Committee of Supply – Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Service Delivery in the Public Service

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chair, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Many Singaporeans have high expectations of the quality of service delivery by our public officers. There has also been greater emphasis on whole-of-Government coordination and no-wrong-door access for public enquiries and requests for service.

The Municipal Services Office (MSO) is one such targeted effort by the Government to coordinate and ensure smoother delivery of municipal services, as well as to make public service more citizen-centric.

Besides MSO, officers in the Public Service, especially those doing front-line work, should be equipped with the right skills and competencies to deliver good service. At the same time, there should be developmental opportunities for service staff so that they can acquire and broaden their capabilities and be specialists in these areas.

With rising expectations on the Public Service to better serve Singaporeans, how is the Public Service Division preparing public officers to help them continue to deliver quality services and continually seek to improve their service delivery? Is there a recognisable training and competency framework targeted at enhancing service delivery? Can the officers look forward to clear career progression pathways for service-related and frontline jobs within the Public Service? Are there also plans to leverage technology to spearhead innovative service initiatives to augment service delivery format?

I also want to urge the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to continue with its efforts to protect our officers from abuse and unfair treatment meted out to them by the public. The few offending members of the public can cause great distress to the officers and further delay others from receiving the same type of services. We must do our best for a more cordial engagement between our Public Service officers and members of the public.

Question proposed.

Harassment against Public Officers

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mdm Chair, it was recently reported that a nurse was kicked in the chest by a patient that she was trying to help. Because it is a patient, the burden is placed on nurses, that we are supposed to "take it in our stride", that we ought to be long-suffering in these matters. Imagine how this would play out in the social media if a nurse had tried to defend herself physically against an attacker. But we must bear in mind that physical abuse by anyone is not acceptable.

This same asymmetry applies to the poor, the needy, residents and anyone, indeed, whom the public officers are trying to help. They are the customers and they are always right. That they are the Davids against the Goliaths of this world.

It is estimated that 70% of healthcare professionals here have faced physical abuse. What does that say about our patients and the family of our patients? Being sick does not entitle one to be violent or disrespectful. But how many nurses can say this to their patients?

I believe there is severe under-reporting. In reply to my Parliamentary Question earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has said that among the restructured hospitals, there were 31 reported cases in 2013 and 34 cases in 2014.

Let me take this into the Public Service as a whole. In this, the public servants cannot be ignored. We need to continue identifying, assessing and mitigate the factors that lead to abuse, to bring about a safe workplace for our public officers. Can the Minister let me know if there has, indeed, been a rise in occurrences of abuse or harassment towards public officers, especially frontline staff?

The Public Service is the backbone of the provision of all services to Singaporeans. We should respect public servants and protect them from abuse or harassment. Other than criminally prosecuting the perpetrators, I feel that non-confrontational styles of approach can be taught to Public Service workers to respond adequately to these occurrences before they turn into offences.

Have we trained staff to recognise early stages of occurrences and alert them to potentially abusive intent? Are staff already trained in any security measures or devices to alert fellow workers?

I know there are closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras installed in many places now, partly to provide monitoring capabilities, but also to provide evidence for "just in case" moments. In many places, CCTVs are now the bastion between behaving decently and terribly. I have no policy fixes, and CCTVs or body worn cameras are a poor substitute for basic courtesy. But if they are necessary and they help the public officials, I say, go ahead, let us have more of them.

I know of many public servants serving on the frontline, residents and friends alike. They have felt that incidents of verbal and physical abuse towards them are on the rise and this is, indeed, worrying in spite of efforts to mitigate them. What else can be done to support their needs?

The Chairman: Ms Jessica Tan; not here. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Public Sector Engineers

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Chair, several reasons led to the decline in the number of professional engineers in the Public Service.

Among others are the increase in the outsourcing of engineering services over the years, the privatisation of Government engineering units into commercial entities and the change in the way the Government functions; moving away from paddling to steering, to borrow a boating analogy.

While I can see the merits of outsourcing and the hiving off of engineering units as private entities, I believe the Public Service still needs to retain a high level of engineering capabilities and core competencies.

Whether it is in the administering of engineering projects, contract management, regulation, technical grants allocation or even policymaking with regard to very technical areas, such as automation and robotics, the Public Service clearly needs to possess key domain expertise to carry out the functions of the Government. The Government must never be in a position where it is overly dependent on the private sector for engineering advice and loses its ability to do internal engineering appraisals.

We need to attract and recruit more engineers into the Public Service and to ensure that the fresh cohorts of younger engineers continue to be inducted to succeed the retiring engineers so as to strengthen the organic capabilities. Anecdotally, when I interact with many public sector engineers, it seems that there are more white-hair engineers now. It seems that the professional engineers in the public sector are ageing.

Here, I would like to make a special mention of two very competent and experienced senior engineers that I have the pleasure of working with in the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Environment and in my constituency work.

They are Mr Tan Nguan Sen and Mr Yap Kheng Guan from the Public Utilities Board (PUB). Both men and many other engineers in PUB epitomise the passion and competency of PUB engineers as well as the deep expertise they have on how to sustain Singapore's self-sufficiency in water resource. It is always a reassuring experience whenever I seek assistance from both of them on constituency-related engineering problems. They show deep knowledge and experience on PUB-related matters and will always offer good practical solutions to local problems.

I hope that the Public Service continues to bring about such passionate, resolute and capable engineers to the ranks and inculcate in them the pioneer values and the can-do spirit to turn our vulnerability or whatever adversity we encounter into strengths.

I have a few questions for PMO. How is the Public Service growing its engineering capabilities and developing its engineering workforce in the years to come? Are there fulfilling career paths for public sector engineers and are they competitively compensated?

Given that the Public Service has outsourced and already privatised many of its engineering activities in the past, will there be sufficient engineering jobs in the public sector and where are the areas of growth?

Engineering

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Chair, when I entered university in 1980, engineering was a much sought-after discipline. Top science students either studied medicine or engineering. Many of my seniors proudly told me their contribution and involvement in our nation-building. They practically helped build Singapore.

As Singapore enters the next lap of its nationhood, do we still have passionate and committed engineers? We will need many computer engineers and information technology (IT) experts to make us a Smart Nation. We need engineers to develop robots. We need engineers to keep our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system, airport and seaport working in tip-top conditions. We need engineers to build smarter homes, clean supply of water and even security system for protection of our country. In fact, it is estimated that half our economy relies on inputs from engineers.

Do we have enough engineers to bring our nation to the next level? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In 2015, among the top 10 jobs that went unfilled for six months, four were engineering related.

4.15 pm

Our engineering faculties are unable to attract enough locals and have to fill the vacancies with foreign students. In fact, one local student was joking: whenever he says that he is from engineering, he has to quickly specify he is Singaporean, otherwise people will assume he is a foreigner. How did the situation get so bad?

First, there is the perception that studying engineering is boring and tough. Students have to slog long hours. Next, is the remuneration. Those engineers who have accountant, lawyer or doctor wives told me that their wives earn more than them. Hence, many left their engineering career.

Many also feel being an engineer is tough. Not only do they have to spend long hours in their job, there is also the feeling that when things go wrong, everybody blames the engineers. When things go right, they are forgotten. There is no recognition. In fact, there is a saying: a scientist can fail all his life. He just needs to have one success to win the Nobel Prize. Whereas engineers you have to do it right all your life. You just need to have one failure to end up in jail. Jin bo hua, or not worth it.

It is timely for our Government to relook into the pay, career path, jobscope and recognition of engineers in the Civil Service. To maximise the Government's efforts, I urge the Government to also influence the private sector through the contracts it awards. When asking for engineering-related tenders, instead of simply award to the lowest, the engineering innovation and local Singaporean Core workforce should carry much higher weightage.

The Chairman: Mr Cedric Foo; not here. Mr Patrick Tay.

Enhancing the Engineering Profession

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): I am glad when Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean recently announced that the Government is hiring 1,000 engineers for the public sector. Can Deputy Prime Minister Teo share with us which Ministries and Statutory Boards these 1,000 jobs come from? Also, what kind of engineering jobs are these? What levels of the hierarchy are these jobs and what are the skills and experience required? I also hope the Deputy Prime Minister will look at the career progression of engineers, both current and future, in the public sector and beyond, and how we can upgrade them.

We need to ensure that the public sector is able to attract and retain the best engineering and technology capability. What investments is the public sector making to attract, develop and retain these talents? This is critical in giving the increasing role that technology is playing in all aspects of our economy, society and life, and our focus towards a Smart Nation. What efforts and plans does the public sector have to ensure we have both the skills base and capacity to support the transformation of Singapore towards a Smart Nation?

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Chairperson, first, I would like to thank Members for their interest in and strong support for the Public Service. The Public Service has continually reviewed and reorganised itself to be ready for the future.

Last July, we set up the Strategy Group under PMO. It is headed by the Head of Civil Service. Its role is to identify emerging priorities early and tackle medium- to long-term issues. The Strategy Group looks at the impact of future trends on our external and domestic environment, the policies we might need, and the capabilities we need to build in Government to address the challenges. It has also coordinated the plans and programmes across Ministries to set out the policy agenda for this term of Government.

This year, we are reorganising four Statutory Boards to deepen capabilities and better tackle emerging challenges. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) will support our citizens in acquiring useful skills to remain employable. The Info-Communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) will develop and regulate the converging info-communications and media sectors in a holistic way, while the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) will transform Government services using technology. These changes allow the Public Service to develop and deliver better policies, services and programmes for Singaporeans.

Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about our efforts to deliver good services to citizens. Our public agencies have made progress in working together to serve Singaporeans better. For example, the 24 Social Services Offices (SSOs) under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) partner other public agencies to offer integrated services. Members would know that when a family needs temporary financial help, housing rental assistance and employment assistance, they can go to the nearest SSO, which will coordinate with the Workforce Developement Agency and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to provide this help in a holistic way.

At the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) Committee of Supply debate, Members were updated about the work of the MSO to improve the coordination and delivery of municipal services across public agencies.

The Ministry of Finance also highlighted recent e-initiatives by several Ministries during its COS debate. We will continue to use technology more effectively to enhance the delivery of Government services, for example, by making more services available online and on mobile platforms, so that they are accessible at any time, from anywhere. This recently has been tax-filing season, and many Members would have filed their taxes. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has quite an efficient system to make paying taxes as painless as possible. Never a pleasure, but, at least, as painless as possible.

We are also doing more to communicate Government policies and programmes in a simple and clear manner. For example, our Pioneer Generation Ambassadors go door to door to help our Pioneers and their families better understand how they can benefit from the Pioneer Generation Package and MediShield Life by using different languages and dialects most comfortable to our Pioneers. The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board has added an illustrated summary in CPF members' annual statements so that we can see at one glance our own CPF contributions, account balances and transactions. CPF Board also provides personalised financial tips on retirement planning targeted at different segments.

Mr Ang Hin Kee also asked about our plans to help our public officers do a better job at the frontline. In line with SkillsFuture, we will continue to raise the skills of all our public officers and provide them with learning and career development opportunities. This applies to our frontline service officers as well. We have developed a service competency framework to spell out the skills that our frontline service officers need. These include partnering members of the public to address concerns and working across organisations to manage cross-cutting issues. For a start, five public agencies – CPF Board, HDB, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, National Environment Agency and National Library Board – have adopted this service competency framework.

We have also provided additional learning and development opportunities for service staff to acquire these skills. For example, the Civil Service College runs a suite of programmes for service staff and these service staff come from different levels of responsibility. Some of these modules count towards a UniSIM certification programme in public sector service management. Officers can also use these credits to count towards a minor in public sector service management from UniSIM, if they wish to pursue a degree. This helps to raise the professionalism of the service role and provides avenues for our officers to deepen their knowledge and skills. The Public Service Division (PSD) is also working with agencies to develop competency-based service career paths and introduce more leadership positions for service professionals.

Besides upskilling individual officers, agencies are also improving their organisational ability to improve service delivery and this includes integrating key components of service delivery, such as customer experience, data analytics and operations planning. This helps our agencies to serve Singaporeans more effectively.

Mr Seah Kian Peng and also Mr Ang Hin Kee asked about harassment towards public officers and the measures to protect them. The Public Service is committed to providing good service to the public, based on the principle of mutual courtesy and respect. Indeed, the vast majority of the many millions of transactions between the public and our officers take place in a courteous and professional manner. In 2015, there were 437 cases of hurt or verbal abuse against public officers that were reported to the Police. As mentioned during the Ministry of Home Affair's COS debate, 344 of these were from the Home Team agencies. So, we have to take this in perspective. The remaining 93 were from other public agencies. This is a very small proportion of the millions of interactions between public officers and members of the public every year. However, we take each of these cases seriously and will take a very firm approach to those who hurt or abuse our public officers.

Agencies have already taken steps to protect our officers and prepare them better for their public-facing roles. For example, officers with frontline responsibilities are trained to manage difficult situations. Our agencies have also established safe work environments that encourage positive interactions with the public, for example, by installing CCTVs at service counters, assist buttons for the service staff and, for those who are on the move, body-worn cameras. We also display service charters at many of the service counters so that the expectations that the public bring and our frontline officers have, are better matched.

Where the facts justify this, we will take legal action against those who abuse public officers in the course of their duties. The Protection from Harassment Act which came into effect in November 2014 provides for stiffer penalties against such perpetrators. But I would emphasise that we will do so only when the facts of the case justify this. And we will and must continue to promote a culture of mutual courtesy and respect. As Mr Seah Kian Peng says, it is more developing this culture than laws or sanctions or body-worn cameras or CCTVs. It is this culture of mutual respect and courtesy that we should make the norm in Singapore.

Mdm Chairperson, I will now answer Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's questions about our plans to build up engineering capabilities in the Public Service. This is an important area, as we depend on science and technology to overcome our resource constraints, such as water and land. These constraints will bite even more in the coming years once the climate change agreement takes effect. So, we will have to make sure that what we do is, indeed, sustainable from a carbon emissions point of view.

We will need to use technology more strategically in the next phase of Singapore's development in infrastructure, housing and transport to make Singapore a highly liveable and desirable city, to make full use of the revolution in info-comms technology to improve business efficiency and public services, and to protect our people and our country.

Our water story is well-known. So, I will use land-related examples today of how science and technology have played a role in our development. Our geotechnical engineers built the world's first large-scale Underground Ammunition Facility, which opened in 2008, and it freed up space above ground for other uses. The professionalism and thoroughness of the analysis, design and testing by our engineers have been internationally recognised. The safety standards developed by our engineers for underground ammunition storage have been adopted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the standard.

In 2014, we opened the Jurong Rock Caverns, Southeast Asia's first commercial underground liquid hydrocarbon storage facility on Jurong Island. There are nine storage galleries with a total capacity almost 100 times the size of this Parliament Chamber. So, each storage gallery is about 10 to 11 times the size of this Parliament chamber and it is about 130 metres under the seabed. Today, our engineers are looking to further exploit underground spaces, such as the feasibility of an underground reservoir.

The Singapore Land Authority, National Research Foundation, and GovTech are working together on Virtual Singapore, a dynamic 3D city model and collaborative data platform with 3D maps of Singapore. With a diverse range of realtime and static data, this platform will allow authorised public and private users to run simulations, plan new infrastructure, design new solutions, in line with our Smart Nation vision.

4.30 pm

We will need more engineers in the Public Service to drive these efforts. I spoke about building up engineering capabilities across the Public Service at the Institution of Engineers in February and will provide more details today.

First, the Public Service will employ an additional 1,000 engineers this year, which will grow our current pool of some 7,700 engineers by more than 13%. About 70% of these 1,000 additional engineers will support our infrastructure development needs, including transport and water systems. The rest will support our Smart Nation efforts. Public agencies are also now in the process of studying their medium-term engineering manpower needs and are working towards building up a sustainable pool of engineers in key engineering clusters in the Public Service.

Second, we will raise the salaries of our public sector engineers to attract and retain engineering and information and communications technology (ICT) officers in the Public Service. Salaries for engineers and ICT professionals vary across different public agencies today. Some of our agencies are already paying salaries that are largely competitive with the market, while the salaries in other agencies lag significantly. We will review our salaries regularly to ensure that they are competitive with the market. In specific areas, we will pay a premium for engineers with skills that are in high demand and short supply, such as cyber forensics and malware analysts, or those with niche skills that are critical and specific to the Government but for which there may be little market demand. But we still need them and they are critical to us.

Taking reference from the market starting salaries of good engineering graduates, we will set the salaries for good engineers joining the Public Service upon graduation starting from $3,800 per month and those in ICT starting from $4,000 per month. This means an increase in starting salaries, on average, of about 20%.

We will also review the salaries of our serving engineers and raise them where needed, to ensure that public sector engineering salaries remain competitive at every job level and not just at the starting level. Agencies will implement new starting salaries and make the necessary salary adjustments from the middle of 2016.

But improving pay is not enough. So, third, we will offer our engineers good learning and development opportunities to build deep technical expertise throughout their careers. We will start by developing competency frameworks for engineers from seven public agencies, such as PUB and HDB, in the second half of 2016. This framework will articulate the knowledge and skills that our public sector engineers require as they progress in their careers. Our engineers can use this framework to identify their own training needs and develop expertise and mastery in specific areas. So, we hope to have many more engineers of the type that Mr Liang Eng Hwa talked about – people who love their jobs, who thoroughly know their jobs, and who can serve the public very well.

In addition, we will build on existing programmes that agencies have in place for technical specialists and make a more concerted effort to identify and develop engineers with deep technical expertise to take on key scientific, engineering and technical leadership positions in Ministries and public agencies. They will be given greater support in their career development and growth, for example, mentoring by senior technical experts, working on exciting interagency engineering projects, and networking across the engineering community.

Through such training opportunities and exposure, good public sector engineers will be prepared to take on positions, such as Chief Engineers, Chief Technology Officers and the like, in the Public Service. We will be expanding the scope of some of the existing technical leadership positions in our agencies and creating more new ones. These technical leaders will champion R&D efforts to develop new solutions, improve performance and service, and help build deep technical expertise in key capability areas. They will act as the bridge with industry and research partners to supplement public sector engineering expertise and help our Ministries and agencies use technology strategically for the future.

Fourth, we will establish Centres of Excellence for key engineering knowledge clusters, building them around agencies which already have a strong base of engineering capabilities. These centres will aggregate key capabilities and build deep engineering expertise in critical areas of need. They will support other Government organisations, optimise scarce engineering resources and invest in R&D to build cutting-edge engineering expertise.

We have established three such Centres of Excellence: (a) JTC: for infrastructure projects and facilities management services, and R&D in innovation, safety and construction productivity; (b) Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA): in the areas of sensors, robotics and the integration of command systems, to boost our Smart Nation efforts; and(c) GovTech: for the digital transformation of the public sector, including nurturing ICT officers, to improve the delivery of public services for Singaporeans. We are in the process of establishing other Centres of Excellence in geospatial information science and cybersecurity.

Taken together, these measures will attract more Singaporeans to take up engineering as a meaningful, fulfilling and exciting long-term career in the Public Service and deepen our public sector engineering capabilities over time.

Mdm Chairperson, let me take this opportunity to thank Members again for their support for the Public Service. Our public officers have worked closely with Singaporeans to contribute to nation-building in our first 50 years. To ensure that the Public Service remains ready for the future, we will continue to identify key priorities early and invest in strengthening the capabilities of our officers in new and important areas, such as emerging technology, data analytics, leadership skills, service management and public engagement.

Beyond skills and capabilities, our officers must have the heart and passion to do their best for Singaporeans and Singapore, to derive their satisfaction from seeing other Singaporeans happy and fulfilled. Our Public Service values of Integrity, Service and Excellence provide an anchor for our officers as they carry out their duties every day. I am confident that our public officers will continue, with your support, to work hand in hand with Singaporeans to build an even better Singapore in the future. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Anti-corruption Reputation

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, according to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), Singapore is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The number of corruption cases registered for CPIB investigations is at 30-year lows. This, the CPIB says, is testament to Singapore's continued vigilance, commitment and zero-tolerance approach in our fight against corruption.

While CPIB's low caseload is one thing, it seems that, internationally, there are some doubts as to whether we have been as vigilant and intolerant towards corruption as claimed. In particular, it has been suggested that we have a certain double standard – intolerance towards corruption within Singapore, but permissiveness towards corruption committed abroad.

One of the main factors is Singapore's position as a global financial centre and its reputation for having strong banking secrecy laws that could shield those who have broken laws overseas. Articles have been written, mostly abroad, accusing Singapore of "asking no questions" or "turning a blind eye" to sources of funds being managed from here.

Since about 2009, the Government has progressively implemented regulations requiring more vigilance, increased reporting and exchange of information with other countries. These are guided by international standards set by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). For instance, Singapore now has in place some anti-money laundering measures. But how effective are they to prevent the inflow of corrupt monies?

The 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) is a case in point. It was reported that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is currently probing into 40 banks operating here for possible money laundering offences linked to 1MDB. Concerns have also been raised about locally-based firms, such as Portcullis Trustnet, which purportedly specialise in setting up offshore companies and trusts and hard-to-trace bank accounts in Singapore and other offshore financial centres.

Another weakness in Singapore's fight against corruption from abroad seems to be our lack of extradition treaties with other countries. Is the Government concerned that Singapore's anti-corruption reputation has thus been eroded?

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Chair, let me answer on behalf of the Prime Minister. We totally agree with Ms Sylvia Lim that while our corruption numbers are low, we must continue to maintain our vigilance. As we always say, "low corruption does not necessarily mean no corruption".

The nature of corruption is a constantly evolving challenge and we must always maintain our vigilance. Our reputation for being against corruption is hard fought and hard won but that does not mean that we can let our guard down.

The Member asked about our fight on the financial front. Singapore is well-known for our policy of zero-tolerance against corruption. We have a robust and comprehensive anti-corruption framework. Our Prevention of Corruption Act provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction, such that acts of Singapore Citizens, even if it is done overseas, will be dealt with in the same manner as if they were committed in Singapore.

As an international financial centre, Singapore has an important part to play in the global effort against money laundering, including that related to corruption. MAS has put in place a robust preventive regime that combines tough licensing requirements, strict regulations and rigorous supervision. MAS requires financial institutions here to put in place adequate controls to detect and deter the flow of illicit funds through Singapore's financial system. Financial Institutions are required to report any suspicious transactions that they come across.

Our law enforcement agencies proactively engage their foreign counterparts and investigate both money laundering and related offences when there is sufficient information to suggest that illicit proceeds have flowed into or through Singapore.

In addition, Singapore's Financial Intelligence Unit – the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office (STRO) – plays an important role in detecting illicit funds entering our financial system. STRO receives and analyses reports of suspicious transactions and other financial intelligence. Where possible offences are detected, STRO disseminates the intelligence to relevant domestic law enforcement agencies and STRO's foreign counterparts. Such intelligence has assisted both local and foreign jurisdictions to bring corrupt persons and other criminals to justice and recover proceeds of crime.

If any Member of the House has any information relating to possible acts of corruption, I would strongly urge everyone to help CPIB by providing such information for us to investigate, so that we can get to the bottom of it.

Mdm Chair, while our ranking is good now, we must never take it for granted. Ultimately, the best test of how good we are and how good our reputation is lies in the fact whether people will put their trust in us, do business with us or place their money here. It is in our collective interest to make sure that we not only maintain our reputation but to continuously strengthen that trust for people to put their assets and intellectual property with us.

The Chairman: Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Strengthening Support for Parents

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mdm Chair, one of the biggest challenges that Singapore will continue to face in the coming years is that of maintaining our population to prevent our population from shrinking. How do we grow our population so that there will always be the numbers to ensure that our Singapore identity, culture and beliefs form the nucleus of the next generation?

Low birth rate is not a problem unique to Singapore alone. Many other developed countries, too, are confronted with this issue. Giving various cash incentives, or baby bonuses, or extended parental leave for parents may help somehow. But we still need more babies to replace ourselves. Thanks to the SG50 "rah rah" which brought on a feel-good factor, coupled with enhanced parental perks, 2015 ended with at least 33,793 new babies – the highest in 13 years! This even exceeded the 33,238 births in 2012, the auspicious Year of the Dragon.

As a parent of three growing up children, I know what it is like starting a family and to juggle this responsibility with a career. To encourage young married couples to start a family, we need to adopt a holistic approach with coordinated efforts by a multi-Ministry task force.

4.45 pm

Families with both parents working need caregiver assistance to help look after their children. Bringing up a child needs a lot of support and there are some that are fortunate who they can turn to their parents for help. But many do not have that luxury. I urge the Government to do more to assist young parents in childcare, especially in the first six years after birth.

Can the Minister update the House on what is our Government's strategy towards creating a favourable environment for Singaporeans to start families and raise children? Is the offer of monetary incentives the best option? Did the Government do any survey to find out why more couples decided to have children last year?

Encouraging Families to have Children

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Chair, as is the case with many developed countries, Singapore faces a declining birth rate. According to the United Nations, Singapore is one of the bottom 10 countries in terms of the total fertility rate (TFR). Our TRF is around 1.25. Many other countries in this group are developed economies, which include Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.

On the other hand, the countries with the best TFRs appear to all be the developing world, with Sub-Saharan Africa having nine of the top 10 slots, with TFR greater than six. Are there any lessons we can learn from other countries? There seems to be an inverse relationship between development and population growth.

Amongst the developed countries, there are some that are not doing too badly. I understand France is leading the pack, with a TFR of around two; not quite the same as Sub-Saharan Africa but much better than us. I wonder if there are any lessons that we can learn from developed countries that seem to have been able to deal with the TFR. The best performers, as I understand, are France with a TFR of 2; and Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, all of whom have a TFR of above 1.5.

The Chairman: Ms Tin Pei Ling, take your two cuts together.

Parenthood and Career Aspirations

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Yes, Madam. Singaporeans today are sophisticated, well-educated and have diverse and ambitious aspirations. Many look forward to enjoying a good family life while building their careers as well. These are worthy of our support and we must do what we can to support them.

Some young Singaporeans find themselves struggling to balance their roles as a responsible parent and a performing employee, often compromising one for the other. However, parenthood and career-building need not be mutually exclusive.

Beyond Government initiatives, we need a whole-of-society movement to secure a win-win outcome. We, as a society, need to celebrate marriage and parenthood. At the same time, the culture and structure at the workplaces need to also complement such efforts.

For instance, employers should promote fairer appraisal systems that do not mark down mothers or fathers because they had to be taken out of action for a few months or if they took childcare leave. Focus the appraisals on outcomes and the quality of work product.

We should also continue to promote flexi-work: incentivise the use of technology to reduce the need for face time so as to enable working parents to work just as effectively out of the office.

Given the challenges we face and the aspirations of young Singaporeans, could PMO share what is its "game plan" in encouraging marriage and parenthood amongst Singaporeans, while not compromising on their pursuit of career aspirations?

Creative Approach to Infant Care and Childcare

And speaking of support for young parents, we have always been talking about infant care and childcare centres, but we know that supply is still chasing demand. Manpower in this area has also been tight and will continue to be challenging. Therefore, I would like to ask if we could have a rethink about how we want to help young working parents in this aspect. Can we consider alternatives other than care centres and family support which not everyone has?

For example, and I have mentioned this before, could we organise and tap on "informal sources of labour", such as the nannies and volunteers within the community, to supplement infant and childcare centres? These can be experienced women or we know them as "aunties" or trained part-time caregivers who want to take care of infants and children and earn an income at the same time. These potential caregivers may be keen but have not been able to find the families who need them.

The Government can help match demand with supply by creating an online directory to facilitate this. Interested parents who cannot secure a placement at the infant care or childcare centre can look to this platform for potential caregivers within the neighbourhood. Basic profiles and credentials of these caregivers can be published in the directory. Interested caregivers can also be offered a refresher course customised to match their educational background. Given their experience, the course need not be over an extended period and, therefore, their "time-to-market" would be shorter. Their completion of such a course or other comparable certification, assuming they attended institutional training, can be published in the directory as part of their credentials.

Parents can browse through the directory on their own and decide for themselves who they want to engage. They can then negotiate the price privately with the caregivers listed. In essence, the directory serves as just a platform for demand to find supply.

As such, could PMO study the feasibility of such an idea and, at the same time, could PMO also share what other solutions it is considering?

Total Fertility Rate

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Chairperson, our TFR has been declining for several decades and remains low by the global standard of 1.24 in spite of the billions spent on Marriage and Parenthood Packages over the last 15 years or so. The reasons for this and, hence, the policy tools to address this are necessarily complex and multifaceted.

Madam, while some East Asian developed countries have low TFRs, some other developed countries have fared much better, including most of the Nordic countries and the US, at around 1.9. Even Japan and Switzerland are doing better at 1.4 and 1.5 respectively.

There is only so much we can and should do to nudge Singaporeans to marry and have babies. Perhaps, our focus can be on encouraging those parents who do have one or two children to have more. In this regard, I think policies to ease the difficulties of having more children when one already has some, infant care and access to childcare, in particular, may be crucial. When a family already has one or two children, the logistical issues of having a third child or fourth child tend to weigh heavily.

Other countries do have programmes where the states sponsor some parents in a particular neighbourhood to provide quasi, informal child and infant care to their neighbours, as in Denmark; or sends part-time helpers to help mothers with new-borns to cope for a month or two, as in France.

In the Singapore context, the key may be to ensure there is enough infant and childcare capacity in the estates and towns with many young couples, building infrastructure ahead of demand, as it were. While there may be sufficient childcare capacity nationwide, it is unevenly distributed, as has been discussed in the House this year. This should be tracked very closely.

There is also scope to experiment with the Danish model of private child-minders in specific blocks, precincts or estates. I hope this is something we can look at seriously, taking a whole-of-Government approach.

Increasing Childcare Leave

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, taking care of your child in Singapore is no easy task, coupled with the fact that many households in Singapore are dual income to keep up with the cost of living. As such, taking time off work is considered a luxury by most working parents.

While the Government can encourage extended family closeness by giving out grants and building more 3-Gen flats, it is definitely also important for immediate family members to spend time together and for parents to look after their child when they are sick or in need of help.

As the Government advocates working adults to have a better work-life balance, will PMO consider increasing the amount of extended childcare leave and pegging the amount of extended childcare leave to not only the age of the child, but also the number of children one has?

Promoting Parenthood

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Chair, I still remember when I mentioned among colleagues my desire to start a family, a senior woman executive's first response had been "But why?" To which I answered, "Why not?" And then she said, "The correct question should be 'But why?'" This conversation stuck in my mind and, as I pondered what we can do to promote parenthood, I realised the drivers behind her question.

With growing gender equality and the ability for women in Singapore to self-actualise through their careers, the perceived downsides to parenthood are immediate and quantifiable − time and effort to take care of one's children, potential impact on one's career, and that is not counting stretch marks and potential weight gain from pregnancy − while the benefits or joys of parenthood seem vague in comparison.

How then do we make the positives more apparent and parenthood less daunting? While the Government pushes out policies to help with the costs of raising children, if we look around us, even those who can afford to have children are not having children. So, targeting costs, though key, is but one way of lowering the threshold for those considering to have children.

We talked of a whole-of-Government approach to promoting innovation and a business-friendly environment. Can we consider a whole-of-society approach to promoting parenthood? For instance, at the corporate level, while we acknowledge short-term changes in work arrangements due to maternity leave, can we ensure that our human resource processes are such that there is proper communication with new mothers so that they do not feel that they are penalised for having a baby.

Second, at the community level, can we develop more child-friendly community spaces, for instance, indoor playgrounds, where parents can have a cup of coffee as they watch their children play, or nursing rooms and baby-changing rooms decorated to be a little haven for parents and children, with soft music and alluring hues?

Young parents can be made to feel special and not so alone in their endeavour. We have set aside resources to develop trade associations and chambers to encourage industry self-help and transformation. Can we put in resources to promote self-help groups for young parents, from promoting breastfeeding to use of online resources to organise play groups and make possible voluntary child-minding arrangements for young children?

Parenthood should be celebrated. We have joined the parents' club. If we can change mindsets towards parenthood, hopefully, the question will be "Why not?"

Whole-of-Society Support for Parenthood

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Chair, today, family life is seen to intrude on life itself, that marriage and parenthood are seen as unnecessary obligations that are impediments to personal growth and space.

Societal views do not help – we idolise the successful, we individualise the achiever, we are motivated to be the first to reach the finishing line, preferably alone. We do not celebrate family enough, not in the same way we celebrate individual success.

Since 2001, we have committed billions of dollars in our Marriage and Parenthood Packages. If there is one thing we have learnt, money is not the motivating factor. In fact, I am uncomfortable even with the term "baby bonus". The baby itself is the bonus, a bonus from a happy marriage that forms the basis for joy and hope in family life.

The top-ups, bonuses if we have to call them that, help, but they can never be the motivation for having children. To support that, the whole society must undergo de-evolution, to return to our focus on the family as a core unit of the nation, that children complete us, not conflict with us.

As they say, it takes a village to raise a child. In metropolis Singapura, the kampung network of support has slowly faded away. Even at our workplaces, those on maternity leave are sometimes vilified, shunned and demotivated by unsupportive employers and co-workers. Motherhood, that most noble of vocations, is debased as a burden on the bottom line, a weighty problem for progress.

One employer recently complained to me: "Your zheng hu (government) keeps extending this leave, that leave. Very soon, everyone on leave, I have to leave the business and my business will zup lup (close down)."

Well, the question is: has any company actually zup lup because of pro-family leave policies? The laws of probability are more than likely to prove otherwise. So, perhaps it is time for us to stop making excuses.

I welcome the legislating of the two weeks' paternity leave. For those who feel that this and our maternity leave are too generous, I think it bears reminding ourselves that not too long ago, our own mothers would not have had maternity benefits. So, we should advocate the impossible and dream the improbable as, in one generation, we have achieved much in changes to our pro-family policies.

Fathers should also be encouraged to play bigger roles not because they want to but because they should. Charles Ballard, an American fatherhood advocate, described fatherhood as such: "Have no fear. It isn't easy, it's the hardest thing you'll ever do and you would probably feel very, very lonely but know that you make a great difference."

Fathers should not be seen just as breadwinners. They should be encouraged to have shared parenthood responsibilities. For that to happen, society and infrastructure must change. The worship of male machismo must be replaced by respect for fathering. As a father myself, I have faced many logistical nightmares when heading out with my boys. I have even changed nappies on my knees in the toilet for the lack of facilities for fathers. Usually, they are in the female toilets. In some places, even brand new baby rooms are perpetually locked up. When I ask why, the answer is, "prevent abuse". So, why build the baby room in the first place?

We should work with the Institute of Architects, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore and even legislate requirements for new commercial buildings to provide family-friendly facilities in the same way we enforce barrier-free access. Encourage employers to set aside proper nursing rooms for mothers, too.

5.00 pm

On that, breastfeeding, the benefits are undeniable. But this most natural of instincts seems to sometimes illicit fear and revulsion even amongst members of the public. We, on the one hand, allow the disgraceful debasement of the female body and yet, we cry foul when half a bosom is exposed by a nursing mother.

Single mothers received a much welcome boost yesterday. Their children deserve the same start as others. I, therefore, echo the call by Mr Christopher de Souza to correspondingly strengthen our adoption framework to allow those conflicted about the future of their children to know that adoption into a caring family is an option. While we spend billions on encouraging couples to have babies, why do we not do something for those already conceived?

Mdm Chair, my wife and I were devastated when we lost our first child. It felt like that one piece of the puzzle that would have made this mosaic complete was missing. But we have been blessed. We now have two wonderful young boys. I will be the first to say that, along the way, with joy comes responsibilities and lots and lots of hard work. I would not give that up for anything in this world. We will regret not having spent enough time with our children and not the other way around.

Marriage and Parenthood

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Chair, in 2014, Singapore witnessed the highest number of marriages since 1997, where over 24,000 marriages involving at least one citizen were registered. We also welcomed more than 33,000 Jubilee babies last year as we celebrated SG50. Singaporeans do want to get married. Singaporeans do want to have babies. Can the Government share its strategy towards creating a conducive environment for Singaporeans to get married and have children?

One area which the Government can look further into is housing. Many young couples whom I have spoken to prefer to have their own homes before they get married and have children. However, the average waiting time for a Build-To-Order (BTO) HDB flat is about four years today. On some occasions, this may even stretch to five years.

I think the waiting period for a BTO flat is too long. With our young Singaporeans getting married at a later age, the child-bearing years are also getting shorter. Can the waiting time for flats be reduced significantly for young couples who have registered their marriages?

Also, for couples who are still waiting for their flats to be ready, can they be offered an interim rental flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS)? Since 2013, what is the average number of applications received from couples under PPHS? How many flats are currently available under PPHS? Can the Government allocate more flats to this scheme, especially in mature estates, so that couples can choose to stay close to their parents living in the same town or near to established infant-care centres?

More Family-friendly Environment

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Chair, the Government has implemented many measures aimed at lightening the financial implications of having children. I think there must be a balance in the approach so that as we provide support for Singaporeans to go for marriage and parenthood, we do not overlook career aspirations and heartware, such as better family-friendly environment and infrastructure. I agree with the hon Member, Mr Melvin Yong, about the waiting time for a new BTO flat. So, I strongly support the reduction of the waiting time.

The second point I want to raise is that recently, I have resident mothers who approached me to give feedback about the inability to carry baby prams or strollers on board buses with several kids and groceries in tow, and I have personally experienced it with my children as well. Can PMO look into a whole-of-Government approach to improve family-friendly environment and services in our public transport system in the hope of enticing more young parents who have children with ease of family travel and reduce the logistical pains of parenthood whilst on public transport?

For career aspirations, how can we walk the talk to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, in particular, for expectant mothers? Can the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and PMO explore the possibility to ensure that the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) continues to have teeth to effectively weed out workplace discrimination and advocate fair employment, in particular, for expectant mothers, in the workplace?

Balance Business Needs and Procreation Policies

Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, fellow Members of Parliament, the Government has been enhancing policies to increase the birth rate, including helping singles to find life partners, housing, encouraging procreation, childcare, work-life balance, getting husbands and wives to share responsibilities. Indeed, all possible ways and means have been used to address the issue of our country's ageing population and declining birth rate.

On the relationship between population and a nation's strength, I would like to share a story from ancient China. During the Song Dynasty, there was a small kingdom called Western Xia, or 西夏. The soldiers were valiant and good at fighting, winning numerous battles against the Greater Song. However, Western Xia, despite having a strong army with great fighting spirit, ultimately had to make peace with the Greater Song because of its small population and lack of manpower.

This story illustrates how a small, but tough nation lost because of its shrinking population, reminding us that the size of Singapore's population and its demographic structure is related to its economic development, social stability and national defence. The strong Western Xia survived for close to 200 years and, similarly, as a small nation surrounded by bigger nations, how long can Singapore survive?

Having just celebrated 50 years of nation-building, we are beginning our journey towards the next 50 years. If we are unable to solve the issues of an ageing population, businesses would eventually face a more severe manpower challenge. Thus, supporting the country's population policy would mean supporting the sustainable development of businesses. However, businesses do face difficulties during the implementation. There is a conflict between implementing lean management, increasing productivity and promoting family-friendly and flexible working arrangements. How should this conflict be resolved?

At the same time, on the topic of increasing the birth rate, how is the Government going to communicate even more effectively with the citizens? Demographic structure affects the survival of Singapore. We should handle the population issue with the same perseverance we have in resolving the water issue. As the saying goes: "Everyone is responsible for the rise and fall of the country". Marriage and parenthood should be, from now on, a national concern.

Fostering Family-centric Workplaces

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Chair, I am pleased to note that the Government will legislate the second week of paternity leave. This should be an important pillar in supporting family-centric workplaces. I would like to propose how the tripartite partners can further catalyse the fostering of family-centric workplaces.

But first, let me address some concerns on paternity leave. Senor Minister of State Josephine Teo has said that the Government will give firms time to adjust and phase in the second week of paternity leave. But some companies are saying that the tight labour market and a weakening global economy might be obstacles during implementation. I would like to ask if the Government could consider extending further support to companies beyond giving a phasing-in period.

It was reported that only 40% of fathers used their one week paid paternity leave in Singapore last year. This might be due to a combination of manpower constraints and the mindsets of workers and employers. How will the Government help our young fathers deal with such constraints to improve the consumption rate of paternity leave? How can we promote and share best practices?

Broad legislation, such as extended paternity leave is an important signpost of the Government's intent. However, we should also consider alternative tripartite frameworks to catalyse the proliferation of family-centric workplaces. And especially as hon Member Mr Thomas Chua has pointed out, we also need to balance between what the company needs and how they can put in place family-centric workplaces in a tight labour market.

We can consider a sectoral approach to tackling structural differences in implementing flexible work arrangements (FWAs). For example, telecommuting will work quite well for office-based workers but less so for production-based ones. Mothers who work shifts will find it quite challenging to get on board the FWA journey. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) find it very difficult to adopt FWAs because of their small workforce.

Taking a sectoral approach, the Government can develop targeted measures for companies, unions or trade associations. This will be akin to ICT being used as a means to catalyse and spread innovation under the industry transformation programme. With similar companies grouped together, the tripartite partners can implement a flexible career system for mothers in the first year of their maternity in this system, for example, a mother on workshifts can find alternative office hour careers with the companies, unions or trade associations supported by the Government, of course. Even industries with civic childcare centres catering to the working hours of the specific industry could be possible. Can the Government consider developing sectoral solutions with our tripartite partners?

Family-centric workplaces are possible but it requires both legislation and the inventiveness and boldness of our tripartite partners. In fact, the sectoral manpower plans (SMPs) being developed by the sectoral tripartite committees (STCs) should value family-centric work practices as a core element in developing human capital. Can the Government work with STCs to incorporate family-centric strategies within the SMPs?

The Chairman: Mr Darryl David, please take your two cuts together.

Families and Children

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Chair, unlike some other countries and societies, our Singaporean socio-cultural norms dictate that marriage typically precedes having children. First, couples would get married. Then they would decide whether or not to have children. Once they have had a child, they would then decide whether or not to have more children.

These three key decision-points in a couple's life also correspond to three different demographic groups, each of which, in my opinion, requires a different approach and strategy in terms of encouraging them to have more children. I would like to suggest that the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) take this into consideration when coordinating and planning their strategies to improve Singapore's TFR.

Madam, as a parent of two young children, I will say that children are life's greatest blessings and they are truly a joy. However, the reality is that the process of raising a child can also be a challenging one at times, especially for first-time parents. Expenses aside, there are times when first-time parents are grappling with new experiences that can seem rather stressful. I know, like my Parliamentary colleague Mr Yam, I have changed my fair share of diapers, too.

I feel that the Government has done well to help with child-raising expenses via initiatives, such as the Child Development Account (CDA) and this year's First Step Grant. However, I feel that perhaps more could be done to enhance the entire ecosystem to provide more holistic support for parents, especially during pregnancy and in the first year after birth.

Mdm Chair, I think we all will agree that, ultimately, the decision to have children is a matter of choice and we respect that choice. However, for those who have made the choice to have children, I believe that we can certainly help to make the child-raising experience a smoother and more enjoyable one. This would then have a positive effect on parents' decision to have more children in the future. To echo what my colleague Ms Sun Xueling said, "Children, why not?" Or better still, "Children, of course!"

I would thus like to ask NPTD what can be done to foster more supportive social norms and positive mindsets towards marriage and parenthood in the future.

Social Cohesion and Immigration

I think we all agree, Madam, that Singapore needs to have talent from all over the world to benefit our economy and support our economic growth. And I agree that many of these foreigners add to the richness and diversity of our society as well. Singapore has been, and always must be, a multiracial and multicultural society, with each group retaining its own identity while remaining cohesive as One Singaporean People.

5.15 pm

I would like to ask NPTD how we can sustain social cohesion as Singapore's society becomes more diverse with immigration and foreigners. And also, would NPTD consider working with ICA to perhaps implement certain assimilation criteria before we grant Singaporean citizenship?

Building an Open and Cohesive Society

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Chairman, over the years, we have seen many different communities come and make Singapore their home. Our forefathers were immigrants and we continue to see new communities join our social fabric. We have seen differences in culture and practices from among the new groups and even among Singaporeans born in Singapore. Sometimes, the differences and lack of understanding of the different practices cause friction. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that there are sufficient platforms to foster greater mutual understanding and promote integration across the different groups in our population, including citizens, new citizens and foreigners.

As a first step, I think it is important to reflect on the contact points that assisted with integration previously and if they are still relevant or applicable to the different demographics today. I note three main platforms for integration, through, namely, (a) the Ethnic Integration Policy in HDB estates; (b) education in schools; and (c) National Service.

Through the Ethnic Integration Policy, the Government sought to address the emergence of enclaves and helped people of various racial and religious backgrounds to integrate. Children from a particular estate largely went to the schools in the vicinity, thus helping to cement their common experiences.

Today, we see a fair share of new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) electing to live in private housing. There may be a preference to stay amongst their own community and this leads to enclaves being formed. They may not have the opportunity to interact on a daily basis with other Singaporeans and do not share similar experiences. Their children also may attend international schools. This means that we can have children who have lived in Singapore but have very little common experiences.

We must, therefore, be conscious of the challenges in promoting organic integration. We should consider how we can develop our urban infrastructure to facilitate the common touch-points of integration. We may also wish to ensure regular engagement with students from international schools so that there are opportunities to share local norms and values.

I believe creating common experiences is key. I would like to find out from the Ministry about the existing efforts in place to create the platforms for meaningful interactions and to promote integration. In addition, are there more ways we can create platforms for open and candid discussions about our differences and learn how to celebrate and embrace our diversity?

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mdm Chair, I thank Members for their thoughtful questions and comments. If I may, in the course of my presentation, I will also screen some slides, Madam.

The Chairman: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: It is near to the end of the debate and I started to reflect. On numerous occasions during this debate, Members spoke about the "Singaporean Core". Clearly, it is something we all care deeply about.

In fact, the work of NPTD has very much to do with strengthening our Singaporean Core. In promoting marriage and parenthood, we are growing the Singaporean Core from within. Through efforts to keep in touch with Overseas Singaporeans and catalyse integration of new citizens, we aim to keep Singapore cohesive and open, to become stronger as one even as we spread our wings and as we welcome new members to our Singaporean family to supplement and expand the core.

Members know by now that I would very much like to share some thoughts on how we can strengthen support for marriage and parenthood because it is of vital importance that we can grow the Singaporean Core from within. But please allow me to start by first giving an update on our efforts to keep in touch with Overseas Singaporeans, integrate new citizens and stay open as a society.

There are now more than 210,000 Singaporeans living, working or studying overseas for extended periods of time. Ten years ago, it was just 160,000. This is remarkable; 30% more over 10 years. It shows how Singaporeans are increasingly mobile and welcomed by employers and educational institutions internationally.

One interesting result is that we now have more "Singapore Citizens by Descent". What does this mean? This refers to children born overseas to fathers or mothers who are Singapore Citizens. The only difference with Singaporeans by birth is that they are born overseas. As more Singaporeans work and live abroad, the number of such babies has increased by about 15% in the last 10 years. From 2006 to 2010, the average number of "Singapore Citizens by Descent" was around 1,200 annually. In the first half of this decade, the number was around 1,400 annually, on average. So, it is a 15% increase over 10 years.

The Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) reaches out to our Overseas Singaporeans to connect them back to Singapore, through nurturing close-knit, vibrant Singaporean communities overseas. Whenever Ministers have official duties overseas, we make it a point to catch up with our Overseas Singaporeans. Here is a picture of Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in Brazil. It surprised me that there were so many Singaporeans in Brazil. And this is a picture of Overseas Singaporeans in Copenhagen, whom I met in March. So, we must make an effort to keep in touch.

Similarly, we must make an effort to help all citizens, the new and the not-so-new, to gel as one. Mr Darryl David asked about this.

As Members know, immigration helps us to top up and improve the age balance in our citizen population. Our aim is to prevent our citizen population from shrinking. What that means is that we have kept a calibrated pace of immigration. Last year, 20,815 Singapore Citizenships were granted, and this included 1,600 or 8% of those "Singapore Citizens by Descent".

The population of PRs remained stable – 29,955 new PRs were granted. By the time they are conferred citizenship, most new citizens have been living here for years and many have also established family ties with other Singaporeans. They are quite assimilated as it is. In fact, one reason Singapore feels like home to them is the openness and sense of welcome that many Singaporeans generously extend to newcomers.

It is not surprising because in many Singaporean families, it is quite common nowadays to have in-laws who are foreigners. More couples these days have wedding receptions in two or more countries because that is where the family networks extend.

Nonetheless, the Government must do its part to help new citizens deepen their sense of belonging. Therefore, since 2011, all new citizens have been asked to participate in the Singapore Citizenship Journey. This is a programme that reinforces Singapore's values and norms and facilitates further involvement in the community. It also properly welcomes new citizens into the Singaporean family.

But it is clearly not enough. New citizens need to get involved in all aspects of local life, such as learning to speak local languages, and, some say, Singlish also; interacting with their neighbours; adapting to local behavioural norms; and taking an interest in issues that concern their fellow citizens. Most important of all, they must understand our roots as a multiracial and multicultural society, where each community enjoys our common space and interacts respectfully with one another. In fact, they must imbibe it and make it part of their identity. That is a multiracial, multicultural identity.

At the same time, Singaporeans have an important contribution to make. Besides reaching out to new citizens and strengthening cohesion, we should stay open as a society to people of diverse backgrounds, which both Mr Darryl David and Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about. It goes hand in hand with being a society that is open to new ideas and innovation and capable of positive change and the capacity for excellence.

The open-mindedness of young Singaporeans gives us reasons to be hopeful. Sometime last year, a group of undergraduates at the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU's) Wee Kim Wee School of Communications started a campaign with a simple yet inviting slogan "Come, Let's Eat". This initiative brought a great diversity of people together through the universal language of food, one language that we all understand.

Singaporeans shared our local flavours at cooking classes. And the foreigners reciprocated by hosting local foodies at restaurants serving their hometown cuisines. At the signature event which they named "Global Potluck", 80 participants tasted dishes, such as Turkish meatballs, German potato salad and, of course, our very own "popiah" and "satay". Although the campaign lasted just a few months, participants made new friends and still keep in touch through social media.

These ground-up initiatives are modest but sincere efforts by individuals and groups to keep Singapore an open society. The Government provides support through the Community Integration Fund. Since 2009, we have disbursed $13 million to over 660 projects to about 270 organisations.

But it is really the passion for Singapore, the conviction that we have something special to share, the spirit of generosity and openness that have motivated the organisers to keep the projects going. I want to thank the organisers and urge them to keep up their very good efforts.

Mdm Chair, even with the addition of new citizens and PRs, our population does not fully meet our growing workforce needs. However, instead of growing our population more quickly, we have decided to press on with the restructuring of our economy towards one that is less dependent on manpower for growth. As a result, the growth of our foreign workforce has slowed considerably. Last year, it was the slowest since the Global Financial Crisis of 2009.

Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat and Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say have spoken about the support that the Government is giving to businesses to ease the crunch. Minister Lim also outlined the many measures that MOM is introducing to help Singaporeans adapt and grow. One such example is the Human Capital Partnership (HCP) with the "triple strong" companies to nurture local talents into regional and global talents through skills transfers.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

These efforts are aimed at strengthening the Singaporean Core in our workforce so that we can better manage the need to supplement our workforce and, as much as possible, keep them to specific job roles, such as those requiring skills that are hard to find among Singaporeans.

At the same time, MOM is stepping up efforts to build a strong Singaporean Core in the workforce and to strengthen our global competitiveness. For example, through tightening work pass applications for employers who are identified to be "triple weak". In addition, through the SkillsFuture initiative led by Minister Ong Ye Kung, we will help Singaporeans stay relevant and participate meaningfully in the workforce at every stage of their lives.

Our vision must be a Singapore that is cohesive and open, where Singaporeans feel a sense of connectedness wherever they are in the world, confident to move forward as one and, at the same time, have the capacity to welcome new additions to our family, whether for a period of time or for good. Such a Singapore will be a worthy place for each one of us to nurture our families in.

Let me now turn to marriage and parenthood, and how we can grow the Singaporean Core from within. But first, let me thank Mr Thomas Chua for sharing with us the story of Western Xia (西夏). He has very poignantly reminded us that marriage and parenthood, birth rates and population are, ultimately, about economic vitality, even our defence capacity and, in the long term, our nation's survival.

First, some good news. Last year, we had 23,805 citizen marriages. This was the second highest in more than a decade, only very slightly lower than the high of 24,037 in 2014. We welcomed nearly 34,000 Golden Jubilee babies, which was the highest in more than a decade, more than even the 2012 Year of the Dragon. Our TFR in 2015 was 1.24, slightly above the average TFR of 1.22 in the first half of the decade.

The question on Members' minds is, naturally, can we boost our TFR further? This is not a trivial question, as I explained in an Op-Ed for The Sunday Times recently. I shall not belabour the points. But besides researching other countries' experiences, I have taken a few months to consult people, including parents, some with a few kids and others with many, whether they are young or grown-up. I have consulted young people who have yet to date or marry and I have also asked scholars who have studied the subject for years.

The short answer to this question is, yes, I believe our TFR can go up, but if and only if the whole of Singapore society gets behind this effort.

I am optimistic because aspirations for marriage and parenthood remain very strong. However, there is no silver bullet, no single policy intervention, not even a set of policy interventions that will boost TFR. We need the collective efforts of the whole of society, by which I mean employers, co-workers, community organisations and businesses, all being supportive in words and deeds.

Ultimately, people now marry and have kids because they want to, not because they have to. This being the case, it is my belief that there are three important elements that help individuals decide in favour of marriage and parenthood and, that is, when they feel that marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. Let me elaborate.

First, ensuring that marriage and parenthood are achievable. I find the strong sense of responsibility among young Singaporeans that was admirable. They want to have stable jobs and build up some financial resources before settling down. Actually, that is achievable in Singapore. Our unemployment rate has been among the lowest in the world, consistently. Employment levels are high across all age groups. Income growth may have moderated as our economy matures, but it is still positive. With the efforts we are making to restructure industries and update skills, good jobs and income growth remain within reach, including for future generations.

A second important factor for young Singaporeans is home ownership. Thankfully, we have an extensive public housing programme that has kept home ownership affordable. Many young couples are able to own their first marital homes through the BTO programme, something unheard of in most cities. The majority of those who purchase BTO flats in non-mature estates do not pay anything out of pocket for their mortgage instalments. That is a great help to family finances.

Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked if we could shorten the average waiting time for BTO flats. Waiting times are currently about three to four years, depending on the design and site constraints of the project. HDB builds flats ahead of orders, but in a measured way. The Government understands Singaporeans' aspirations for home ownership and MND will continue to focus on helping young couples own their first home.

HDB also introduced PPHS in 2013 for couples waiting for their flats to be completed. PPHS offers HDB flats at below market rental rates. About 1,800 families have benefited from PPHS. The PPHS rental homes were the first homes for 270 babies! Not bad. PPHS flats have been offered in a range of mature and non-mature estates. Currently, we have about 150 PPHS flats available for application in Tiong Bahru and Jurong. Thus far, the supply of PPHS flats has been sufficient to meet demand and we will continue to monitor the take-up rate.

There are also measures to help families live closer to one another for caregiving support, a point Mr Louis Ng raised. He mentioned the 3-Gen flats. The priority for BTO housing to couples who want to live with or near to their parents has also been offered. Resale flats are another option and, with the new Proximity Housing Grant for those buying a resale flat near their parents, couples can enjoy up to $90,000 in housing grants for their first home. And we saw in the papers today that more than 2,000 families have benefited from the Proximity Housing Grant.

Another key factor is quality childcare that is accessible and affordable, as noted by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Leon Perera. Parents want to have peace of mind knowing that their children are well looked after while they work. They also want their children to socialise and learn.

MSF, the Early Childhood Development Agency and the Ministry of Education (MOE) have been working jointly to increase childcare provision. More than 30,000 childcare places have been added since 2013, most of which are in HDB estates. There will be 10,000 more by the end of next year, especially in the newer estates. This will help to improve accessibility and make it closer to homes. About 30% of childcare centres are also located near workplaces. Childcare subsidies are available to all parents and additional means-tested subsidies are available to help lower- and middle-income families with childcare costs.

However, there are gaps that we can plug. For example, there are parents with infants who have no family support. I thank Ms Tin Pei Ling for the creative approaches that she has suggested, for example, the online directory and linking up aunties in the estates to the parents who need infant care support. NPTD will study these ideas together with MSF.

Our goal is to improve childcare provision so that all parents who need it can access and afford it. This is the way for couples and even singles to see that their aspirations for parenthood are achievable. Much progress has been made and I know Minister Tan Chuan-Jin is fully committed to this goal. Similarly, Minister Ng Chee Meng and Minister of State Dr Janil Puthucheary are also doing their best to support this effort in MOE.

Mr Darryl David made important points about giving parents a sense of support throughout their parenting journeys. In particular, we will give greater support to new parents in the year before and after the birth of their babies.

Minister Heng Swee Keat had announced earlier that we will double the MediSave withdrawal limits for pre-delivery costs from the current $450 to $900. As a result, the majority of subsidised deliveries in public hospitals will have their bills fully covered by MediSave, including pre-delivery expenses.

We have also enhanced CDA. Previously, parents had to first save into CDA to receive the dollar-for-dollar matching by the Government. We have introduced the CDA First Step to provide the first $3,000 into CDAs, without parents having to save first. Parents who deposit savings into their children's CDAs will continue to enjoy dollar-for-dollar matching, up to the remaining Government contribution caps. These two initiatives complement the other marriage and parenthood benefits like the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and parenthood tax rebates and reliefs.

Families are also supported in other areas. Education is of high quality and heavily subsidised, from primary to post-secondary and even tertiary levels. An increasing number of student care centres help address the caregiving needs of working parents. MOE has said that all primary schools will have student care centres by 2020, not so far away. More help is also provided to needy families, including through new measures like KidSTART and the Fresh Start housing scheme.

Taken together, there is significant support for marriage and parenthood. Sir, may I have your permission to distribute a compilation of the Government's key support to families?

The Chairman: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: As Members can see, there are many programmes and initiatives implemented by different agencies that support marriage and parenthood. They show the Government's strong commitment to make Singapore a "Great Place for Families". With the additional efforts and resources we are putting in, I hope more Singaporeans will see that marriage and parenthood are achievable. As Ms Tin says, marriage, parenthood and career are not mutually exclusive.

However, all the above are necessary but probably insufficient.

Mr Vikram Nair asked what we can learn from the developed countries. The example of South Korea suggests that even with abundant resources poured in by the Government, couples may still not want children or have more children. It has to do primarily with the lack of support by employers and co-workers. There are also unhelpful workplace practices and cultures, resulting in long hours away from home. In Korea, there is a very strong sense of "presentee-ism", in other words, being present, and, especially not leaving work until your boss has done so.

There is also a very prevalent culture of "hoesik". And what is "hoesik"? It literally means "staff company dinner" but basically it means that after work, let us all go out and have a drink, socialise. But it takes time away from the family. So, these are workplace cultures that are not always helpful.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak pointed out that child-raising costs continue to be a concern. And I recognise that. But there are several factors at play. Some have to do with the lack of family-support and, therefore, the need to pay for help; whereas previously you could always count on your wife who was not working, or mum, or mother-in-law, who would stay at home.

Some have to do with consumption choices. Parents opting to pay for more than the basics, in every respect. It could also be due to the tendency to practise an intensive style of parenting which we see a lot of in Korea. In Korea, the parents put a lot of resources in helping the child prepare for school and even prepare for what happens after school. These contribute to making parenting more stressful and less enjoyable. In the UK, childcare cost is actually not that low, but their TFR is good. It is something that Ms Sun Xueling observed, that targeting parents' cost concerns alone will not be sufficient. I agree with that.

Another important lesson is that employers did not implement family-friendly practices purely out of altruism or charity. Instead, they saw these practices as a competitive advantage, necessary to attract and retain capable staff and helpful for productivity.

5.45 pm

For example, the Hertie Foundation in Berlin pioneered a work and family audit that is endorsed by the German government and adopted in Austria, Hungary and Italy. The audit findings indicate that family-friendly employers with scores in the top quartile had significantly better business outcomes than companies in the bottom quartile. What are these better outcomes? Forty-one percent lower absenteeism rates, 32% higher motivation rates and 23% higher employee productivity. Therefore, in response to Mr Thomas Chua's comment, family-friendly practices may, in fact, complement efforts to improve productivity and we would like to see how this can be strengthened.

Germany's TFR is, however, not as high as the Nordic countries and France. Researchers believe that it has to do with traditional expectations held in Germany until very recently, that is, that good mothers must stop work to care for their children. This has made it harder for German women to enjoy both career and parenthood, even if they did not face discrimination at work.

In contrast, women in the Nordic countries and France do not face similar pressures. They can continue to pursue their career aspirations, which as Mr Saktiandi rightly pointed out, should also be the case in Singapore.

I agree with Mr Saktiandi and Ms Tin that discrimination against pregnant women or parents is not acceptable. In 2013, we enhanced legal protection for pregnant women against retrenchment or dismissal without sufficient cause. Beyond legislation, TAFEP has also stepped up efforts to promote fair, responsible and progressive employment practices.

I also agree with Ms Tin and Mr Desmond Choo that FWAs help employees better manage work and family commitments and, as a result, they make parenting a more enjoyable process. MOM offers businesses the Work-Life Grant, which provides up to $160,000 to support companies in piloting, implementing and sustaining FWAs. The take-up of the Work-Life Grant is improving, but I do think more can be done. We support Mr Choo's suggestion, in particular, to work with the tripartite partners to explore how FWAs can be promoted in a more targeted manner in different sectors.

We should also support and show understanding towards nursing mothers, a point Mr Alex Yam has made. Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor had spoken earlier about the health benefits of breastfeeding. However, a 2011 survey showed that only 1% of mothers in Singapore have been able to sustain exclusive breastfeeding to the six-month mark. This is much lower than in other developed societies, including Australia, which has it at 18%, South Korea, 11% and Taiwan, a whopping 50%.

During my focus group discussions with parents, many shared that they would like greater employer and community support for breastfeeding. One enlightened local company Yang Kee Logistics is a good example. Breastfeeding mothers enjoy the privacy of a nursing room. Employees can also use a specially designed Children's Corner if they need to take the children to work, for example, when the childcare centre is closed for the day.

Ahead of legislation, fathers who are working in Yang Kee Logistics already enjoy two weeks of paternity leave and an extra two days to spend more time with their newborns. Mind you, Yang Kee is not a big company. They have just about 250 employees.

When parents feel supported by their employers and co-workers, they tend to enjoy parenthood more and, therefore, be more motivated to have more children. Their single colleagues, too, take the cue and will likely be more favourable towards marriage and parenthood.

The wider community, too, plays an important role. Mr Alex Yam shared his difficulties about changing diapers. Therefore, we hope that there will be more developers of shopping malls and commercial buildings who will improve facilities for parents. They can take advantage of BCA's Accessibility Fund which provides 40% of the construction costs of family-friendly features. But after they build these facilities, I agree with Mr Yam that the buildings must open them and let people use them.

Mr Saktiandi talked about the ease of travel on public transport for young parents and, indeed, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) introduced priority lanes which apply to pregnant women as well as families with children in strollers. But I agree with him that we should do more in this area.

Ms Sun Xueling suggested having more child-friendly community spaces and self-help community groups for parents. I recently came across an online support group called "Daddy Matters". It is all men, just young fathers, and the group told me that sometimes they "just need a listening ear and to share tips". Indeed, parents' best coaches and confidantes are often other parents. So, I hope there will be more of such organic support groups.

Sir, one aspect of my investigations was puzzling. France, the UK and the Nordic countries all provide strong support for parents. But even then, their TFRs differ. Among them, as Mr Vikram Nair has pointed out, France has consistently had the highest TFR of nearly 2. The UK, where childcare is actually less well organised and state support less generous than in the other countries, has a sustained TFR of 1.83. This is higher than the average TFR in Finland and Denmark, of about 1.7, where childcare is actually very well organised and fully supported.

For reasons that are not completely understood, it seems that there are other factors that influence TFR, such as historical, geographical and other socio-economic factors. Another factor could be the way society values and celebrates families and children that make people want to have kids.

Respected sociologist and former Nominated Member, Prof Paulin Straughan, once observed that "no one is going to give you a prize for getting married and having kids!" She believes this explains why some people are not taking proactive steps to find a partner, settle down and start families. I, therefore, fully support calls by Ms Sun Xueling and Mr Alex Yam for a whole-of-society effort to foster positive mindsets towards marriage and parenthood and shaping supportive social norms.

Those of us who have had the privilege of being parents know how transformational the experience is. There are, indeed, many sacrifices parents make – sleep, personal time, freedom and stretch marks – to name a few. But nothing quite compares to the joy of holding your own child, the knowledge that you gave life and the relationship with a precious human being. And as Mr Alex Yam and Mr Darryl David have pointed out, fathers feel these emotions just as strongly as mothers do.

So, we must, as a society, continue to celebrate parenthood, celebrate having babies and celebrate families. It is in this spirit that I am announcing some enhancements to our parental leave provisions.

We will legislate a second week of paternity leave for all fathers of Singapore Citizens born from 1 January 2017. So, if you start now, there is good time. In addition, we will increase flexibility for couples in caring for their newborns by increasing shared parental leave from one week to four weeks for citizen children born from 1 July 2017.

As with the current one week of shared parental leave, the four weeks will be shared from the mother's maternity leave. With the enhancements to paternity leave and shared parental leave, fathers will be able to take up to eight weeks of leave, about two months, in the baby's first year.

To support couples who adopt, we will increase adoption leave for adoptive mothers, from the current four weeks, to 12 weeks for infants younger than one year old. This will be effective for children adopted from 1 July 2017 onwards. Adoptive fathers will also be able to share four weeks of their spouse's adoption leave.

I am aware that even as parents-to-be cheer these leave enhancements, some businesses, including SMEs, with higher concentrations of male staff may have concerns, as Mr Thomas Chua and Mr Desmond Choo have highlighted. In fact, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises has also shared concerns with us. It is also out of concerns for businesses and the employability of parents that we assess Mr Louis Ng's suggestion for extended childcare leave, or to peg a parent's childcare leave entitlement to the number of children, to be impractical for now.

We have timed this round of leave enhancements to give employers some time to adjust and plan. In addition, the Government will fully fund the enhancements to the paternity and shared parental leave.

We hope employers who are in a position to do so will start to extend paternity leave even before legislation kicks in so that parents of children born earlier can also benefit. As I shared earlier, the extra benefits should be thought of as important and powerful signals to their employees about their commitment towards family-friendly practices.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Chairman, we are enhancing our support to help Singaporeans fulfil their marriage and parenthood aspirations, by increasing paternity leave and offering more flexibility for fathers to share their wives' maternity leave. However, it is clear that in order to make Singapore a "Great Place for Families", we cannot simply rely on Government policies alone. We urgently need to mobilise the whole community, so that the entire society supports and celebrates parenthood.

We especially hope that more employers can recognise that it is in fact a wise move to help their employees take care of their family because this will not only increase productivity, but also help attract and retain talent.

(In English): Sir, this is the first time during the COS debate that I am wearing the NPTD hat. I have chosen to focus on two main aspects of our work: how we can promote marriage and parenthood so that we can grow the Singaporean Core from within; and how we keep Singapore cohesive and open, where Singaporeans feel connected and confident, as we supplement and expand the Core.

Our overall vision for Singapore is a sustainable population that enables all our citizens to enjoy a good standard of living, for this generation and long into the future. It starts with making sure that Singapore is a "Great Place for Families" so that marriage and parenthood are achievable, enjoyable and celebrated. But it does not end there. The continued story of Singapore and all of us who have chosen to make it our home is best described by former Deputy Prime Minister S Rajaratnam, when he said, "Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice."

Our vision requires conviction and choice. It will take all of our collective efforts to build on our Pioneers' legacy, to keep Singapore our best home – Cohesive and Open, and a Great Place for Families. I invite you to be a partner on this journey. [Applause.]

The Chairman: Any clarifications from hon Members? Er Dr Lee.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Chairman, I have two clarifications. I am very happy to note that engineers receive attention from our leaders. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned about 1,000 engineers that the Public Service sector is going to employ. I would like to ask: does the Civil Service employ only Singaporeans? And what is the age group, whether we are getting the young ones or is it a combination? And whether the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that there are sufficient engineers out there for the Public Service sector to recruit?

The second clarification is on the salary. It is good to note that the starting salary will be increased by 20%. But I think as they progress, that is equally important. So, is there a review on the career path and the remuneration package?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Chairman, the recruitment will be over a range of experiences, a combination of all the things Er Dr Lee Bee Wah described. Some will be beginning engineers, some will be experienced engineers. And some will be Singaporeans, but not all. For salaries, we will review salaries not just at the starting level, but also throughout their careers to make sure that progression is good. But I think it is also important that this is not just about salaries. We want to develop their careers so that we have the types of engineers which we are all proud of.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

6.00 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have a clarification for Minister Chan Chun Sing concerning the anti-corruption cut which I filed.

Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the Government has a robust framework in place to detect money laundering, including offences related to corruption. He also mentioned STRO, which I think has been in place for quite a number of years.

Despite that, in February this year, our Commercial Affairs Department and the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced that they froze a large number of bank accounts for suspected money laundering and other offences connected with 1MDB.

From what I know from investigations, you would only seize accounts if you have some prima facie grounds to suspect that there have been offences committed. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether this may suggest that the framework in place may need a review because it may not really be robust enough for its purpose.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Chairman, let me respond to that. Any framework must be constantly reviewed and updated. We are never complacent. Whenever we receive any information, whether domestically or from our foreign sources, we will undertake the necessary investigation to get to the bottom of it. So, this is how we do things in Singapore. Once we get any information, we will get to the bottom of it.

Having done the investigation for the specific case, we will always follow up and ask ourselves is there a need for us to strengthen our framework. So, it is a continuous process and we will never let our guard down. But I will not be able to comment on any of the investigations because I think it is not correct for us to make any specific comments while investigations are ongoing.

The Chairman: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have two clarifications for the Deputy Prime Minister. One, the Deputy Prime Minister earlier mentioned the 400 over cases of harassment against Public Service officers. I would like to find out whether it was virtual harassment or face-to-face harassment, a physical presence. If it was a physical presence, then is PSD also checking the virtual harassment vis-a-vis things like email, Facebook posting or letters that were sent? The public officer may feel there was a harassment to them as far as how they have conducted themselves fairly. Secondly, will PSD also do more to celebrate courteous engagement between public servants and members of the public, in case we just focus on harassment cases alone?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: These were cases which were reported to the Police. So, they would be the more serious cases. There might well have been harassment cases of other types, but perhaps not serious enough to be reported to the Police.

As Mr Ang has correctly pointed out, if there are threats made to public officers, as we have seen in the media recently, where certain individuals have been taken to task and brought to Court because they were inciting the public to take matters into their own hands against certain Police officers and public officers, they will be taken to task even if that was done on the Internet.

We will take these matters seriously, whether they are face-to-face or whether they are on the Internet, when incitement to violence against public officers is made. These are matters which we will take very seriously.

The Chairman: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: The second question relates to whether we will do more to celebrate the courteous engagement between the two, rather than focusing only on harassment cases alone.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: It is not just courtesy but we also, at each Public Service Week, give awards to members of the public who have contributed to not just positive engagement but to helping the Public Service do their work well. So, we do have such awards.

The Chairman: Ms Sun Xueling.

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Chairman, I was in a student forum recently and a student asked if having a technical engineering background will still allow him to aspire to a C-suite level job. I found the question both telling and sad. I personally think that the rise of technopreneurs will help to correct this trend. But I was wondering if the Minister could shed some light on what we can do further to change mindsets about engineering as a profession.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Engineering is a very noble profession. You were asked about whether people can get to the C-suite. Well, you can get to the M-suite if you are an engineer. There are quite a few in the front bench who are engineers.

I can cite a few examples of outstanding Singaporean corporate leaders who are engineers themselves. People like Mr Koh Boon Hwee, Mr Liew Mun Leong who runs CapitaLand, Mr Chew Choon Seng who ran Singapore Airlines. These were all engineers.

I would say that we should have a good combination of people with technical skills as well as good financial and marketing skills to run companies in which technical knowledge, technical competence are an important part of making that company competitive.

If you run a company or an organisation which requires technical competence in order to make it succeed and work, and you do not look after the financials and the marketing, you are not going to be able to sell your product no matter how good it is. It does not sell itself.

On the other hand, if you have only financial people and marketing people and they ignore the need for a good product, then you can easily run the company to the ground.

So, you do need a combination of both. The advantage that engineers have is that they tend to be very numerate and are able to bring that quality of problem-solving to the problems that they are faced with in companies, whether it is the financial or technical type of problems.

So, I would say to a young engineer, "Press on, keep an open mind, make use of the skills that you have. With an engineering and technical background, you are equipped with many of the skills that you need to be successful in life."

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Sir, I appreciate that maybe now is not the time to review the extended childcare leave. But I hope that in the near future, it will be reviewed. It is really from feedback of residents who have about three kids, because the current two days of leave is really insufficient. And I will join Members and fellow fathers in this House to declare that I have also changed my fair share of nappies.

The Chairman: I am not sure that was a clarification, but are there any more? Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Chairman, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister who mentioned just now that not all the 1,000 engineers will be Singaporean. I would like to ask why not? Under what circumstances will you employ foreign engineers?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: I think even Er Dr Lee would want to employ a person who can do the job best for your customer and, in this case, our customer is a Singaporean. If there are areas in which we need expertise in order to execute public projects well, we will employ them. If we do not have enough Singaporeans to do the job, we will employ foreigners.

But clearly, we want to develop a strong engineering core in the Public Service in those areas which I have described. For that, we will train Singaporeans to be able to take leadership roles and build expertise in those areas. Also, they could well be immigrants who have joined the core and become Singaporeans, like yourself, Er Dr Lee.

The Chairman: Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Vikram Nair: This clarification is for Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo. One of the big differences between France and many other countries is that they are traditional socialists in many ways and that includes education. So, they start from a very early age, preschool, I believe from the age of three or so, that is institutionalised care for children. How big a factor do you think that plays?

On this particular issue, I will just plant my flag and say that when it comes to education, I do sit with the socialists. I think that that is one of the great equalisers. Singapore has done well because from primary school onwards, there is a fairly level playing field. Everyone gets into largely government schools. But now, I think things start a bit earlier and, in preschool, there is a much greater diversity of services. Do you think there is a role – I think right now, we have the anchor operators – for them to have a much larger share of the preschool market, so that more people will have access to it?

We judge success by the number of people who take up preschool education as opposed to just a number of new centres that are set up. So, the aspiration should be: can we get all children enrolled, for example, in nursery or even earlier, if necessary?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Chairman, Mr Vikram Nair has asked a very interesting question. In fact, when we interacted with our French counterparts, one of the things that was very consistent, whether it was meeting with the policymakers in their MSF, MOE or CPF equivalent which is involved in the disbursements of the benefits, every single one of them, in giving us the background to France's policies when it came to childcare, mentioned the year 1945.

Why did they mention the year 1945? I do not understand French, but from the interpretation and the conversation, the year was significant for them because in 1945, the French state was brought to its knees as they lost so many citizens. There was a collective sense of urgency that has stayed with them to this day, that you need to reproduce, you need to have more of your own. It is exactly the same kind of mentality which Mr Thomas Chua described would have been needed for 西夏, that is, even though they were superior in their capabilities, they just could not defeat their enemies by sheer disadvantage of numbers.

In fact, historical factors also contribute to French society's great sense of comfort with allowing other people to look after their children. I was told by French counterparts that already in the 19th century, women went to work. When they went to work, someone had to look after the children. From those very early days, the beginning of the industrial revolution, they already had ideas that related to a creche or childcare. So, they have had a very long tradition.

The Member is quite right that, by now, their childcare provision is very extensive. From three years old onwards, the equivalent of the MOE in France cares for all children placed there by the parents. From age three, four, five, six, it is preschool, and they have a curriculum in the morning and lunch is within the school environment. After that, they have play and nap. This provision is very extensive.

I would say that the French model is something that we ought to study very, very carefully, simply because it has allowed many more of their women to stay in the workforce. I think this is also an aspiration that we will find within Singapore families. I think it is not just the women, as, very often, the husbands quite appreciate the fact that there are two sources of income. It provides resources for the family that is more than one person can bring to bear. Indeed, it is a model that we are studying very carefully. We think that there are elements of that model that are worth us emulating.

The Chairman: Mr Darryl David.

Mr Darryl David: Mr Chairman, I would like to direct my clarification to Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo who mentioned that there will be a lot of support that is given in the period just before birth. And perhaps in the first, second year of pregnancy, I think the Government has done a wonderful job and I hope it will continue to do a good job in the area of providing that financial support.

What about other support in the area of, say, services like counselling, and more support groups to even advise new parents on how to raise their children? Currently, there is a plethora of such courses but they are expensive sometimes. If you have the means, I know many young parents who have signed up for such courses. But parents from the lower-income groups may find it a bit prohibitive.

6.15 pm

So, would then Government please, either working with the grassroots or through other organisations, set up more support systems in the area of parenting classes, parenting workshops and so on, especially for new parents?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Chairman, brevity is a virtue. So, the answer is yes, we will certainly look into those.

The Chairman: If there are no other clarifications, Mr Ang Hin Kee, would you like to withdraw the amendment? You do not need to thank the whole front bench.

Mr Ang Hin Kee: Just the back bench. Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $428,699,800 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $59,366,600 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.