexi-work and work from home.

Such provisions allow for greater flexibility for couples to decide on child or elderly caregiving arrangements depending on the needs of their families and for them to share such responsibilities, which brings me to my next point on shared responsibilities.

Changes to maternity leave provisions, where mothers have 16 weeks of maternity leave, and the introduction of the two-week paternity leave from 1 January this year have been significant in helping young couples share the joy and responsibilities of parenthood. While I hope for greater provision of both maternity and paternity leave in future, as well as eldercare sick leave to be the norm, too, I recognise that shared responsibilities towards parenthood and the family are not just up to the Government to provide.

Our societal norms and traditions also need to evolve. For instance, we have to change our perceptions of mothers being the main caregiver for children or the home − for mothers to be the one to cook, clean, wash, teach and take care of our children.

Fathers have an equally important role to play in caring for our children and in keeping house that extends beyond just putting the children to bed. When our children see their fathers doing housework, lending a hand in changing diapers, or cooking meals at home, we shape our children's perceptions of societal norms and responsibilities and traditions. We broaden their minds and we help them see that both boys and girls have a part to play in keeping the family together and in taking care of the household.

Similarly, we also need to change how we perceive elderly caregiving. Traditionally, we expect daughters or grown-up children who are not married to be the ones to take care of our elderly parents. When this is not possible, we expect others to take care of them − this can be in the form of the Government, nursing homes, or even domestic helpers − to fulfil such responsibilities. This also needs to change.

Taking care of our elderly parents is a shared responsibility for everyone in the family − daughters or sons, married or otherwise. The Government, geriatric professionals or domestic helpers can be there to lend support and assistance, but not to assume the entire role of caregiving to the elderly.

We would need employers to make provisions not just for maternity or paternity leave, but also for eldercare leave. Providing for flexi-work or work-teams or shared work in the workplace, would help us fulfil our caregiving responsibilities. I look forward to greater support from our employers, including from the public sector, in this.

My third point is on financial planning and retirement adequacy. More of our women are now working − whether full-time, part-time or doing freelancing work to supplement the family income. I am heartened by this, where our women are increasingly more financially independent and are able to earn their keep, without having to depend on their husbands or children or on others. However, with our labour participation rate for women at around 60%, there are many opportunities for our women to be even more economically active. At this point, Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] More and more of our women are now working and are able to provide for the family. Compared to our grandparents' time, women today are more highly educated, possess 21st century competencies and skills and have more opportunities to work, to acquire knowledge and global experience and also to pursue their interests further.

Having said that, however, the proportion of Malay women who are not working is higher, compared to the other communities in Singapore. While the decision to be a homemaker is a personal one, I am, nonetheless, concerned about the ability of our women to, firstly, plan for their long-term financial needs and capacity; and, secondly, ensure their retirement adequacy in old age.

I respect the decision of Malay women when they want to be full-time homemakers or to work part-time while their primary responsibility is raising children and taking care of the household. But at the same time, I do hope our women will plan more carefully for their long-term financial needs and capacity.

For example, they should plan to save from a young age for their children's education − whether through a savings account in the bank or through an education insurance scheme for their children − as well as engage in financial planning for themselves. Our women should have personal savings for their own needs, too.

Furthermore, women should plan for retirement adequacy for the future when they grow old. We have to recognise that, in general, women have longer life expectancies than men and a greater likelihood of having to support themselves and be financially independent even in their silver years.

In the six years I have served as a Member of Parliament, I have often encountered our Malay women residents who are quite elderly, that is, more than 65 years, who have no income or savings of their own, no spouse because their husbands have either died or they have divorced and may have also been abandoned by their children. They have no family support, alone and helpless, and are dependent on public sympathy and compassion. I feel heartbroken whenever I meet them and I hope I will never see such a situation becoming widespread among our Malay women.

With due respect to our men, I urge and make this appeal to our women that they should not be too dependent on their husbands financially and for retirement adequacy in old age.

Regardless of whether our women choose to be full-time homemakers or to work part-time or work full-time, I hope they have clear plans that ensure their own financial independence and retirement adequacy. At this point, Mdm Speaker, I would like to close my speech in English.

(In English): Over the years, more provisions and support have been given to help women manage our multiple roles and responsibilities − in the family, at work and in the community. While such provisions and support have been encouraging, certainly, more can still be done to ensure that our women can continue to be the best daughters, best wives, best mothers, best employees, best leaders and important members of our community for now and the future. Sometimes, we can ask for changes to be made. But sometimes, we need to make those changes ourselves.

It has been said, "There is no force more powerful than a woman determined to rise". So, rise, mothers, daughters, sisters and let us be the change we want to see in our community and in the world. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

4.01 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, it is not uncommon to hear about four generations of women in a Singaporean family living lives and having experiences mirroring Singapore's developments. With grandma doing menial jobs to support her many children, mom having had some form of education and working in an SME or a factory, my current generation with greater access to education options and working in jobs that we desire and, finally, our children, having the possibility to be what they want to be and living lives that are meaningful and fulfilling.

At this point, given the progress that women have made in Singapore, what more can be done to ensure that we, the mothers, sisters and daughters of Singapore, can be the best that we can be and, in so doing, give the best to those around us? We aspire for equal opportunity – the opportunity to be recognised fairly for the work that we do, the opportunity to rise up in a corporate or in the community for the efforts that we put in.

A statistic that Minister Grace Fu brought up recently is disturbing − only 9.7% of board positions in Singapore corporates are filled by women. Given the increasing numbers of women as employees and as consumers, companies may be missing an important perspective on their products and services as well as the management of their company, by not tapping on the perspectives that women bring.

The Diversity Action Committee (DAC) has done important work in this area. With their database of suitable women candidates for board positions and a knowledge of the capability requirements to become a board director, corporates facing difficulties identifying suitable women candidates for board positions could interface more with DAC. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and Trade Associations, with their network of employers, can also play an active role by putting these employers in touch with DAC. A little step every way can help us narrow this yawning gap in women in corporate leadership.

Women also aspire to positions in community leadership. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women community leaders at the Resident's Committee level number about 40% but women community leaders at the Citizens' Consultative Committee level number about 20%, if not less.

With increasing social spending from the Government on healthcare and childcare needs and a greater call for a whole-of-society approach to dealing with our society's needs, perhaps there can be more targeted recruitment, training and retention activities aimed at women volunteers. Women volunteers can bring in very different strengths and capabilities in community work and address the needs of special groups in the community.

At different junctures of our lives, women may have to make decisions to balance competing needs of their careers and their families. If we were to take a life-cycle approach to the decisions that women have to make, it may be easier to identify the pressure points that women face.

Firstly, young women leaving the school environment, about to embark on their careers could benefit from having women mentors and learning about business networking. The work of Young Women's Leadership Connection (YWLC) is thus important as its network of women mentors can help support young women leaders in their journey to fulfil their aspirations. Can we further support the work of YWLC?

The next juncture where women may face disruptions in their careers could be due to childbearing or the need to care for the elderly in the family. As Minister Ong Ye Kung pointed out yesterday, the employment rate for women shows a sharp drop after 25-29 years, which coincides with peak childbearing years. Can we go a step further and identify the industries that show the highest drop-out rate for women and tailor the engagement for these women to encourage them to stay in the workforce?

Flexible work arrangements are one way to encourage people to stay in the workforce who might otherwise have dropped out. This benefits both men and women. Just as there are industry transformation maps for technology, there can be industry transformation maps for HR practices. I hope that the tripartite partners can work together to identify which industries and which areas of work can be most easily flexi-ed.

Can there be more granular work arrangements so that flexi-work, flexi-place and flexi-load can truly be implementable? Jobs can be shared and, correspondingly, wages can be apportioned. With greater deliberation, we can try to customise work arrangements to bring in workers who otherwise might not be able to participate in the workforce.

Lastly, alleviating stress points around childcare can also help women and, in so doing, release constraints that potentially impede them from making optimal choices in their careers and family life. For instance, childcare options in estates with many young families have been a perennial bugbear. It would be helpful if MOE can consider setting up childcare centres, as young parents need full-day childcare facilities to take care of their toddlers while they are at work.

Further, the opening hours till 7.00 pm for most childcare operators create a huge stress point for young parents who are not able to reach the school on time to pick up their children. Most working adults I know finish work after 6.00 pm. Can we look at options to keep childcare centres open till 8.00 pm, so that parents have a reasonable amount of time to pick up their children after work?

A little step of the way can go a long way towards helping our women. We are responsible and stand by the choices we make in our lives. But do ensure that equal opportunities are made available to us. Ensure that our efforts meet just rewards. Help us make the choices we make easier as we are trying our best to be a good wife, a good mother and a useful citizen. By being the best that we can be, we can give our best to you. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At different junctures of our lives, women may have to make decisions to balance the competing needs of their careers and their families.

Firstly, young women leaving the school environment, about to embark on their careers could benefit from having women mentors to help them expand their social circle and learn about business networking. The work of Young Women's Leadership Connection is thus very important.

The next juncture women may face could be due to childbearing or the need to care for the elderly in the family. In this area, if we could take into consideration their needs and concerns, we will be able to better support them by providing training or flexible work arrangement (FWA), so that companies can retain or re-employ female employees.

FWA benefits both men and women. Just as we have Industry Transformation Maps for technology, there can be Industry Transformation Maps for HR practices. Can we all work together to see which industries and which areas of work can be most easily flexi-ed?

Lastly, alleviating stress points around childcare is also important for women. Would it be possible for MOE to consider setting up MOE childcare centres instead of just MOE Kindergartens? When it comes to opening hours, what options are there to keep childcare centres open till 8.00 pm so that parents have a reasonable amount of time to travel to pick up their children?

A little step forward can go a long way towards helping our women. Please help her by ensuring that equal opportunities are made available to her. Ensure that her efforts meet just rewards. Help her make the choices easier as she is trying her best to be a good wife, a good mother and a useful citizen. Your understanding will be rewarded by her giving her best to you.

4.10 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I have heard of superstar women who managed to somehow do it all. They manage an amazing career, sew their own buttons, make home-cooked meals, tutor their brilliant children and somehow, still manage to look Instagram-worthy. And yes, these amazing unicorns apparently exist and I do not know how they do it.

On weekdays, I still struggle to leave office on time to be at home for my child. And on weekends or weeknights, I have unfinished business to clear, like writing this speech, for instance. I cannot do anything without my husband and domestic helper playing tag-team with me. The year that my father fell ill and my kid was just born was also the first year that I took up the Nominated Member of Parliament position, on top of all my other work. And I could only do what I do because I had supportive teams at work. I had state-subsidised infant care near my home, I had my mum and my sister taking turns being caregiver to my dad, and we could afford external part-time caregivers when my mom needed a break.

I love doing my work, but I know I would definitely have had to drop out of the workforce if I did not have access to an equal system of paid and unpaid help supporting me at the home level, as well as at the broader societal level. If we want to see more women keep their families together, keep contributing to the economy and keep rising to represent us on corporate boards and political positions, we do have to design an inclusive ecosystem of caregiving that all women can access and afford.

A few weeks ago, after Budget season, I received an online message from a woman whom I have never met. She was not asking for any answers and she was not requesting for any favours. She was just hoping for someone to feel her present struggle and care for her future story.

She wrote, "I am a mother to four boys, married to a civil servant, but you have no idea how hard life has been for us. We keep on trying and striving and doing our best to survive, not for ourselves, but for our boys. I wake up every day at 4.30 am in the morning to cook because my children cannot eat the food from school, and I have been packing their lunches for more than 10 years. I rush to cook, clean and get my kids ready for school. We live far away, and my husband sends them to school each morning, but I will rush to my office to work. Then, I will fetch my kids home by bus. I cook lunch and sit down with my kids for revision, I check their homework. I am not well-educated, so I also have to engage tutors for the boys. But I can only do so much. My business does not earn very much, but I do it anyway just for the kids, to pay for tuition fees, to help my husband out. And yes, the story is long and boring and tiring, but that is how I feel, too. Sometimes, I will cry myself to sleep, and feel that I have failed as a mum who cannot provide enough for her children and as an only daughter who cannot provide enough for her own mother. Bills and more bills to pay, problems after problems. It gets very frustrating and I wish someone could listen to what I have to say and understand my plight, but sadly no one is there. And we only have our family, just us."

I wanted to bring her voice in this House so that we can get a sense of what at least one real woman on the ground might be thinking as she listens to us discuss in theory how to affirm every woman's contributions and support her aspirations. Her story is not representative of every Singapore woman's story, but I believe it does have enough threads within to bind it to a wider tapestry of even tougher tales out there. For many women, it is difficult to aspire about a faraway future, where the demands of the present feel so overwhelming.

Planning for the future is a luxury only those of us who have the privilege of time and mental bandwidth can afford. And yes, a woman who has cash to spare in her household budget can have the option of purchasing the spare time and mental bandwidth she needs in the present to improve her future prospects. She can hire a domestic worker to clean the house and cook the meals. She can pay for laundry to be pressed and groceries to be delivered. She can hire school buses to do the fetching and tutors to do the revising. She can engage the best live-in nurses for her parents and all-day preschools for her kids. And she can pay for financial planners to strategise the growth of her savings and investments. So, yes, theoretically, a woman can outsource all the jobs in her extensive portfolio of home-based work to an army of many to do, but many women do not.

Many women take on either the full or partial portfolio of caregiving work onto themselves. And for some women, it is a deliberate and happy choice. They may have the wealth to pay for external help and they are personally convicted that some types of domestic work, particularly caregiving for their ageing parents or young children, are too sacred to be outsourced to strangers.

They derive great personal satisfaction from being a full-time worker at home, rather than a full-time worker in the office. And they may take a financial hit for their choice, but they have enough financial reserves and social support to feel at peace about their future.

But for other women, it is not that simple. They may share similar values as the first group and embrace the meaning of caregiving as well, but their decision to be a caregiver may be driven more out of a lack of financial capital to engage paid help or a lack of social capital to engage alternative sources of unpaid help.

They may also have done their math and compared the income they would derive from working versus the cost they would pay for external help, and then they sacrifice the job they enjoy to be a caregiver because it is just the more affordable option. They do want to care for their loved ones and they do so either on a full-time or part-time basis, but they are also clear that they want to go back to office work someday, either because they have personal goals to fulfil or because they know they just need the income.

My focus today is on how we can better support the aspirations in future of this second group of women. Statistically, women tend to shoulder a significantly larger portion of the burden of unpaid invisible caregiving work, much more so than men. According to MOM Report on the Labour Force in Singapore for 2015, 80,848 women between the ages of 25 and 54 left the labour force due to family responsibilities, compared to just 4,439 men. In 2014, it was 70,060 women who left, compared to 3,564 men.

The number of women who leave the visible paid labour force to enter the invisible and unpaid labour force of domestic caregiving is a big deal because, firstly, the labour is not free. It comes at great individual cost. Presently, we have many older women today, widows or single unmarried women who currently face financial insecurity because they sacrificed their lifetime earnings and savings to care for dependants at the peak of their working years.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin observed in a 2012 interview with the Council for Third Age (C3A) that, usually, because women live longer than men, the women will be looking after her husband through his last illness, spending most of their savings on him. After he dies, she is without a spouse, with little material resources left and there are about five times as many widows than widowers in Singapore.

Secondly, there is also a great societal cost, particularly for a small country like Singapore. Our female labour force participation rate of 58.6% in 2014 was lower than in most other first world countries at similar income levels, like Denmark at 75% and Switzerland at 79%. In a tight labour market like ours, especially given our low birth rates, we do have to increase our female labour participation rate. But if we want more of our women to stay in the labour force or re-enter it after their time of caregiving, we must provide better systemic support for their work of caregiving.

I have three requests. My first request is on behalf of the financial future of full-time home-based caregivers. A 2015/2016 CPF Advisory Panel Recommendations Report expressed worry about the financial vulnerability of our female caregivers who leave the workforce and are completely reliant on their husband's CPF payouts for their retirement. Should these caregivers outlive their husbands, they will have no sustained income.

Currently, there is a system of voluntary CPF transfers from income-earners to non-earning caregivers that is incentivised by the Government. There were 86,198 top-ups made in 2015. But if we have an estimated 210,000 caregivers here, then it does imply that there are still many caregivers who do not receive CPF retirement savings for their work.

Member of Parliament Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has suggested having a system of automatic transfers with an opt-out option from an income-earning spouse to a non-income earning caregiver spouse's account under the Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme. If voluntary transfers do not climb significantly, then I think we have to consider this intrusive option.

I also wonder if we can encourage income-earning spouses, children, relatives or even friends to contribute to some kind of Caregiver Development Account. It allows the community to practically honour the work of the caregivers that they love as well as encourage the caregivers to take care of their own well-being and development. It could be something like how the Government currently encourages parents to save for their child's future through the Child Development Account. The state can offer a cap of one-for-one matching grant over a fixed time period and the money can similarly only be taken out by the caregiver for a select range of self-care or self-development activities, to ensure that claimants are true caregivers rather than opportunists. Claimants should be required to identify the range of activities of daily living that they do so on behalf of a care recipient. This initiative could also be limited only to claimants or care recipients who do not employ foreign domestic workers.

My second request is on behalf of the career aspirations of lower income mothers. It is really difficult to go on job searches or training workshops without first getting access to alternative caregiving help. I echo Member of Parliament Cheryl Chan's call to relook the chicken-and-egg situation some of these mothers are caught in where they need to be employed before receiving state subsidies for childcare. The barrier faced by some of these women in finding a job or keeping a job is, in fact, the lack of affordable childcare. I hope we can help them in their search for employment and removing the requirement of employment for women with household income lower than $2,500.

We could explore granting jobseekers from lower income households a limited number of months of childcare subsidies upon application. After that, they can show periodic proof that they are on a genuine job search by showing evidence of registration with job-matching agencies like e2i or job applications with potential employers. Such transitional support will be a valuable boost to their morale and motivate the search for stable work within the timeframe of the given childcare subsidies.

My third request is a long-term and more drastic one. I appreciate Minister of State Lam Pin Min's sharing yesterday of the Ministry's efforts to improve access to caregiving and respite services but still I believe that as long as we leave caregiving as a problem primarily for individual families to resolve, then we will continue to see individual women become the solution by leaving paid employment.

Given how fast our dependency ratio is rising and how much we need our women to stay in the workforce, I believe somewhere down the road, we will have to design a caregiving infrastructure that provides universal access to caregiving services for our elderly, children and people with disabilities. A national system of caregiving will not only allow women providing unpaid care at home to return to the workforce with more confidence, it will also be most impactful on the fortunes of the low-income and sandwich-class families who need these resources most.

I do not bring this up lightly because I know it is an extremely costly, complex and controversial venture and the staffing cost alone will be huge. I imagine such a system cannot be supported purely by tax dollar-paid professionals alone but by an army of unpaid volunteers as well.

At the risk of laying yet another burden of care on us women, there is a controversial solution I have heard before which I believe we will have to debate about in due course. In 2015, Mr Ho Kwon Ping argued in his IPS-Nathan Lecture that we should consider universal female conscription as a solution to the overwhelming flood of future needs we will soon face in community care. He proposed that while Singaporean men serve a two-year military regime, Singaporean women could serve a three- to five-month community conscription during their break between graduation and entering the workforce. He imagined female national service women as a force that could support our civil defence, Home Team community and healthcare institutions. He believed that female national service women could really make a difference in service to their country's oldest, weakest and poorest, providing support in caregiver relief, elder care or even childcare while lessening our dependence on foreign caregivers.

The possibilities for societal impact could be stunning and so will the personal cost. Young women will have to give up their time and opportunity and freedom but this is the very same price we have asked our young men to pay all these years for military conscription.

Universal female conscription may not be a popular idea for now but, in stark contrast, the idea that National Service is noble work and an excellent character-building opportunity for fathers, husbands, boyfriends or sons is. Given that, our men have sacrificed so much over the first 50 years to serve and defend our country. It only seems fair for us women to also keep an open mind and a willing heart for the next 50 years to answer the call to serve and defend the communities we love, should that request ever be made of us.

I do not know if female community-based conscription will ever be a reality but I do know that, if it ever does come to pass, I will be very glad to have my own daughter serve the nation that way. If I am not too old by then and this country will still have me, I will be equally glad to serve alongside.

I want to close my speech by bringing us back to that first woman's story. It was she who inspired me to speak on this Motion because reading her message, while I felt for her sorrows, I also felt great admiration for her strengths. Women like her wrote the book on hard work and resilience. No matter how hopeless things feel, how tired they are, how many tears they have shed, they know how to get up, wipe the mess and soldier on like the warriors that they are. She is struggling but she is not giving up − not yet.

Many women like her are already fighting for their aspirations and their families' futures. They just want to know whether we are in our own trenches fighting for them, too, because just knowing that we are together in this fight makes their fight feel a little easier.

I believe that many of us from both sides of the House do share the hope to help our women. We and the rest of this nation can be that larger family beyond their own that they need. There are very real barriers of time, bandwidth, privilege and bureaucracy that stand in their way that are very difficult for them to overcome by themselves. Let us give our fighting women a fighting chance at their dreams of the future by meeting them halfway and breaking down those walls for them a brick at a time. I support this Motion.

4.25 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, it may be difficult to imagine, but conceptions of a woman's place in society were very different just one or two generations ago. Both my grandmothers were homemakers and, in their generation, most of their female counterparts would similarly be at home. In my maternal grandmother's case, she came to Singapore from India in order to be educated. However, after Primary 1, World War II broke out and her education was stopped. After the war, her guardian told her that, as a woman, it was not good to be too educated because it would be difficult to get married and that was the end of her education.

However, post-Independence Singapore was a very different place. The PAP Government at that time governed on the premise that men and women should have equal opportunities. Education was made universal and compulsory. Both boys and girls had to have Primary education and school fees were nominal. The Women's Charter was passed in 1961, barely two years after the PAP came into power and even before Singapore's Independence.

My parents' generation saw the benefit of these changes. My mother and all the aunts had full education, unlike their own mothers, and joined the workforce after their education. Indeed, my maternal grandmother, whose own education was cut short, did the reverse with her daughters and would chase them out of the kitchen when they tried to help, telling them they should study instead.

These dramatic changes took place in a single generation since Singapore's Independence and have changed Singapore life completely. Women have become economically empowered and educated, which gives them a degree of independence the previous generations never had.

Even with these dramatic changes, it gave me some pride actually to read the Women's Wing paper on "Singapore's future − women's perspectives and aspirations". That was what inspired me to come forward and speak for this Motion. Because while we have made great strides to create equality, educational opportunities, there is, I think, still more that can be done.

It was with some pride that I read the Women's Wing paper where it started out by saying, "Although Singapore enjoys high female labour force participation, women saw their social impact, not only through contributions at the workplace but also through performing multiple roles in the family, as daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. Though motivated primarily by intrinsic satisfaction, societal recognition of their familial and societal contributions remains important".

My reading of the paper is that women's aspirations were really to try and do it all, far greater aspirations that I think many men would have. They want to be the ideal person at home; they also want to be the ideal person at work and have opportunities there; these are difficult to do.

There are many things in this paper which I would recommend everyone to read because, from beginning to end, it covers a whole range of areas from leadership and societal impact, employment, entrepreneurship, family and caregiving, financial well-being and the concerns women have towards the end of their life.

But I will focus on, perhaps, the two more optimistic areas, the happier ones. What I will call empowering women for the women who really want to try to have it all. What the crux of this boils down to is how women can get help when they come to the difficult part of their life. This tends to happen in their 30s because that is when female workforce participation drops relative to male workforce participation. In the 20s, it is about the same. But in the 30s, male workforce participation spikes from about 89% to 98%, whereas female workforce participation drops. This is largely attributed to playing greater roles in the family and at home. Many women do not see this as an imposition but this is a role that they seek to take up on their own.

Some of the suggestions in the Women's Wing paper are actually very thoughtful to meet this need. I would just highlight a few of those that I think are particularly useful. The first, of course, is flexible work, which I think has been bandied about quite often in this debate. This includes simple things: creating opportunities for women to work from home, telecommuting and more flexible hours. But, of course, at a theoretical level, this is very easy. To implement it is not always as easy.

The Women's Wing had previously taken a stronger position in 2013, saying that flexible work should be mandated; it should be made a legal right that employers have to observe. This new paper is more nuanced and recognises that having a legislation to that effect may actually cause problems or may cause fears for employers employing women.

What it has actually recommended instead is a tripartite arrangement − a tripartite workgroup to look into creating flexible work arrangements within industries. This is important because it has to be a nuanced approach that all parties, employers included, must buy into and agree with. Ultimately, it is my hope that employers will recognise that this is in the long-term interest of their business as well because they keep talented people in the workforce.

I should also add that flexible work should be open to both genders, both men and women. In many ways, this will also encourage more men to take up roles at home, if they know that such flexible work arrangements are available for all parties.

The second set of areas relate to caregiving facilities that are made available and the network of support that is available for women. Flexible work is certainly an aspiration and one which I think we can start working on a short measure through a tripartite workgroup. But in the meantime, just as I think many speakers have acknowledged, part of the reason women drop out of the workforce is because they take on the caregiving role. One of the suggestions in the paper is also to rethink how childcare and eldercare facilities are designed and situated. The key being that these should be situated in places that are easy for women and actually men as well to drop off children, seniors if necessary. These caregiving places can also not only surely be near where people stay but also near where people work.

The next is to develop a network of caregivers or what some other people might have called social capital. This can be done with an online directory created to help match supply and demand. It is a very simple solution but it involves creating awareness of where these caregivers are, whether it is in the neighbourhood, whether it is outside, whether it is near the workplace. As long as credentials of these people are available and somewhat regulated, this could be another alternative for caregiving.

Workplace appraisals are also important. There is a tendency observed that workplace appraisals sometimes depend a great deal on face-time. However, a fairer appraisal system should find ways to make sure that people are appraised on the quality of their work and not just the amount of time they spend at the office or the amount of say, childcare leave they take. Ultimately, if people are accessed according to their contributions, rather than the amount of time they spend at work, that could lead to fairer appraisal systems.

Also, one of our aspirations is to make sure that women are able to stay at work. I think it is also important to give back-to-work support for caregivers. If people take some time out of the workforce, they should be given as much opportunity as possible to come back. The Women's Wing suggestion was for subsidised courses in areas of interest to women where they could develop skills to assimilate themselves back into the workforce.

Let me just deal with one final issue and this was also mentioned by a number of my female counterparts but I should also give my support to this. This is diversity on corporate boards. There has been an extensive study that diversity, in fact, adds to the value of companies. There was a McKenzie study in 2015, which I believe the paper cited. This study talked about diversity in two respects: gender diversity and ethnic diversity.

It was a study of companies in London and what it found was that companies at the top quartile for gender diversity, performed 15% better on a return on equity basis than other companies, while companies with the top quartile for ethnic diversity performed 35% better.

But the point is this, this is a correlation, it is not really causation but there seems to be strong evidence that diversity creates more perspectives on the board, more viewpoints and more reach for companies. But diversity is sometimes not always easy to achieve because people tend to get onto boards together with others they are more comfortable with and, sometimes, if you take someone who is different from you, either gender or ethnicity, it may be a little unnatural at first.

That is why sometimes having some kind of quotas may be helpful. The Women's Wing paper has suggested that the SGX put some kind of requirements in place to ensure we have at least 20% representation of women in all companies by 2020. I endorse that. I think that may be a little bit unnatural at first but I think that it is something that will, in the long term, be in the best interests of all companies.

As this is also the Tamil Language Festival, let me just end with a little bit of wisdom in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] She will make butter out of bought buttermilk and pay for her eldest son's wedding.

(In English): This is a proverb, which basically says, a mother will make butter from butter milk, which is the alternative to yoghurt and, with that, pay for the wedding of a son. Of course, this is from a different era but the idea of the proverb is the ingenuity of women. And even in that day and age, where there was something important to be done, the women would be able to do the impossible.

My own view is, given the amenities of today, they would probably be able to outshine us and do even more impossible things. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

4.35 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, I support the Motion. I am excited and encouraged by the initiative of the PAP Women's Wing to spearhead a project centred upon the empowerment of women to their fullest potential.

While inroads and improvements in this area are evident, building awareness and continued engagement must persist in order to enable our women to aspire without real or perceived inhibitions.

On organisational leadership, women remain under-represented. According to the United Nations, although women can vote and run for public office in nearly every country, in 2013, they accounted for only 21% of parliamentarians worldwide and serve as Head of State or Head of Government in only 24 countries.

In Singapore, as many of us have said, we only have one woman among 20 full Cabinet Ministers and about 20% of Members of Parliament are women.

Japan, a mature democracy like Singapore, has a target of women occupying 30% of the Japanese Parliament by 2020 pursuant to their White Paper on Gender Equality 2011.

Madam, I am supportive of Singapore setting a similar goal. The figure of 30% is not a figure without any basis. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had stated that, "Research demonstrates that if women's participation reaches 30% to 35%, there is a real impact on political style and the content of decisions, and political life is revitalised."

The General Recommendation essentially emphasises that it is not enough to say there is no formal barrier − active measures should be taken to substantially ensure equal participation.

According to the Diversity Action Committee which was established by MSF, it is increasingly common for women to be leaders in the boardroom, in addition to being a mother, wife and daughter.

If the private sector recognises that women are capable enough to take on onerous responsibilities, I believe we should also look out for suitable candidates and nurture them to take on portfolios in the Cabinet.

That is not to say the private sector is highly exemplary. According to the same Committee, due to the perceived shortage of qualified women and preferences for qualified directors who are men, progress is hamstrung.

The Committee further observed that Singapore lags behind the UK, Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia in terms of female representation on boards of directors.

Surely, Singapore's number of qualified women should be similar to these countries, given our enviable quality of education coupled with high economic activities for all to participate in and prove their worth.

On this note, I would like to indicate my support for the 2020 target announced by Minister Grace. Surely, we can and we have, to have to ensure that at least 20% of female directors on boards by 2020.

Boardroom representation is not the only issue of concern. A few weeks ago, NUS released a study showing that female executive directors of Singapore Exchange-listed companies earned just 56.1% of what their male counterparts earned.

Madam, the figure given is disappointing at best. I sincerely hope that businesses will examine their remuneration policies and structures, and put forward new remuneration frameworks that better reflect the value women bring to the economy.

I strongly encourage businesses and not-for-profit entities, both big and small, to be on the look-out for capable women and provide them with opportunities to prove that they are just as good as, if not better than, their male counterparts.

A noteworthy corporate entity is one of Singapore's biggest law firms, WongPartnership, where 43% of the executive committee is made up of women. Ms Rachel Eng, joint Managing Partner of WongPartnership said, "Our firm did not set a target to achieve gender diversity. Yet, by creating a culture that recognises and accepts that our talents, including female talents, may need special support during certain periods of their lives, we were able to create a conducive culture for our talents to thrive."

I hope that more corporate entities will create conducive cultures that recognise and accept all talents, regardless of their gender.

Besides creating a conducive culture at work, I believe the culture set at home and societal mindset must be reworked, too.

It is possible that unequal distribution of care plays a major role in explaining the disparity in representation. According to MOM, over 265,000 women are out of the labour force due to family commitments or responsibilities, versus around 9,000 men.

In studying the Age-Sex Specific Resident Labour Force Participation Rate, Singapore does not have the "M" curve of other developed economies, where women leave the workforce when children are young but return in significant numbers later in life. In Singapore, it is just a decline with time.

Women face barriers to full and equal participation in public life, including employment. The reason might start at home. Between 2012 and 2013, AWARE conducted a survey among 1,322 respondents as part of the We Can! Campaign, which aims to change societal attitudes that perpetuate violence against women.

The survey revealed that 52% of men think women are still expected to be in charge of caregiving and household chores.

Interestingly, the popularity of this view increased to 58% among men aged 18 and 29. This is worrying and I hope that we can change this mindset. We have to.

And perhaps, as many Members of this House have echoed the same view, it is time for us to review our maternity leave and paternity leave. We might be reinforcing the mindset that women are in charge of caregiving when women receive a significantly higher amount of leave as compared to men.

Madam, while big strides could still be made, I believe we should recognise those who are making concerted efforts to positively change the landscape.

In this regard, I wish to highlight the endeavours made by the Young Women's Leadership Connection that has a variety of programmes to support young women leaders to fulfil their aspirations.

I also note the efforts by AWARE which has constantly sought to support women from all walks of life. I urge businesses and organisations to connect with them and the Diversity Action Committee to find out how they may assist their women employees.

Finally, I am heartened by the initiative by the PAP Women's Wing and I stand in full support of their efforts.

Madam, my life has come full circle. I grew up with my sister Lynette and my two female cousins Gail and Grace. I grew up with three girls and playtime usually meant Barbie time. Well, it was either playing with dolls or playing alone and so playing with dolls it was. Ken, the Barbie doll, became my best friend.

Fast forward 30 years and playtime now for me is back to playing with dolls with my daughter Ella. I have to stress that she chose playing with dolls, not me. And she is now bringing her dolls to the hospital to introduce them to her sisters. And so, I am sure when my twins Katie and Poppy become bigger, it is going to be more dolls. Ken is already on standby in my drawer.

The aspirations of Singapore women are clearly very important to me on a very personal note. I have three daughters and I hope that they will be able to fulfil their family and career aspirations and to be future-ready. But beyond these personal reasons, this is important to me quite simply because it is the right thing to do. Madam, I stand in full support of the Motion.

4.42 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for their many constructive views and good suggestions. On behalf of our tripartite partners, I want to assure this House that we share their passion and commitment for Singapore women to fulfil their family and career aspirations.

When I was at the NTUC, about 10 years ago, I visited Denmark. I spoke with the union leaders in Denmark. They told me that they were very proud of three achievements of Denmark women. Three high: high education, high employment rate and high TFR of 1.7. But most of all, they enjoyed another high, the fourth high, which is its ranking on the Happiness Index. Denmark has got one of the highest achievements in the world.

So, I asked them, "What is your secret to getting these highs?" They said that the women in Denmark receive very strong support from the government, employer, community, as well as from the husband. For example, it is socially unacceptable for husbands not to spend their weekends with the family. Certainly, there is much we can learn from Denmark and we did. Over the last 10 years, through the concerted efforts of the tripartite partners, we have made steady progress.

Firstly, in terms of the employment rate for women aged 25 to 64, it has increased steadily from 63% 10 years ago to 67% five years ago, to 72% last year. If you were to compare our women employment with that of the OECD countries 10 years ago, we were ranked 23rd. We were outside the top 20. Last year, we progressed to number 12, just outside the top 10. In other words, we have made progress from just outside the top 20, to just outside the top 10.

Secondly, the median wage for women has gone up by 5.3% per annum over the last 10 years. This is similar to that for men, which is 5.5%. In other words, the median wage gap between men and women has not widened further over the last 10 years.

Thirdly, in terms of retirement adequacy, the average CPF balance for women has grown by 8.3% per year over the last 10 years. This is faster than the growth rate of 7.7% for men and closes the gap in terms of average CPF balances between men and women, from 16% 10 years ago, to 11% last year. The gap has narrowed.

Fourthly, the proportion of employees who work in companies offering flexible work arrangement has grown from 56% five years ago to 67% last year. Eighty-two percent of employees in Singapore also work in firms that offer ad hoc flexible work arrangement, and this is up from 72% five years ago.

Madam, building on this steady progress, we will continue to strengthen our support for Singapore women, as expressed by many Members of this House, in at least four key areas.

The first area is to improve our female employment rate further. Broadly speaking, the employment rate curve comes in three different shapes − single hump, double hump and no hump. Ours is the single hump. So, our employment rate peaks at the age of 25 to 29, and declines thereafter. So, just one hump. This is unlike the case of Japan and Korea where women re-enter the workforce from their mid-30s and they create a second hump in the employment curve at around age 50. So, Japan and Korea, they have the double hump. This is also unlike the case of the Nordic countries where women stay in employment for most of their adult life. In other words, they do not leave and re-enter. They stay in employment for most of their adult life so forming a very high and broad inverted "U" − so, no hump. Just an inverted "U" employment rate curve.

Our challenge is: how can we help more women who are working today to stay in work and, at the same time, for those who have left, to return to work? That is our challenge. We will, therefore, have to increase our efforts to raise the adoption of flexible work arrangement for both employers and employees. In fact, I was told that some employees hesitate to take advantage of FWA for fear of discrimination. And I think we have to change the mindset for both employers and employees. In particular, we will give our strong support to NTUC on its Returnship Programme. We will also encourage companies to offer more part-time and job sharing opportunities for those who are not ready to go back to work on a full-time basis.

Secondly, we have to help more women to stay more employable and be more future-ready. Under the Adapt and Grow initiative, we are doing more to help workers to learn new skills, to be more adaptable, so that they can keep pace with changes in the future economy. This is especially important for women who have taken a career break due to family commitment because, by the time they come back to work, the world may have changed due to disruption from technology, for example. Some of them, even if they want to go back to the same career, they need to update their skill. So, there is a lot more that can be done. For some of them, maybe going back to their careers is no longer an option. They have to take on new careers. So, they need to reskill themselves. Therefore, there is a lot more that we need to do to support women, both in terms of helping them to stay in their current employment or to return to the same career or to take on a new career. Members have made many good suggestions and this is certainly something that we will look into.

Thirdly, to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singapore women. The transfer of CPF savings between spouses is a personal decision. I think it should be left to the couple to decide. It would be, I think, intrusive for the Government to mandate such transfers. However, we do share Members' concerns about the spouses − whether they have adequate savings in their CPF for their retirement. And what we have done is to relax the rules for spouses' transfers and the response has been positive. Last year, we saw 70% more cases of spouses' transfers totalling $110 million. In fact, the amount doubled that of the year before. In other words, more families, more CPF members are taking the step to transfer their CPF savings for their spouses. This will enable more spouses to attain at least the basic Retirement Sum, which is our objective, to encourage more of such transfers so that more women will be able to have at least the basic Retirement Sum in their CPF savings so that they, too, can participate fully in the CPF LIFE scheme.

We have also introduced Silver Support last year for the bottom 20% of seniors who had low pay, low wages or no wages throughout their lifetime and currently have little or no family support. And this is especially helpful for elderly women who were primary caregivers in their younger days.

Fourthly, to strengthen the HR practices for fair and equal treatment, regardless of gender. Indeed, employers should set clear targets, conduct regular performance assessments and appraise employees fairly based on work outcome, regardless of whether these employees are on flexi-load, flexi-time or flexi-place work arrangements. This is advocated in the tripartite advisory on flexible work arrangements and further reinforced in the tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices. Of course, we are aware there are employers who do not observe these guidelines. So, for employees who feel discriminated against, TAFEP will look into their complaints and refer cases to MOM for action to warn them. At the same time, I am happy to say that there are many employers who do provide a conducive and supportive environment for their female employees − from flexi-load at Shell to flexi-place at DBS and flexi-time at KPMG − just to name a few.

Our next challenge is to grow this community of progressive employers and make such practices a common sight in Singapore. As announced at MOM's Committee of Supply this year, the tripartite partners will be launching a series of tripartite standards to spread this public adoption of progressive workplace practices and flexible work arrangements will be one of them.

In conclusion, Madam, overall, with our tripartite efforts, we have come some way in helping Singapore women to better manage their family responsibilities, work aspirations and personal needs. However, there is still much we can do. I thank Members for their many good and constructive suggestions. MOM, together with our tripartite partners, will study them carefully and incorporate them into the tripartite standards where relevant. At the same time, we will also sharpen our focus on supporting women in the implementation of the Adapt and Grow initiative and various CPF schemes. Women should not have to choose between family and career. We should support them to fulfil their aspirations in both.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Tan Chuan-Jin.

4.53 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, let me tell the story of 69-year-old Mdm Er Teck Gin who had been described as a woman born at the right time. When Mdm Er reached school-going age, Mr Lee Kuan Yew emerged as the leader of a fledgling nation, then still seeking its independence from the British.

He called on families to send their children − both boys and girls − to school, to forge the foundation of an educated and effective workforce. So, unlike her older sister, Mdm Er and her younger sisters went to school with their brothers. It changed the course of their lives. In fact, she is a fine example of lifelong learning because she kept attending classes to improve herself. She got better and better jobs over the years. She was a cold chef preparing non-cooked food in Raffles Hotel and, later, was an executive chef with Singapore Food Industries. Mdm Er shared, and I quote, "I was always financially independent. With my extra money, I could give my four children a comfortable life." Was life easy? I am sure it was not, but she worked hard with the opportunities afforded to her.

Mdm Speaker, at the heart of all we have done and have been discussing in this session, it is really about building a fairer and more equal society. Men and women may have different perspectives, insights and instincts, but there is one clear constant. Whatever the differences, we are equal.

But, Madam, the fact that we have this Motion in the first place says something. This equality is still work-in-progress, but, thankfully, a work that remains very much alive and that builds on the achievements of our Pioneers. This is a unique opportunity for us to also present an overview of how the Singapore Government values women in our society. My colleagues from MOM, MOE and MOH have also shared in greater detail the efforts being undertaken in their respective Ministries.

We believe in helping every woman fulfil her potential and aspirations. To do so, we must ensure that the playing field is even and opportunities are fair between men and women. At the same time, we must also ensure that women have the right to choose and that we should respect those choices.

How do we translate this vision into reality? Well, we must, first, believe in the worth and potential of our people − both women and men. Let us start at the beginning more than 50 years ago, when we laid the foundation for our women to progress. The PAP's first election manifesto, "The Tasks Ahead", not only outlined its promises to build homes and schools, to reorganise the Civil Service and build a strong and united trade union movement, it also put across its policy on women's rights. There was a strong desire to uplift our womenfolk in our society. Five women were fielded in that election. Two of them, Chan Choy Siong and Ho Puay Choo, founded the PAP Women's League, the forerunner of today's PAP Women's Wing which is tabling the Motion today.

As Mdm Er's story shows, education was a fundamental driver of change. Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, and I quote, "The key is education. Old-fashioned attitudes of teaching women enough to be literate and useful wives have undergone profound changes in the last 20 years. Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women are those which will be worse off." So, we embarked on universal education for all children, regardless of gender. Today, half of our graduates are women.

In 1961, we passed the Women's Charter' a seminal legislation to protect and advance the rights of women and girls. Many of you would be familiar with this Charter as I had recently tabled amendments to it. Many of us actually take it for granted. What we enjoy today, we forget where we came from. It was never quite like that. But the Women's Charter was a powerful signal on how we viewed women in Singapore and how we were going to recognise and support them.

We have also made significant progress on the health and employment front. In a recent dialogue with Chinese journalist Yang Lan in February, I highlighted that our literacy rate for women is 95.4%. Our full-time employment rate for women aged 25 to 64 has increased from 63% 10 years ago to 72% last year. This brings us from number 23 previously to number 12 now, compared to other OECD countries. Our infant and maternal mortality rates are among the lowest in the world.

Our women also live longer. Life expectancy at birth for females is 84.9 years − more than men. In terms of gender equality, the latest UN 2016 Human Development Report ranked Singapore 11th out of 159 countries on the UN Gender Inequality Index.

Mdm Speaker, we are not there yet, but it is not bad and we have come a long way. We have established strong foundations but we must build further on them. More can and certainly must be done. I would like to highlight the changes we need on two fronts.

First, we must eliminate barriers in the public sphere, be they in the workplace or in the community, to ensure that women reach their full potential. Women have made and can make significant contributions to not only the economy, but also our society at large. So, it is important to remember that it is not just on the economic front and the economic value that we are looking at women. There is also a broader value that women provide, along with men. As a nation, we would be foolish not to value and to nurture them.

Second, we need to make changes on the domestic front, in keeping with the changing realities of our modern times, to recognise the evolving roles for both men and women at home and in their personal relationships.

Firstly, realising women's full potential in the public sphere. How do we provide more options for our women and, also, men? Like men, women are not a homogenous population with uniform preferences. Some prefer to focus on work, while others prefer to focus on family. Some want to do both.

There will always be trade-offs. Our job is to respect these choices and work them within the larger collective aspiration. We aim to put in place an environment that supports our women and men to be able to make these choices. I emphasise that we must never trivialise choices made by fathers and mothers to spend more time with their children. It is invaluable both for the family and for society.

For women, the need to balance career and familial commitments is usually more intense because of the way we view them. Some face discrimination in their jobs. Others take a less linear career path to focus on their family. They exit the workforce, they come back again. In doing so, they may find it difficult to return to the workforce. All these are real challenges, especially when you add on the economic uncertainties that we are facing today.

Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Alex Yam, Miss Cheryl Chan, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Sun Xueling, Ms K Thanaletchmi, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Desmond Choo pointed out that flexible work arrangements are vital. I totally agree. Minister Lim Swee Say has shared the range of efforts. The Government has promoted and implemented flexible work arrangements and progressive work practices over the years and we must continue to keep up these efforts. So, your suggestions and ideas are certainly valuable.

This also includes the Tripartite Standards on Flexible Arrangements which MOM has introduced. We want employers to offer these options to their employees. It is not good enough to present them and have them available but they must offer them to employees.

Secondly, we need to build capacity to support our women and men. Ms Tin Pei Ling argued for building capacity to help women juggle work and family priorities. Women who have taken a break from work to focus on their families may wish to return to the workforce after their children have grown up. Yet, they may find it difficult to start working again because, sometimes, after they exit the workforce, their skills may have "expired", especially at the rate at which technology is changing; some of us may become irrelevant.

Ms Tin Pei Ling, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Darryl David and Ms Rahayu Mahzam suggested having a customised SkillsFuture package to help these women update their skills to facilitate their return to the workforce. Minister Ong Ye Kung explained how we can and should offer guidance and support to help all the different groups to sieve out the relevant modules that are available. We need to create more modules that may be applicable to the different segments of society. Indeed, a more user-centric approach would be useful. We will see how to do that better.

Working couples who have just started a family may also need support in caring for their young children. On this front, as Members are aware, the Government has endeavoured to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of preschool services.

To increase accessibility, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has increased the number of childcare places island-wide, especially in estates with more young families. We work closely with HDB on that. Since 2012, the number of childcare places has increased by more than 40% to about 140,000 places. We will add another 10,000 childcare places by early next year.

To support parents with childcare and infant care expenses and ensure affordability, all parents receive subsidies. Additional subsidies are also available to the broad majority of lower and middle income families. For non-working mothers who are retrenched, looking for jobs or undergoing training, we will consider their issues on a case-by-case basis, so that these subsidies are available to them as well.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned that working parents prefer to be near their young children during the work day. To address this, Ms Tin Pei Ling suggested having more care facilities near workplaces. You will be pleased to know that ECDA has worked with URA to set up childcare centres in commercial developments under the Community and Sports Facilities Scheme. Under this Scheme, the developers for selected Government Land Sale sites are also required to provide space for childcare centres. Last year, there were 450 childcare centres located in or near commercial and Government buildings − that is about one-third of all childcare centres.

Some parents work shifts and may require childcare services in line with their working hours. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Sun Xueling suggested extending the operating hours of childcare centres. Currently, they are required to operate full-day services from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm daily on weekdays to cater to the needs of most working parents. Some centres have chosen to extend their operating hours to better cater to parents' schedules. Currently, there are already 52 centres offering extended operating hours island-wide.

Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Tin Pei Ling gave several thoughtful recommendations to better support those who are caring for their elderly family members. Minister of State Lam Pin Min addressed some of these recommendations yesterday. Caring for our elderly is a key focus of MOH in the years to come as we address the issue of ageing in Singapore.

Thirdly, how do we facilitate women in terms of leadership positions in industries?

Much of the effort I have addressed and elaborated on so far deals with the career progression of our women. However, this is not enough. As a country, and as an economy, we must not under-estimate the contributions that women can make at the apex of our corporates.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Vikram Nair, Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Tin Pei Ling agree that having women in corporate leadership makes good sense for businesses and the economy. This is not about women's rights.

Today, our women are well-educated and contribute actively to our economy. The proportion of women in senior management roles in Singapore is about 21% − similar to other countries like Australia, the US and the UK. Yet, women's representation on our boards is about 9.9% as of December 2016, which is really less than half the representation rate in these countries.

To address this, my Ministry set up a Diversity Action Committee (DAC) in August 2014 to build up women's representation on boards of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange and to expand the pool of board-ready women. It comprises respected business leaders from the private sector like Singtel, CDL, Shell and IBM; entrepreneurial and professional firms; as well as representatives from the people and public sectors.

DAC has recommended that we enhance the Code of Corporate Governance (CG Code) to require listed companies to disclose their board diversity policy, including gender, and their progress towards achieving these objectives. PAP Women's Wing and BoardAgender have made a similar joint recommendation to revise the CG Code to require companies to disclose their board diversity, including gender, in their annual reports, on a "comply or explain" basis.

BoardAgender is an initiative under the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations, which aims to facilitate greater awareness of the benefits of gender balanced business, as well as the advancement of women into senior leadership positions and the boardroom.

MAS has formed a Corporate Governance Council to review the CG Code and we look forward to developments on this front.

I dislike the fact that Singapore ranks near the bottom behind other key developed markets like Australia and the UK in terms of women on boards, in fact, even behind our neighbouring countries. Other countries are progressing at a much faster rate. Globally, shareholders and institutional investors increasingly view women on boards as being important for board effectiveness. This is something that Singapore corporates should not ignore anymore.

I appreciate the other joint recommendation by PAP Women's Wing and BoardAgender. Minister Grace Fu recently announced a declared ambition for at least 20% of directorships on SGX-listed companies to be held by qualified women by 2020. This is timely and I support this target.

In fact, DAC discussed the same issue at its recent meeting in February 2017. For SGX-listed companies, DAC is suggesting a multi-tiered target: 20% by 2020, 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 because getting women on boards is a journey and not a destination. DAC will share more details separately. I want to see more women breaking the "glass ceilings" in the next few years.

Beyond business, it is also very important for us to look at the non-profit sector. The Centre for Non-Profit Leadership and the Charities Unit have carried out an inaugural study on non-profit board leadership. The study shows that more women are represented on the boards of charities, compared with businesses.

Helen Keller once said, "Life is an exciting business and most exciting when it is lived for others". We have many women who exemplify this. One sterling example is Mrs Leaena Tambyah, who retired as senior adviser to the Asian Women's Welfare Association (AWWA) in 2013 after many years of devoting her time and effort helping others, especially children with special needs. Another example, is Mrs Thung Syn Neo, a social work pioneer, whose key contribution is the concept of the Family Service Centres that we have today.

Women leaders in the non-profit sector have shown that a combination of "heart and mind" can go a long way in building up our social capital and help us to become a more caring and inclusive society. While women sitting on the boards of these charities make up about 31%, 13% of the charities still have no female representation. My Ministry and the National Council of Social Service will look into this. I believe we can improve on this figure.

While we provide support for women to balance their work-family commitments and excel in the business and non-profit sectors, we must not forget that there are also vulnerable groups of women who require more support. We must also help them to overcome particular barriers so that they, too, can realise their potential.

One such group is single mothers, which has been raised by Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Joan Pereira. Some talked about singles, referred to divorcees, to unwed mothers. For us, we continue to support parenthood within marriage but, whatever the circumstances, we remain child-centric. It is important for us to do that. Single parents' children get the same health and education benefits as any other citizen's child. We have also made policy changes in recent years to provide more support for parents to support their children. For example, we have recently extended the full 16-week maternity leave to unwed mothers and their children are now eligible for a Child Development Account (CDA).

I have also highlighted several times in this House about KidSTART which will help parents who need support for the development of their children. This is an extensive effort that will not just focus on the children but also link families with community resources if they have other social and financial needs. This programme precisely focuses on the groups that many of us here are concerned about. I believe it will make a significant amount of difference.

Ms Joan Pereira appealed to treat a single mother and her children as a "family nucleus" in HDB applications. It is very clear to us that housing is an important institution for children's well-being and development. Our housing policies aim to address the needs of the vulnerable without, at the same time, trying to undermine self-reliance, family support and parity with other families.

I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that single unwed parents are not without housing options. Depending on their age, they may apply for HDB flats themselves, or jointly with their parents. Let me state this again quite categorically. On a case-by-case basis, HDB makes exceptions to help single parents, whether divorcees or otherwise, with their housing. Do surface their cases to us and we will look at them.

While I specifically mentioned the Women's Charter earlier, something we often overlook is how our laws have also made Singapore a safer place for women. This is something we should not take for granted. It is not something that women in other countries necessarily have. At the same time, we need to make sure that we have to shape society's ideas about what is not acceptable. Violence against women is unequivocally wrong. Although married persons have conjugal rights over each other, such rights should be exercised within reasonable behaviour. Married women should have the same access to protection as unmarried women. We are thus actively reviewing the issue of marital immunity for rape and will give an update once the review is completed.

Mdm Speaker, let me turn to the home front. I believe that this is an important area where we can provide support for women to achieve their true potential. I think it is important for us to remember. The first line of support must surely be the family and that is something that cannot be mandated, that is something that all of us can play a part.

Dr Intan Azura, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Darryl David and Ms Tin Pei Ling reminded us we need to have a cultural shift and a mindset change, especially about the share of care responsibilities. Mr Kok Heng Leun also reminded us that eliminating gender stereotypes starts from young. What we do at home as mothers and fathers, husbands and wives is extremely powerful. By our example, we socialise our daughters and sons into their future roles when they set up their own homes. We can either help them move with the times and evolve more appropriate interpretations, or we can unnecessarily confine and restrict their understanding of the roles and duties of mothers and fathers, and of husbands and wives.

Even today, while women in Singapore enjoy equality in many aspects of society, including education and employment, the greater responsibility of caregiving within the family continues to fall on women. We need to change the paradigm relating to the roles men and women play. As husbands, fathers, brothers and sons, we should step up to play our part at home. Parenting responsibilities can and should be shared with our wives. Household chores should not be seen as only the purview of female family members, including the domestic helpers. Otherwise, how can our society progress? If the women around us continue to bear the disproportionate burden of family and caregiving responsibilities, it is less likely that they can achieve all that they are capable of.

5.15 pm

Mdm Speaker, gender roles are certainly evolving. The 2012 Marriage and Parenthood study showed 99% of respondents, both men and women, either strongly agreed or agreed that "Fathers and mothers are equally important as caregivers for children." However, in terms of division of labour within the household, day-to-day chores and childcare responsibilities mostly still fall on the women's shoulders. Only 13% of the respondents said that the role of cooking was shared equally between spouses, while only 23% said that this role of feeding young children was undertaken equally by both parents. We really need to begin walking the talk.

Marriage is an equal partnership. As husbands and fathers, it is important for us to share the household and parenting responsibilities with our wives. This would provide working women with the necessary support to alleviate the work-life conflict that they face. Research also shows that this brings about stronger and happier marriages, as both parties better understand and feel supported in managing day-to-day chores and concerns. This means stronger families. Stronger families mean a much better environment for our children to grow up in.

Studies have also shown that children with active fathers have better social skills, they do better academically and have less behavioural problems. Fathers, themselves, are more fulfilled as they are no longer the distant breadwinner and they are able to develop close bonds and ties with their children.

So, as much as is possible, we should start bonding with our children from birth. So, I urge fathers, please use the two weeks of paternity leave which have been made mandatory from this year and be present in the lives of your children. Fathers can also tap on four weeks of shared parental leave, with effect from July this year. During the Committee of Supply debate a few weeks ago, Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that, from July this year, public servants will get an additional four weeks of unpaid infantcare leave per parent, as part of a three-year pilot. This is available to both mothers and fathers. Please use it.

Mdm Speaker, the Government can legislate these leave provisions to encourage shared parental responsibility and for fathers to play a more active role in their children's lives. But only families can decide what steps to take. We cannot walk that last mile for them.

A 2013 survey on Social Attitudes of Singaporeans indicated that men are changing their attitudes. Fifty-eight percent of men in 2013, compared to 44% in 2009, said that their work demands ate into their family time more than they liked. The point that more men are identifying a conflict between work and family commitments is also highlighted in the 2014 Employer Alliance survey, where men indicated an increasing desire to have flexible work arrangements so they can help out with the children and domestic responsibilities. So, that is a good indicator. Businesses must, therefore, realise that employees, including men, do not perform their best when they feel conflicted and are unable to juggle career and home demands. Enlightened businesses know that when they help both fathers and mothers manage their work-life balance, they are the ones that will succeed in retaining talent and recruiting new talent. Of the 500 bosses polled, over 80% said they felt work-life initiatives are important to improve employee satisfaction, raise productivity and retain talent. So, again, the survey looks positive but we need to really begin to walk the talk, across the board.

Members of this House will be familiar with the Dads for Life movement and the Centre for Fathering. Many have asked me why is there not a Moms for Life movement or a Centre for Mothering. Do they not have a role to play, too? My response is that actually moms are already for life and mothers are already at the centre of everything!

Today, the burden is truly uneven. Attitudes are changing and that is encouraging and home responsibilities, unfortunately, are disproportionately borne by women. Playing the roles as we should, as husbands and fathers, will help level the playing field for women in so many ways.

Mdm Speaker, even as we push for the elimination of gender biases, I hope we remember that this journey to ensure a level playing field for women in Singapore is really an ongoing one and it builds on the remarkable work done by our Pioneers. The lives of women in Singapore have improved significantly over the years through the various Government policies and initiatives, as well as more enlightened societal perspectives and practices.

But our work is not done. We must continue to remove the barriers faced by women in the public sphere. In this regard, we will seriously consider the many useful and insightful recommendations that Members have put forth these two days.

However, the fundamental societal change can never be achieved by the Government alone. The change also needs to take place at home, in our workplaces and in our communities. All of us have a stake, whether as employers or colleagues in the workplace, as civil society or as families. We must remove glass ceilings and give Singaporean women − our mothers or sisters, our wives or daughters − the opportunity to achieve their fullest potential. As Dr Aline Wong said in a book entitled "Our Lives to Live", "True equality lies in a woman's ability to realise her full potential and be her true self in whatever she endeavours to achieve." Let us endeavour to make this happen.

5.21 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Madam, this is the first time that this House debates on a Motion focused on the aspirations of Singapore women. I am heartened that many Members of this House have stepped forth to speak passionately on this important cause, and our Ministers and Ministers of State have also given so much of their time to address our concerns, recommendations and, very importantly, echo their support for the aspirations of Singapore women. And I certainly appreciate the interest and support from the Workers' Party and Nominated Members of Parliament in this Motion debate as well.

We have had two days of robust debate and it is clear that women have made significant progress over the decades. But that 18 Members of Parliament and five Ministers spoke over two days, it is also clear that there are still areas in which the nation can take pragmatic, concrete steps towards helping women achieve their aspirations, thereby benefiting families, increasing social capital and economic prosperity, and contributing to Singapore's long-term success.

Through the debate, colleagues and I have articulated and elaborated on the four strategies that we believe are critical to supporting Singapore women in their aspirational pursuits. Let me briefly sum up.

The first strategy is to create capacity. As we have all agreed that as of the current reality, the primary caregiving role is undertaken by women. Therefore, there is a need to give more support to our caregivers so as to free up the capacity to pursue their aspirations, whether it is in the social area or the career arena. In this aspect, I am glad that colleagues, such as hon Ms Joan Pereira, Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin and Ms Sun Xueling, have all alluded to it in their speeches. At the same time, we also need to refresh and build new capabilities in our women to help back-to-work women because, with new capabilities or refreshed capabilities, when they skill up, they also build and create new capacity as well. This was very passionately spoken about by hon Members Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Darryl David, Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar.

The second strategy is to be able to provide options for women to choose. Those with career aspirations do not have to feel that they have to sacrifice or make trade-offs or even feel guilty about having to juggle two different roles and feel inadequate at any one point in time; or even for women who choose to want to focus their energy on their families, where their heart lies. And so, over the course of the two-day debate, we have made several recommendations, one of which is highly supported by almost all our speakers − flexible work arrangements − and this is echoed very passionately by our hon Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Vikram Nair, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Louis Ng and a few others. We also talked about how this needs to be complemented by having progressive HR policies and practices in place. This had been elaborated on and championed by hon Members Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Darryl David.

For women who wish to focus our energies on family caregiving − to raise children, to take care of the elderly − there is often one thing that weighs very heavily on our minds and, that is, retirement adequacy. So, how can we help women who choose this path to free up their capacity, to free up their minds, so that they can focus on family caregiving a little bit more? This is where several Members, such as Ms Joan Pereira, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Alex Yam, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar as well as Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, have all talked about and, that is, to top up the CPF of women who have given up their careers to stay at home to care for their family members. This was also something that our PAP Women's Wing had in the past raised, that is, top up with love. So, these are the key points that our Members of Parliament, my colleagues, have raised very passionately about in terms of providing options for women.

The third strategy is to remove barriers, to remove the invisible barriers that are often stereotypical, as well as pigeon-holing women in Singapore. At the leadership level, we talked about how women have been under-represented at the board level, at the executive level, and also how we should also drive up women's participation and leadership within the community. These have all been very passionately talked about by Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Louis Ng. But to do so, we also need to acknowledge, recognise the stereotypes, the biases that are constraining women in these different roles. So, it is very heartening to hear that various Members, such as Mr Darryl David, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Intan Azura Moktar, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Kok Heng Leun, talk about the need to shift the care burden, to have a more equal sharing of care duties between men and women, whether it is at the workplace, in the family or even within the social setting. This is something that I believe we need to continue to work on and endeavour to achieve a more equal sharing of care duties. At the same time, as what Ms Jessica Tan had also elaborated on, to be conscious of our unconscious bias so that from recruitment to selection, women will not be inevitably disadvantaged right from the get-go.

The fourth strategy is to be future-ready, something that I feel very passionately about, to have smart women for a smart nation. As we look to the future, as we move towards a smart nation, as we leverage on digital technology, as we leverage on the smart solutions, we look at a world of great possibilities. For women to also exploit these, we need to look at STEM education to empower them, equip them, get them ready for the job opportunities in these new and exciting areas. These are also what Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Thanaletchimi had talked about at great length yesterday and today. We need to leverage more on technology to provide remote caregiving to enable flexible work arrangements so that we can create the capacity and provide the options that we have been talking about to help women to fulfil their different aspirations. This is something that is echoed by Mr Darryl David.

But underlying this, to enable both the future jobs as well as taking on the future jobs and being able to balance the different roles using smart solutions, digital fluency is a very critical success factor and a critical enabler. This is something that we must continue to look into, whether it is to prepare our new digital generations through formal education or through SkillsFuture where we encourage and equip our women to take on IT courses so that they can raise their digital fluency skills and close that gender gap. In this arena, it is important that we take a serious look at this.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the various Ministries for the very strong encouraging responses so far. I would like to thank Minister of State Lam Pin Min, who shared on behalf of MOH that there will be increased access to and availability of eldercare services, that there will be more leveraging of retired nurses to help support the caregiving of our elders at home and within the community. One thing that I thought was very encouraging was that the nursing profession had also taken the lead to adopt flexi-work arrangements so that our nurses are able to juggle their different roles in life very well. Of course, I am also heartened that MOH will be looking into social egg freezing, something that has been weighing on the minds of many couples who are concerned about their own future, their own families and wanting to raise healthy children.

Second, I would also like to thank Minister Ong Ye Kung who spoke on behalf of MOE. Thank you for also acknowledging our recommendations for a SkillsFuture package. We are very heartened that the Ministry will be customising the engagement to engage women more, to have a more user-centric way of engaging our workforce to help them through customised sets of courses and to help them to eventually, hopefully, match with real job opportunities.

Third, to Minister Lim Swee Say, for MOM. I am very heartened – and I believe all my colleagues are – that flexi-work arrangement is something that is on top of mind at the Ministry. That there will be strong support through NTUC to offer returnship programme with something very exciting and many women will definitely look forward to it. As well as strengthening HR practices, fair employment, the tripartite standards that the Minister spoke about, I think this is something that we are fully supportive of. In fact, for the PAP Women's Wing last year, in our position paper, we also talked about something very similar in concept, the industry's specific flexi-work arrangement standards. So, we definitely look forward to that. And the Minister also mentioned that the Adapt and Grow scheme will be customised for back-to-work women. So, these are all very encouraging to us and these are definitely relevant to the recommendations that we have put forth.

We thank Minister Tan Chuan-Jin for also taking the lead and talking about how women are equals in this society, that we need to eliminate barriers at work and in the community, that we need to recognise the evolving roles between men and women at home, that we need to also take care of our vulnerable women and that there is a need to look into the changing and reshaping of attitudes towards women. I am definitely very heartened to hear that ECDA will be working with URA to bring childcare facilities nearer to workplaces and that the Minister expressed his explicit support for our aspiration of 2020 − 20% female representation on boards by the year 2020.

All of these, taken together, demonstrate the willingness of the Government to support the aspirations of Singapore women. I definitely look forward to the Ministries implementing these recommendations and we look forward to the good news very soon. Madam, if I may just speak very briefly in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to discuss with my parliamentary colleagues on this Motion, which is to affirm the importance and strategies to support the aspirations of Singapore women. This Motion is unprecedented and meaningful.

Members have put forward many good suggestions with regard to the Motion. They are in line with the four strategies described in my speech. First, help free up caregivers so that they can better manage their multiple roles. Second, promote flexible work arrangements so that women can achieve both family and career aspirations without having to trade off one for the other. Third, encourage society and the private sector to value women's economic potentials and contributions. Fourth, encourage women to undergo technology skills training and be prepared for the digital era and the future economy.

More importantly, we all agree that we must have concrete actions to support Singapore women to balance their multiple roles and fulfil their familial and career aspirations.

I am especially moved by the positive response from the various Ministries. These positive responses affirm women's contributions towards the family, society and country. What is even more encouraging is that the Ministers have responded positively to Members' suggestions. This will undoubtedly strengthen Singapore's foundation and help Singaporean men and women achieve their potential and be future-ready.

I hope the Ministries can implement these recommendations soon.

(In English): Many, if not all, of the recommendations that my colleagues and I have put forth in this Motion apply to Singaporeans regardless of gender. Our support for women and men to balance their multiple roles should help them reach greater heights in our economy, in various professions and in many diverse frontiers.

Again, my colleagues and I have moved this Motion with the aim of building on the strengths of women, to recognise and close the gaps. And most importantly, we desire to make Singapore the best home for everyone − a home where regardless of background or gender, Singaporeans have the capability, the opportunity and the courage to pursue our family and career aspirations and to lead a full and happy life. As Singapore is transforming to be future-ready, we − as Members of this House and certainly the whole of Singapore − should also ride on the momentum and translate our words into real action. And for that, thank you, all. [Applause.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House affirms the familial, social and economic contributions of Singapore women and its support for them to fulfil their family and career aspirations and to be future-ready."

Mdm Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.55 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.37 pm until 5.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.55 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]