1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the projected economic and job creation benefits and which sectors will benefit from the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); (b) whether the Government is concerned that some sectors will be adversely affected and certain investments and firms will relocate to JS-SEZ; and (c) whether there are Government incentive schemes such as productivity grants or investment incentives that can be extended to Singapore companies investing in the JS-SEZ.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) seeks to capitalise on the complementary strengths of Singapore and Johor to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness and to create good jobs for Singaporeans. Businesses across sectors including manufacturing, logistics and digital economy can benefit from the improved cross-border flow of goods and people, and ease of doing business in the JS-SEZ.
Many Singapore-based companies already have twinning operations in Singapore and Johor. Firms could benefit from siting some of their operations in Johor to take advantage of the resources there, whilst focusing headquarters and research functions in Singapore, where we have relative strengths. For instance, South Korea's SPC Group, the parent company of Paris Baguette, operates its regional headquarters and innovation centre in Singapore, while its regional production base is in Johor.
We can also jointly attract new investments to the JS-SEZ, which may establish operations in Singapore or tap on the services provided by Singapore. For example, Agrocorp, an agri-commodities and food ingredient firm headquartered in Singapore, recently expanded its downstream capabilities in plant protein extraction with a new plant with its Japanese partner in Johor. This plant will use protein extraction technology developed by Agrocorp and the Singapore Institute of Technology. These investments in Johor create value for the Singapore economy as our firms grow.
I caught up with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) recently and they told me that over 100 Singapore firms will be joining the SBF business mission to the JS-SEZ later this month. So, there is also considerable investment interest there.
In that vein, we will continue to support businesses in Singapore through existing enterprise support schemes. Eligible Singapore companies investing in the JS-SEZ can seek support from schemes such as the Market Readiness Assistance Grant and Enterprise Financing Scheme administered by Enterprise Singapore. Malaysia has also announced an incentive package for the JS-SEZ, including special corporate and income tax rates for qualifying investments, and intend to announce more details when ready.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, thank you. I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have a few supplementary questions. First, in relation to the Parliamentary Question that I had filed, I would still like to get the Minister of State's response whether the Government is concerned that some specific sectors will be adversely affected, whether certain investments or companies and firms will likely relocate to the JS-SEZ as a result of the JS-SEZ, and whether there are any projections of job creation numbers that the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has in relation to the JS-SEZ within the first phase and future phases.
Second, the Minister of State mentioned about Malaysia introducing some incentives. I have read that the Malaysian Investment Development Authority's incentives cover sectors such as manufacturing, chemicals, global services hub, integrated tourism projects and smart logistics. These are also some projects that Singapore wants to cover. There are also incentives for knowledge workers. Will there be mitigation measures to make sure that some of the investments that were intended to come into Singapore will not be affected.
Lastly, I have got some feedback about concerns from some sectors including the transport association where I am an advisor to. These are concerns about whether there is some impact on the transport and logistics sectors and how they might be affected by Malaysian logistics coming into Singapore.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his questions. Indeed, these are views that we have also gotten on the ground in our frequent interactions with businesses across different sectors. I have met SBF very regularly, including last week when a lot of the same views that have been shared by the Member were also shared by SBF. I was also recently in Johor, visiting the zone, meeting with Malaysian leaders. So, the discussions are ongoing. More details will be released. And we are monitoring all the impact that the JS-SEZ will have on both sides.
I wanted to take a step back and look at it from a bigger perspective and what the JS-SEZ has to offer. If we look at the global economic landscape, it is increasingly uncertain, it is dynamic, it is ever-changing. The global competition as we have seen over the last couple of weeks has intensified for talent, for trade and also for investments. So, it is imperative that if Singapore wants to be competitive, we need to be more nimble, we need to be more innovative, we need to enhance our competitive game. If executed well, the JS-SEZ will give us that additional competitive edge. It will give us the opportunity and in fact, it would give us the impetus to build on our inherent strengths. These inherent strengths are not that easy to replicate. These have been grown over decades. They are quite uniquely Singaporean. And they give Singapore that competitive edge.
These traits are inherent. For example, the strong rule of law, regulatory and political stability, innovative mindset, talent, research and development, connectivity and a strong financial centre.
First, it gives us the opportunity and impetus to build on where we are already strong, but it also gives us that impetus to make sure that what we already have, we must strengthen so that we continually have that competitive edge.
Second, the JS-SEZ will also give us the opportunity to leverage on Johor's strengths to overcome our inherent weaknesses. The weaknesses or disadvantages are well-known to everybody – it is our land, it is our manpower, it is our natural resources. So, it gives us the opportunity to build on our strengths and also to leverage the SEZ's strengths to be able to increase our competitiveness.
What is the final objective for this? The final objective is to attract new companies, new investors that hitherto may not have considered Singapore as an investment destination or potentially even maybe, Singapore is a little bit lower on their list of places to invest. It gives businesses a value proposition that hitherto may not have been there in the first place but are now then attracted to this value proposition.
To the Member's question earlier on, as I mentioned in my original reply, there are already Singapore firms that are already there, they are sited there. In our discussions with many of the Singapore firms, they do intend to have operations on both sides. They are looking at the landscape and they will make those decisions in due time. But I think the value proposition, both for the SEZ as a whole, and the unique relative and complementary strengths for both Singapore and Johor, are quite evident.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential for Foreign-based Social Media Platforms to Manipulate Algorithms to Privilege or Disadvantage Reach of Particular Candidates during Election Period","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has assessed the potential impact of a foreign-based social media platform with significant local presence manipulating its algorithms with the effect of privileging or disadvantaging the social media reach of a particular candidate or group of candidates during a general election period or the run-up period thereof; (b) whether this constitutes foreign interference under existing laws; and (c) whether existing laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 are adequate to address this.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): The Government is aware that social media platforms' algorithms may potentially be manipulated to skew the consumption of information by its user.
If algorithms are deliberately manipulated by foreign persons or entities, including social media companies, to affect our domestic politics, that would constitute foreign interference.
Various provisions under the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act 2021 (FICA) may be used to act against algorithmically driven online foreign interference, particularly hostile information campaigns driven by foreign actors to influence our elections.
If falsehoods against the public interest are communicated online during an election period, the Government may issue directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA), requiring the correct facts to be published. Additionally, all online election advertising during that period must abide by the relevant rules in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954, for transparency and accountability. The Returning Officer can direct social media platforms to disable access to or remove any online election advertising that violates these rules.
The Government will engage social media companies ahead of the upcoming General Elections to remind them of the need to comply with applicable laws, especially those concerning foreign interference.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Does the Minister of State not agree that much of the substance of her answer and reference to the legislation look at issues of falsehoods, rather than manipulation of viewership and what people get to see?
So, can I ask the Minister of State, firstly, given that social media platforms and their algorithms control what citizens and voters see, what shows up in the feed, has the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) considered the following scenarios. For example, what if a foreign social media company deliberately manipulates the algorithm so that a particular candidate gets more coverage during a campaign? The candidate may not even be aware of this.
Secondly, what if a foreign social media company decides to again manipulate the algorithm so that a particular candidate which they think is going to win is supported even further, so that at a later date, they can claim credit for it and perhaps even undermine the democratic mandate of that candidate and the team?
These problems can affect Members of Parliament (MPs), parties and candidates on all sides, of all persuasions.
So, given this, can the Minister of State share how Singapore and Singaporeans can better protect ourselves and our democracy, so that foreign social media companies do not have a situation where they manipulate algorithms to affect the outcome of our democratic process, so that politics in Singapore remains for Singaporeans to decide?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. He has obviously given the matter much thought. I would like to come back to my main response, where I mentioned that the Government is aware that social media platforms' algorithms may potentially be manipulated to skew the consumption of information and that if algorithms are deliberately manipulated by foreign persons or entities, including social media companies, to affect our domestic politics, that will constitute foreign interference.
These two paragraphs that I have just shared do not rely on the information being falsehoods. What instead FICA is interested in is that there are activities conducted by foreign actors typically through covert or deceptive means that affect our domestic politics, in order to advance the foreign actors' own interests.
I would like to share an example. In 2024, the Government had issued FICA account restriction directions against a network of 95 social media accounts and also blocked 10 inauthentic websites that could potentially be used to mount hostile information campaigns against Singapore.
Beyond this, the Government also has in place several initiatives to help Singaporeans improve their information literacy skills.
We will continue to study the evolving online landscape and review if additional regulations for social media services are needed as part of ongoing efforts to enhance online safety in Singapore and strengthen our defences against foreign interference.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Can I ask, Mr Speaker, how will the Ministry independently ascertain whether algorithms have been manipulated for the reasons that are put in the Parliamentary Question?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member his supplementary question. In and of itself, algorithms are not illegal. Many social media companies have algorithms for the purposes of pushing out their information.
They may use it because, first and foremost, the algorithms are proprietary and they use the algorithms because they want to be able to catch the eyeballs of consumers.
So, I would just like to make this point that algorithms, in and of itself, used by social media companies are not illegal. But what the FICA aims to do is that if the Minister is satisfied that the algorithms are being used by foreign entities, with a political end in mind, to influence domestic politics in Singapore, then he is empowered to issue pre-emptive measures.
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: Mr Speaker, following on from the questions raised by both myself and the Leader of the Opposition, can I ask the Minister of State, would MHA be open to engaging with academia and researchers who conduct research into such matters? Can I perhaps draw the Minister of State's attention to how there is open source research by an Australian academic team – one at Queensland University of Technology, another at Monash University – which did a computational analysis of potential algorithmic bias on a major social media platform during a major election in another country, around the world, that happened quite recently, and that there are opportunities for academia to look at this, and can the Ministry, perhaps, look at examining collaborations with academia and experts, to study this further?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, the Government is open to conversations and engagements, because this is an evolving threat landscape and we would desire to hear from academics, as well as social media companies, as to the trends they are seeing.
I would like to cite two examples that have happened and which we can also take reference from, which is that there was British Broadcasting Corporation study, which claimed that young voters in key electoral constituencies during the 2024 United Kingdom elections have been recommended false and satirical artificial intelligence generated videos depicting party leaders making comments that they actually did not make.
And also, in recent years, there have also been allegations of foreign interference in elections through social media platforms, most notably during the 2024 United States (US) elections, where it was alleged that a social media bot farm, comprising over 900 social media accounts, had spread disinformation in the US and abroad.
So, indeed, I think there are examples in the real world and my Ministry will be open to these engagements to understand further as to what other steps can be taken.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Singapore's Digital Ecosystem following Meta's Decision to Eliminate Fact-checking and Reduce Content Moderation Effort","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the recent announcements by Meta to eliminate fact-checking and reduce content moderation efforts (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential impact on the spread of misinformation and harmful content on Meta’s platforms; (b) whether there are implications for Singapore’s digital ecosystem and the safety of online discourse; and (c) what measures will be introduced or enhanced to promote information integrity and responsible digital citizenship in Singapore, particularly when global technology companies adopt more lenient moderation policies.
\tThe Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, social media has increasingly become the primary source of news and information for many Singaporean users online. A reliable fact-checking and content moderation system on social media platforms, therefore, serves as a crucial first line of defence against misinformation and harmful online content, allowing platforms to act early to detect, correct or filter out such material.
Meta has been assessed to be a social media platform with significant reach in Singapore. The Government is naturally concerned about the impact of its policies and practices on Singapore. We are therefore monitoring developments arising from the company's announcement to replace third party fact-checking with crowdsourced fact-checking and revise its hate speech policies across its platforms. Based on publicly available report, these changes will be limited to within the United States (US), at least in the near term. Nonetheless, we will assess their impact on Singapore, especially if the changes are also implemented here.
In the meantime, we will continue our existing approach to addressing misinformation and ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose. In terms of regulations, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) enables the Government to issue corrections against online falsehoods that are against the public interest. The Codes of Practice under POFMA also require the prescribed Internet intermediaries to put in place safeguards to promote credible online sources of information, enhance transparency in political advertising and prevent and counter the abuse of online accounts. In addition, our Code of Practice for Online Safety under the Broadcasting Act requires designated social media services, including Meta's platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, to have systems or processes to prevent Singapore users from accessing harmful content.
Beyond regulations, it is also important for Singaporeans to be able to protect themselves against risks in the online space. To this end, the Government has put in place public education programmes to equip Singaporeans with the skills to critically evaluate information and protect themselves against misinformation. As an example, the National Library Board's Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate (SURE) programme has developed resources and organised activities to equip Singaporeans to be discerning producers and consumers of information. As part of the Digital for Life movement and the Digital Skills for Life framework, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has also developed resources to equip Singaporeans to be safe, smart and kind online, including skills on identifying and taking action against false information.
We are also keeping up with efforts to leverage technology to respond to online harms. In May last year, we committed $50 million in funding over five years to the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety (CATOS), which will bring together government, industry, academics and civil society, to develop and deploy technological solutions to build a safer online ecosystem for Singapore users. Part of CATOS' work includes testing \"Trust by Design\" technologies, such as watermarking and content authentication, so as to enhance the authenticity of digital content.
The Government will continue to review our range of online safety efforts, to keep pace with a fast-changing social media landscape and ensure our Singaporeans can continue to access safe and trusted online spaces.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. I thank the Minister of State for her answer. While the current changes to Meta's moderation policy applies only to the US, has the Ministry done an assessment that if this becomes broad-based and company-wide across various jurisdictions, what is the impact on our local regulations, such as with POFMA and Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act? And has Meta reached out to the regulators, or has the Ministry, perhaps, spoken to Meta, to better understand the rationale behind these changes and how they intend to have responsible digital governance?
As we saw from the previous Parliamentary Question, there are, of course, many specific risk areas that are pertinent to us. We have been through COVID-19, impact on public health, social cohesion, which we covered in yesterday's debate, and of course, of pertinence to this year, elections in Singapore.
Meta's new policy in the US, somewhat, mirrors what X is doing, in terms of crowdsourcing moderation, but the Center for Countering Digital Hate, for example, looked at X – and platform's own owner, Elon Musk – many of his views, which are misleading on the US elections, and of course, his support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Reform UK outside of the US, has amassed almost two billion views. This is despite them having this so called crowdsourced or community nodes system. So, there is a great scope for damage to be done, should various social media platforms decide to go the same way. And I am asking if the Ministry is prepared for those eventualities.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Firstly, I would like to highlight that the announcement is in its early days yet. In Singapore, we always take a collaborative approach with the social media platforms and we have always been in active engagement with them. With regards to this particular instance, we are in touch with Meta and we are working with them to understand the specifics and details of this policy and the implications to the US, as well as to the global larger population. We will continue to assess if there are areas of concerns and if there are areas where we need to enhance our regulations, to see if they will continue to meet their obligations under our existing regulations. So, that is one. We are already in touch, we are already assessing.
Two, I would also highlight that we have always been on the lookout for all the new trends and developments, especially during sensitive periods like the election, which is why the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill was passed recently, specifically looking into the integrity of information online during the election period. So, we will continue to keep an eye out for some of these developments.
Thirdly, though, I would like to highlight that we already have existing safeguards. We have been outcome-based in our approach; we know the outcome we want. There are a lot of technologies and capabilities and different mechanisms to protect users in the online space in many different areas of concerns, like the algorithms. So, we are looking into some of these. But as a start, our safeguards make sure that the platforms are on the same page, with regard to the outcomes we want to achieve, that there is a safe online space and there is a high integrity of the content that is put out. So, these are ongoing efforts and we will continue to enhance as we move on, on this.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts and Manpower Required to Disseminate Grow Well SG Recommendations and Guidance on Screen Use in Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health in relation to the Grow Well SG personalised health plan initiative for children (a) how many hours of contact time will each child or family expect to receive on a yearly basis to discuss and develop the plan; (b) what sort of personnel will be involved in developing the plans; and (c) what will be the anticipated additional manpower requirements to meaningfully roll-out the initiative through schools, broken down into the types of professions involved.
5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures is the Ministry taking to disseminate information on Grow Well SG and the Guidance on Screen Use in Children effectively to parents and caregivers; (b) how does the Ministry plan to support parents in overcoming challenges related to the implementation of these guidelines; and (c) how does the Ministry monitor the effectiveness of the Guidance on Screen Use in Children given the rapidly evolving digital landscape.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together as they both touch on Grow Well SG please?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Besides leveraging mass media, the health guidelines including screen time for children, will be conveyed to parents via the annual health screening programme in mainstream schools to prepare children's health plans. Information is also available through Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Parents Gateway.
The annual screening starts with parents of Primary 1 to 3 students pre-filling a Lifestyle Questionnaire to reflect on their child's current lifestyle habits. During the school health screening, trained nurses and lifestyle coaches from the Health Promotion Board (HPB) will engage each student individually, review responses from the Lifestyle Questionnaire and offer suggestions to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Ms He asked specifically about time duration. The entire process of screening and consultation for each child may take about 30 minutes. As to how much time a child or family will spend each year to discuss about health plan, it really depends. Three Ministries have worked together to strengthen the preventive care support for children under Grow Well SG, but it will be up to families to make full use of Grow Well SG.
I believe most parents want to be actively involved in building the health of their children. We will encourage parents to review their children's Health Plan, utilise the starter kit and resources on Parent Hub and Healthy 365, have discussions with their children and commit to adopt healthy habits.
Many parents may face challenges in meeting the updated guidelines on screen use. I got many queries during Chinese New Year. There are tips and best practices available on platforms, such as Parent Hub website and Digital for Life portal, as well as through Families for Life parenting programmes. Parents are also in various support groups. I hope they leverage these groups to share practices and provide support to each other. Compare less about how much tuition they have for their children, compare more about parenting tips and how to wean their children off excessive device time.
I believe the lifelong impact of healthy habits from young is more profound than the academic benefits of enrichment classes and tuition. As the implementation of the Health Plan largely taps on MOE and HPB's existing processes, we are not deploying additional manpower. That said, it changes the way they do things, with a stronger focus on preventive care for children, and involving parents to develop and follow up on health plans.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about monitoring results. The annual Lifestyle Questionnaire provided to parents as part of the Health Plans, will contain self-reported data on lifestyle habits of their children. Through the results, we will see if Grow Well SG is gradually shifting the health habits, including screen time, of our young.
It takes a village to raise a child. Building healthy habits in our children is a long-term and whole-of-society endeavour. Under Grow Well SG, the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides updated health advisories and timely resources; our schools provide the most appropriate platform to educate children and parents about health habits; HPB supports the schools in developing health plans for children; its Healthy 365 app offers healthy lifestyle programmes for children, which are good alternatives to screen time, and Parenting for Wellness toolbox by MOE, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and HPB includes resources on topics, such as managing screen use. All these are important resources in support for parents, who know they are the ultimate educator and guardian for their children.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you to the Minister for the reply. I just have one further supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in his reply that trained nurses and lifestyle coaches will primarily be the ones carrying out the interaction and implementation of the personalised plan for children. I believe the Minister also further mentioned that they will not be recruiting any new personnel in order to carry this out.
My question is, given that lifestyle coaches and nurses are in the traditional areas where there might be a bit of a manpower crunch or where personnel and staff members could be under quite heavy workload, I would just like to know whether the Minister can share further details of how they plan to add to the workload, if I can use this phrase, or how to make sure that the personnel who would be taking on these additional roles will not be unduly stressed by the additional workload in carrying out this new plan.
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: HPB has about a hundred dedicated staff, mostly trained nurses and lifestyle coaches, who are dedicated to engaging the schools and they have been doing so for some years. So, it is a dedicated piece of work. They work very hard, but I think with Grow Well SG, there is a shift in orientation, and also, to build in a system of developing health plans for children. So, the activities do not change.
For years they have been going down to school doing health screening, talking to the kids about lifestyle habits, but now, we deliberately develop a Health Plan for children with clearer guidelines, especially on screen time and then through the school, engage the parents.
So, it very much involves a change in the way we do things and make it more systemised and hopefully more effective. As to whether it adds more work, more stress, maybe it does to some extent, but I think the staff actually are very motivated and very excited by this. They see this as a potential breakthrough and I think if there is more work, they are quite willing to work harder for this, because the outcome and the meaning is now deeper.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. My supplementary questions pertain to the guidance on screen use in children. It provides comprehensive recommendations and I thank the Minister for sharing that there are various platforms available to share resources with parents.
The first supplementary question is what tailored support systems are in place to assist parents from diverse backgrounds in overcoming some of the challenges in following these guidelines. And number two, given the rapidly evolving digital landscape, how does the Ministry ensure that the guidance and the guidelines remain relevant?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The second question first. We will continue to monitor the evidence. I think there are local studies and international studies on the impact of life habits on children. As and when we see new findings, we will update the guidelines from time to time. But essentially, we are taking an evidence-based approach to Grow Well SG.
As for tailored support systems, indeed, I think there needs to be more support for parents. I do know there is a range of practices on the ground in every home. There are children; while these are guidelines; children who exceed or do not exceed the guidelines, there is a range of impact on them. So, it is a very diverse space.
But I think, as agencies with all the expertise in education and in clinical science, we have a duty when we know something is happening, because of digitalisation of childhood and we see the evidence, I think we have a duty to put out the information and recommend guidelines to parents and to schools, so that we can bring up our children better.
I was saying over Chinese New Year, I met so many parents with so many children and when they see me, they will tell their children, \"This is the uncle who prevents you from using screen time. Go and talk to him.\" So, I get an earful of that!
Many parents are indeed struggling a bit. They know they need to wean the kid off, especially during meal times; they wonder how.
So, we will discuss with MSF. There are online resources. I think we need to improve them. MOH, MOE and MSF will continue to discuss this. This is a policy platform. We launched this, but this is not the end. I think this is the start. From here, we do need to develop this further, including the online resources. So, what Mr Yip Hon Weng has asked for, I think this is something we will have to work on. Ultimately, parents need practical step-by-step guidelines for them to improve their parenting skills.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Plans to Review Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others Identity Classification","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) when does the Government plan to review the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) race model; and (b) what is the form that such a review will take.
\tThe Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, Singapore's approach to multi-racialism has been to recognise our differences, while actively building mutual respect and fostering understanding between the different racial groups in the community.
The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework is part of this approach. Individuals can register their race based on lineage, and there are currently over 200 different races that Singaporeans are registered under. But for the purposes of policy administration, these races are categorised into four groups based on the size of the communities: Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others.
So, the CMIO framework does not prescribe one's racial identity, but helps us to administer race-based policies and programmes that promote social cohesion, identify those who need help and safeguard the rights of minorities.
Let me name a few examples. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) draws from the CMIO framework to ensure a good mix of races in our public housing estates. Race also features in some of our political structures, such as the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, to ensure that minorities are represented in Parliament. To promote community building, the Government works with self-help groups to uplift low-income households and the less privileged within the various racial communities. It has also allowed the Government to monitor the outcomes of the various groups and provide more targeted interventions. These will be more difficult to do without the CMIO framework in place.
It has been said by some that the CMIO framework is overly simplistic and rigid in our increasingly complex and heterogenous society. There is some truth to this but nonetheless, race remains a key identifier for many individuals. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study in 2021 found that 87%, nearly nine in 10, of Singapore residents considered race important to their identity. A 2021 CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations also found that over 60% of Singapore residents thought that the CMIO policy helped to preserve racial harmony and should be retained. If we eliminated the framework, we may well get worse outcomes as a result.
And the evidence overseas does tend to suggest this. Let us look at France. France banned the collection of race-based data since 1978. You have to ask whether that has removed the issue of race from political debate. Racial tensions remain and, in fact, France has seen a surge in race-related offences in recent years.
Sir, I do not want to draw a simple, straight-line conclusion from France banning collection of race-based data to its racial situation today. But it is one point of reference amongst several such points in a multifaceted and complex issue.
Our view is that the lack of race-based data prevents measuring and understanding the difficulties that different races face in different areas. And it prevents effective intervention to resolve those issues. Our model of multiculturalism, multi-racialism, with the data and framework we have, has worked quite well for us so far.
But as Minister Edwin Tong said, we do keep in mind the issue, review periodically, ask ourselves about the CMIO framework, amongst other issues, and see whether it continues to be relevant.
The CMIO framework has been adjusted over the years too – for example, to allow registration of double-barrelled races. But we have been cautious about moving away from the framework. It has worked well for us and has helped us to forge a more harmonious set of race relations in our society today.
Sir, this has been explained a number of times. In fact, I touched on it yesterday too. So, I am not quite sure the context of Mr Leong's question. And so, perhaps through you, I can ask Mr Leong to perhaps explain the rationale or whether there is any clarification that he needs from what I have said.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Leong.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his clarification. I had originally directed this Parliamentary Question at Minister Edwin Tong actually, because he made comments at the IPS conference that we should be constantly reviewing the CMIO model. So, I just wanted to clarify whether the Government is thinking of a change and whether a review, a bigger review is being undertaken and what that review will be.
I am satisfied with the clarifications of the Minister and I have actually no further comments on that.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Sir, picking up from what Mr Leong has said, I realise that the question arises from what Mr Edwin Tong has said.
Perhaps we have very different perspectives from Mr Leong on CMIO and its implications, for example, on the EIP. And I think that those different perspectives are clear when, for example, you see some of the things that Mr Leong has said in the past, for example, on Housing and Development Board (HDB) living, if you look at Mr Leong's Facebook post of February 2023, and I quote, he says that \"Singaporeans are not condemned to living in HDB flat[s]\".
Mr Leong has also made comments in this House which are racist and he has quite freely admitted to that too. So, if I can read out from the Hansard of 14 September 2021. I asked him, \"Sir, through you, does Mr Leong accept that his and his party's statements on CECA having been interpreted by some of PSP members as being racist, may well be interpreted by Singaporeans as racist as well?\" And since there was no answer, I had to repeat the question. I asked him again, \"Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is, 'You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone'. My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view.\"
And I had to repeat it in a different way and asked again, \"Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point.\"
And Mr Leong was good enough to say, \"There will be some people who will think that there is racial undertone [to his statements], yes\". [Please refer to \"Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy\", Official Report, 14 September 2021, Vol 95, Issue 38, Motions section.]
And I will hand out these, Sir. But the point I will make arising from his question is this. Sir, if you look at his comments, the 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and if you combine that with his racist comments – Mr Leong may not put much value in our multiracial approach; he may not put value in our ethnic integration in our housing estates, but the EIP, for example, is a key plank of our policy to ensure that people live together, are integrated and we put a lot of value in making sure our housing estates are well managed because we care for Singaporeans. And the CMIO is a key plank of those policies. I hope that clarifies, Sir.
And if I can, with your leave, hand over, just for the record, the copies, and for Mr Leong to refresh his memory, through the Clerk. One for yourself, Sir, and one for Mr Leong.
\t
Mr Speaker: Can someone collect that and pass it to me and to Mr Leong? [A set of documents was handed to Mr Speaker and Mr Leong Mun Wai.] Mr Leong.
\tMr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put on record that the Progress Singapore Party supports the EIP that we have for the HDB flats. What we take issue with is that the EIP has caused economic disadvantages. There is an economic cost to the minorities. So, we have recommended in this Parliament that we should compensate the minorities for that economic cost they have incurred. So, that is all we have said. We are not against the EIP at all.
\tMr K Shanmugam: Sir, I note that Mr Leong does not deny saying that 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and that his comments were racist.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Impact from Rising Tuition Expenditure on Educational Equity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with reference to the latest Government survey on household expenditure which found that families in Singapore spent $1.8 billion on private tuition in 2023, an increase from previous years, what measures are being taken to address the potential impact that rising tuition expenditure has on educational equity, particularly for students from lower-income households.
8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education in view of the disparity in spending on private tuition between households of different income quintiles (a) whether the Ministry foresees a widening of social inequality as higher-income families gain disproportionate access to educational advantages; (b) whether the Ministry can share its assessment of the long-term implication of this trend, particularly on social mobility; and (c) whether any policies are being considered to mitigate these effects.
\tThe Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Based on findings from the Household Expenditure Survey 2023 conducted by the Department of Statistics (DOS), the overall growth in tuition expenditure across all households was similar to the growth in overall household income from all sources. It was also similar to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for enrichment and supplementary courses.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises that the reasons for taking up tuition are varied. While there are some students who genuinely need more dedicated help in coping with their studies, there are others who take tuition even though they are coping well. Excessive reliance on tuition can diminish students’ joy of learning and take time away from their holistic development. It can even be detrimental when students struggle to cope with the additional demands of tuition.
MOE has introduced policy changes to shift away from an over-emphasis on academic results and broaden the definition of success. But these moves will not be as effective if mindsets do not shift. We must shift our focus from putting our children through excessive competition against others based solely on academic results, to giving more time and space for holistic development of our children and also helping them to maximise their individual talents and strengths, so that they can be the best versions of themselves.
As Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, the data from DOS also shows a disparity in tuition expenditure between households of different income quintiles. This is consistent with global trends, where parents who are better endowed will use their resources and networks to support their children’s development. They sign their children up for more, or more expensive enrichment and tuition, hoping that this will help their children in their studies. MOE is not in a position to intervene in such personal decisions.
But regardless of a student’s socio-economic background, MOE will continue to make sure that our education system provides sufficient opportunities for all students to reach their fullest potential, regardless of their background and this is even more important for students from lower-income households.
To this end, MOE has devoted significant resources to support students with higher needs. For instance, our schools provide specialised academic intervention for primary and secondary school students who need more support to build their literacy and numeracy foundation through the Learning Support Programme and the Learning Support for Mathematics. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Education\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Schools also have partnerships with volunteers and self-help groups that provide affordable academic support. One example is the Collaborative Tuition Programme, which provides students, particularly those from lower-income households, with subsidised tuition.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 has affirmed our efforts. Our students from lower-income families out-performed the OECD average in the core domains of reading, mathematics and science, as well as in creative thinking.
Mr Speaker, MOE cannot advance social mobility on our own. A whole-of-society effort is needed to share our resources and networks with those who are less well-endowed, broaden our definitions of success, reduce academic stress and recognise the contributions of those with different skills and talents.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I am glad to hear that we are doing things to change the mindset of this perceived idea of the necessity of tuition. Beyond financial concerns, is MOE studying the impact of this tuition culture on students' well-being and stress levels? Such information could be helpful for us to push further a change in this mindset.
My next question is really on how I have heard about the financial support for the lower-income families, but I do also note that there are families who are in the middle-income who feel that they need support for their children. Are there measures by MOE to address these issues and concerns by such families?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: MOE is certainly concerned as well about stress that can be brought onto students because of excessive reliance on tuition, especially if the tuition does not help students in improving their learning and understanding of the subjects that they are studying but instead, take away precious time for them to grow and develop themselves holistically. So, certainly, we will be keen to undertake studies and also research with partners in this field.
On the subject of support for students from middle-income families, we do have broad-based support. In fact, we have increased the amount of bursary that is provided to our students, even for those from middle-income households. And our education system, in general, provides support for students, even for those from middle-income households.
I would like to say that actually the more important thing for us is to understand why there is demand for tuition from students and their parents. I think, tackling that is the crux of the matter and for that, we seek the support of parents and the community in helping shape the mindsets about over-emphasis on academic results and broadening the definition of success for our students.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry conducted or considered conducting longitudinal studies to track the long-term outcomes of students of various income backgrounds, particularly in relation to their access to private tuition and subsequently social mobility?
Secondly, are there efforts to build confidence in our public education system's ability to meet diverse learning needs without external supplications, such as private tuition?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: In line with the Government's key priority of sustaining social mobility and mitigating inequality, MOE monitors the education progress of students from all income brackets across the key life stages. Similar to other countries, we have observed a correlation between socio-economic status and educational outcomes. Nonetheless, in some areas, the gaps have narrowed over time – for instance, among students from lower socio-economic status backgrounds, nine in 10 students progress to post-secondary education today, compared to five in 10 around two decades earlier.
On the hon Member's second question on improving confidence in our education system, I think parents generally believe that our schools are providing quality education to our students. But what I think is happening, at the same time, is the notion of competition, of getting into good schools and good courses, and it is perhaps undervaluing the unique talents and interests of individual students. And I think that is something that we want to continue to work on and we seek the support of parents and the community in this.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Sir, last month on the first day of school for Primary 1 students, it was 2 January, I was outside a primary school at my constituency and got to meet some parents there. As I was chatting with some of the parents, I saw a couple distributing flyers around us and I was curious to find out what they were distributing. And I soon found out that they are distributing tuition flyers.
I was very troubled with that and I offered my views to the couple who were distributing the tuition flyers and said that they should not be doing this on the first day of school for Primary 1 students. We do not want to create such unnecessary competition and stresses to our parents and the students on the first day for Primary 1 students. I told them that, perhaps later, if the students do have some weaker subjects and areas they need to improve on, well, perhaps they may need some tuition, but I still believe the school is capable of helping the weaker students. The couple left after I said all those things.
Can I ask the Minister of State whether there are any standing instructions or would MOE come out with some standing instructions to advise tuition centres not to do such tuition sales outside schools, especially on the first day of school for Primary 1 students?
Mr Speaker: Well done, Mr Liang. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary question. We have observed some tuition centres employing undesirable advertising practices that appeal to parents' anxieties and fear of missing out. We do not support such practices. We think that it unduly induces parents to sign their children up for tuition and that is not healthy. Our schools certainly do not support such practices. We are studying how we could discourage tuition centres from doing this. We are reviewing our processes.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Ms Carrie Tan.
\tMs Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to address Minister of State Gan and thank her for her clarification. I have also encountered, just in January, a couple of instances where parents have shared that they have observed that their Primary 1 child, in the third week of school, has been identified to be weaker in a particular subject and hence, been designated to a smaller group with the additional support for the particular subject.
And while I understand that MOE is trying to give more support to students at an earlier age, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what kind of signal is MOE sending to parents and children, where we are rushing to identify their weaknesses or strengths at such an early stage in their primary school journey? The premise is that we are trying to get the students to perform better or to catch up and underlying that premise is a sense of competition.
Does MOE have plans to review its pace of curriculum to see whether it is necessary that we need to cram so much information and knowledge into a young child's life at such an early stage, and to review the whole entire premise of why it is that we are pushing our students to perform and to meet certain expectations of what kind of level of mathematics or literary skills they must have, and how we are benchmarking this? What is the ultimate purpose for this intensified learning pace in Singapore?
\t
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank Ms Carrie Tan for the supplementary question. I think it is important that we recognise that learning is for life and that it does not help if we rush through the learning only in the first few years of a child's life. It has to be a continuous journey. Secondly, we also recognise that it is important for our children to start well, even in preschool, to have some foundations in reading, communication and life skills, importantly.
That is why in our schools, if we identify that certain children seem to be weaker and falling behind in basic literacy or numeracy skills, teachers, out of care and concern, will want to bring this to the awareness of parents and work together with them to support the learning of our students. We understand that, sometimes, some households may not have the resources or abilities, and that is why we have specialised academic intervention programmes for primary school students who need more support in foundational skills.
These programmes include the Reading Remediation Programme and Learning Support for Mathematics, and we have seen good outcomes. More importantly, in building confidence of our students especially those from lower-income households when they go through these programmes. These programmes typically have fewer students and special additional resources, and they are done with consent from and also in partnership with the parents. It is not in any way intended to ask the parents to send their children for more tuition. If anything, it is to raise awareness of the parents, so that more can be done early to support the learning and to set our children up well for the longer term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Cross-border Transmission of HMPV from Becoming Public Health Concern in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health with the rise of flu-like human metapneumovirus (HMPV) cases in China (a) how does the Government ensure that cross-border transmission of HMPV will not pose public health concerns in Singapore; (b) whether the subsidised flu vaccination under Healthier SG is sufficient for the prevention of the spread of HMPV to seniors; and (c) what is being done to protect children, especially those aged 14 and below who are amongst those most affected by HMPV.
40 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of human metapneumovirus (HMPV) have been detected to date; (b) which are the age groups most severely affected by HMPV; (c) whether there are any fatalities due to HMPV; and (d) what measures have been implemented to reduce the number of infections in Singapore.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in Question No 40 by Ms Joan Pereira on human metapneumovirus (HMPV) in today's Order Paper.
Sir, HMPV is a respiratory virus that has been prevalent globally, including in Asia, for many years. The symptoms are similar to a common cold. Patients typically recover quite uneventfully. HMPV surges are common during the colder months in temperate regions. There have been significant surges in some parts of Asia this winter.
In Singapore, based on our ongoing surveillance for acute respiratory diseases, we also have observed an increase in HMPV activity during the year-end period, similar to previous years. This has started to subside. There are currently no vaccines for HMPV and the influenza vaccine does not provide protection against HMPV infection.
Similar to other respiratory infections, the advice to the public and especially medically vulnerable persons, such as young children, the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions, is to take preventive measures, such as the practice of good personal hygiene, limiting social contacts when sick and seeing a doctor promptly if symptoms worsen.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
\tMs Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. When I raised this Parliamentary Question after reading about the HMPV cases rising in China in early January, I would never have expected that my own mom will be hospitalised due to HMPV for three days just before our Chinese New Year reunion dinner. I am grateful that her symptoms were picked up by an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist for a consultation that is actually unrelated to flu. The good news is that she made it out from the hospital to join us for the reunion dinner.
Sir, I have two supplementary questions on this. One is that I used to receive from the Ministry of Health (MOH), SMSes to citizens, like myself, a reminder to enrol on the Healthier SG, a reminder to get the vaccine booster for COVID-19 when cases rose. And the last SMS that I received would have been around May. I wonder if MOH can consider sending similar SMS when there is a new flu variant or a flu that is increasing in cases overseas, so that citizens can be more aware of what are the protections that need to be done?
My second supplementary question is that, under Healthier SG, the general practitioner shared with me that MOH's fully subsidised annual flu vaccine are only given to the higher-risk groups under five and above 65, with respiratory-related chronic diseases. Those who are 40 to 65, for example, with high cholesterol, will not get a free flu vaccine.
So, just a couple of days ago, it was reported in the news that a high-profile, 48-year-old Taiwanese celebrity died unexpectedly from a flu complication when holidaying in Japan. So, I wonder if MOH can review the age criteria for the free annual flu vaccine and also include respiratory chronic diseases that is in remission, such as those who are on Healthier SG and did not report about a chronic disease that is in remission, like childhood asthma.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for the suggestions. For the second question, indeed, we do regularly review the criteria for national vaccination programmes and for programmes under Healthier SG that are subsidised. In general, the approach that we take is that we do want to focus on those interventions which have some evidence that they are going to have a significant effect on the health outcomes downstream. Something like a flu vaccine is something that you need to do on a regular basis. It is not something that you do once and then you are done for life. It has to be topped up every year.
And so, the considerations are different compared to, for example, a vaccination like measles, mumps and rubella, where, maybe, you do it once in your lifetime and then it has a long effect across your life. The short answer to her question, we will always be reviewing the criteria that we use for these types of programmes.
She also had a suggestion about alerts for flu variants. In general, when we are considering what are the things to put an SMS alert or some kind of alert out to the population, it is where there is a specific action that they need to take, such as going and getting a vaccination for the new season's variants of influenza, where there is a vaccine.
For respiratory diseases where there is no vaccine, whether it is a variant or different variant or whatever the species of virus is, the advice is the same. It is the same throughout the year, which is: to practise good personal hygiene; do not go and mix with people when you are sick; and if symptoms worsen, seek medical care. So, we do have to be judicious about when we send out alerts, so that there is something specific in terms of the action that the citizens can take, rather than just providing information.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Programmes to Raise Awareness for and Assess Healthy Family Boundaries Following Issuance of Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what programmes are in place to help nudge community attitudes towards the adoption of the guidelines on healthy family boundaries as the accepted norm without criminalising or criticising parents who may currently hold alternative views.
11 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what programmes are in place to assist those who work with parents, families, or children in the community, public, or private sectors to better understand, follow and promote the guidelines on healthy family boundaries.
12 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry assess whether behaviours that are inconsistent with the guidelines on healthy family boundaries are not simply poor parenting but are potentially child abuse.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): I thank the Member for the question. This matter has already been addressed in Question Nos 59 and 60 for written answers to questions for oral answer not answered by the end of Question Time for the 7 January 2025 Sitting. I would like to refer the Member to the written reply for further details.
\tMr Speaker: Minister of State Sun, your response covers the three questions that Assoc Prof Razwana has raised?
\tMs Sun Xueling: Yes, indeed. I apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir, for not asking for your permission earlier. Indeed, my answer will correspond to Question Nos 10, 11 and 12 in the Order Paper today.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
\tAssoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): I would just like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. I think this is with regard to the objective of the guidelines. There are some concerns, in terms of whether the families, especially those who are working with children, are aware of such guidelines, in terms of whether this is going to be something that may cause criminalisation and all that.
Sir, I would like to ask if there will be constant reminders to the public with regard to those, especially, working with children, clarifying the objective and the purpose in achieving what is the guideline or why are we having this guideline? So, that is my first question.
My second one is, would there be any consideration to include physical discipline as part of the guidelines as well? Not just healthy boundaries, but also physical discipline.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) had initiated the development of the Practitioners' Resource Guide on the Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries. And the background to this is that in the course of child protection work, MSF and professionals have come across parenting practices that, while not illegal, can place children in uncomfortable situations.
That said, MSF recognises that every family is unique and some may face special circumstances and therefore, the guidelines are thus not intended to be rules to be enforced or prescriptive in nature across all parenting contexts, but rather to serve as general principles to help professionals working with diverse family situations.
On the second question that she had, the guidelines currently do not include physical discipline elements. There have been various surveys that show that many parents in Singapore still use certain methods of physical discipline on their children. MSF recognises this and acknowledges that, ultimately, at the end of the day, parents have the right to decide on how they would want to discipline their children. But that said, if the behaviour crosses the line and goes into child abuse – and we have professionals who will look into case-specific details to be able to come to a conclusion on that. And if that is the case, then Child Protective Services will not hesitate to step in to protect the child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Seats for Seniors and Persons with Mobility Challenges within Long Underground Tunnels in MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –
13 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Government can install seats within long underground tunnels in MRT stations to provide respite to seniors and vulnerable individuals with mobility challenges.
\t
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Question No 13.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Transport): The Ministry of Transport agrees with Mr Henry Kwek's suggestion. We have been installing seats in some longer underground walkways based on commuter feedback, such as at Marine Terrace, Beauty World and Bukit Panjang stations. We plan to extend this to other stations. For the upcoming Jurong Region line and Cross Island line, the Land Transport Authority has also planned for seats in longer walkways, both above and underground, to provide better comfort and convenience for commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Progress of Waste-to-landfill and Solar Energy Deployment Targets in Singapore Green Plan 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Singapore is on track to meet the targets under the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to (i) reduce the amount of waste to landfill per capita per day by 20% by 2026 and (ii) reach 1.5 gigawatt-peak of solar energy deployment to meet 2 per cent of 2025 projected electricity demands; and (b) what is the current amount of (i) waste to landfill per capita per day and (ii) electricity demands met by solar energy deployment.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we had set targets to reduce the amount of waste sent to the Semakau Landfill by 20% by 2026 and 30% by 2030, on a per capita per day basis, from our baseline in 2018.
While our domestic waste generated per capita and non-domestic waste generated per dollar gross domestic product have decreased over the past decade, our waste-to-landfill per capita per day remains about the same as the pre-pandemic baseline in 2018. This is largely because recycling rates have dropped due to challenges, such as higher freight costs, import restrictions by foreign countries and lower demand for recycled materials.
We will continue to strengthen our efforts and work with stakeholders to reduce waste, close the waste loop and extend the lifespan of Semakau Landfill. These include working with the industry to roll out the beverage container return scheme in 2026 and exploring the use of landfilled mixed materials as reclamation fill.
On solar energy, we are on track to meeting our 2025 target of 1.5 gigawatt-peak of deployment. As of June 2024, we have achieved 1.35 gigawatt-peak of deployment, which can meet around 2% of Singapore's annual electricity demand.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. We understand there are challenges in meeting the waste-to-landfill target and I have two supplementary questions. Given that solar panels are getting better and cheaper, over the years, will the Government consider encouraging the installation of solar panels even more?
For example, would the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment (MSE) work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, as well as the Ministry of National Development to mandate all new commercial buildings of a certain size and houses of a certain size to install solar panels; and also mandate commercial buildings and also housing of a certain size to install solar panels when they go through additions and alterations. This is the first supplementary question.
\t
The second supplementary question is, given that the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement one more time, what is the impact on the Singapore Green Plan and whether Government is reviewing the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and beyond.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Baey Yam Keng): For the industrial sectors, since 2017, JTC has installed the Solar Roof Programme and that aims to accelerate the installation of solar panels on industrial properties' rooftops. This programme commenced with the solarisation of JTC's own building rooftops and has since expanded to encompass non-JTC buildings, with a focus on privately leased industrial properties since 2021. This programme requires zero upfront capital outlay and operational costs from the industrialists, making solar adoption easy and accessible. MSE will continue to work with our other industries and agencies to promote the use of cleaner energy.
As for the private residential sector, currently, there are no plans for demand aggregation.
On Mr Ang's point about the impact on global efforts to contain emissions with the new term of the Trump administration, indeed, we are observing. We do see challenges ahead, but Singapore will continue to work with like-minded countries and persevere with these targets and efforts to curb global emissions. It is something where we look forward to the public's and the industries' support to do their part. With that, we can then encourage more countries to adhere to our commitments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Take-up of ONE Pass and Sectors in Which ONE Pass Holders Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the take-up rate of the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE Pass) since 2 January 2024; (b) which sectors are these ONE Pass holders employed in; (c) how many of these ONE Pass holders are new entrants to Singapore and granted the ONE Pass not from a conversion of an existing employment pass; and (d) what are some of the key improvements that the Ministry is considering to better utilise ONE Pass and improve employment for Singaporeans.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, about 3,000 Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Passes were issued in 2024, of which about one in six were new entrants. The conversion of existing work pass holders who meet the ONE Pass criteria also helps us to anchor talent in Singapore.
The top three sectors that the ONE Pass holders were employed in were financial and insurance services, information and communications, and professional services.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is working with other sector agencies to increase the outreach to global talent and raise the awareness of the ONE Pass. We also encourage ONE Pass holders to participate in local programmes to mentor, to network and to exchange insights with current and future generations of local leaders, such as the Singapore Leaders Network.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, can I ask the Minister, how specifically has MOM been measuring the skills transfer from ONE Pass holders to Singaporeans and the hiring of more Singaporean professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) for every ONE Pass that is issued and what have the outcomes of this been since January 2024?
Secondly, has the Ministry conducted any audits or independent assessments on the economic impact of the ONE Pass since its launch and what have the key findings been since it has been launched?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We work collectively as an ecosystem, so MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and other economic agencies monitor how Singapore performs at a macro level, and this includes the competitiveness of our Singapore economy, as well as how it translates into good employment outcomes for our locals. At the upcoming Committee of Supply, when MOM has the opportunity, we will give a balanced scorecard update as to how the performance has been.
The one point that I would like to also alert the Member to is that, when it comes to top global talent – the proverbial rainmakers, the ones that can bring deals, the super magnets for talent – they will reinforce our competitiveness as a hub for global talent, and we can never have enough.
In terms of a specific target or key performance indicator, you are not running a business where you can set the return on investment. I think we should be thinking in terms of a measure of what kind of a return on social equity that we would want. And in that sense, we will work across our entire ecosystem with all the different Government Ministries.
This programme only started two years ago. But we have already started an annual notification for the existing ONE Pass holders in September last year – so about three and a half, four months back. We will be reviewing the data that we collect and will also be evaluating their contributions to Singapore.
And I want to once again reinforce, the impact of ONE Pass holders goes beyond the individual contributions and also the immediate tangible output that can be measured. Because for the longer-term sustainable ecosystem that we endeavour to build and to succeed, we need to continue to ensure that our only resource – and that of the highest form of human resource – our talent, continues to be here, to be well anchored here. And then, I think we will continue to succeed in making Singapore attractive to leading firms and also investors. I hope that addresses the Member's point.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.
\tMr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): I want to thank the Minister for his answer. The numbers are not surprising that the majority have been conversions from other classes because we just initiated the programme. However, the real success of this programme will be determined by how many new people we give that visa to in terms of real talent. What tweaks does the Minister think we need to make in the programme to attract new talent?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Neil Parekh for his supplementary question. I am glad he acknowledges the fact that the programme is very new. Given the fact that it is effectively the second year where the ONE Pass has started, and if you look at the year-on-year increase in new applicants coming in, I think that actually the uptake has been quite promising, the caveat is that we are starting off from a relatively lower base.
But what we have done importantly is, our economic agencies, academia and research institutes have gone out to scour the world in terms of identifying the types of talent we need to sustain our growth industries, whether it is in forefront, cutting edge research in deep tech, in infocomm or professional services. Thus far, the type of talent that we have been getting, they are the top 5% of the entire ecosystem. So, you can imagine that it is a very targeted, almost akin to a form of a headhunting exercise. And we would require the different sector leads and the experts to go after this group of global talent.
So, it is not about tweaking the ONE Pass to get big numbers to come in. It is about really getting a very differentiated, a very well curated programme to target the best of the best to join us. I hope that gives you the context.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, just to follow up on my earlier question, the Minister said earlier that the Ministry encourages ONE Pass holders to participate in local professional activities. Beyond just encouraging them, does the Ministry formally require ONE Pass holders to keep track of and report their professional activities that directly involve mentoring and training Singaporean PMETs?
\t
\tDr Tan See Leng: I have also shared in my supplementary question reply that we will be sending up notification letters. In terms of understanding the different segments of the ONE Pass holders that reside in Singapore, it would then allow us to be a lot more targeted in leveraging on their expertise, their networks and also skillsets to be able to work closely and to transfer those skillsets to mentor our locals.
Given that today, it has really been about two years into the programme, as I have said, the biggest group of ONE Pass holders are in the financial services, infocomms and professional services. Some of the programmes will be curated in those kind of areas for them to be able to come up with the capability transfer programmes. Rather than for us to mandate that they have to do that, we would prefer to work with a more encouraging tone, getting them to inspire our successive generations of Singaporeans to think outside of the box. I hope that gives you that context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evidence to Support Use of Ketamine in Treatment Course for Severe Depression in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what steps are being taken to regulate and ensure the safe use of ketamine as a treatment course for severe depression in Singapore; (b) how is the effectiveness of such a treatment being monitored; and (c) what safeguards are in place to prevent any potential misuse of the controlled drug.
17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what evidence supports the efficacy and safety of ketamine as treatment for severe depression compared to other therapies; (b) whether there are plans to monitor long-term outcomes for patients using this treatment; and (c) what regulatory frameworks will be put in place to govern the distribution and use of ketamine for medical purpose while ensuring tight control to prevent diversion for recreational use.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 16 and 17 on today's Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, ketamine in the form of a nasal spray was approved in October 2020 by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). It is to be administered together with other oral anti-depressant therapy for the treatment of depression.
Clinical trials have demonstrated that the use of ketamine nasal spray resulted in improvements in symptoms of major depression with mild side effects and minimal addictive potential. Overall, the benefits of ketamine nasal spray outweigh its risks.
There are several safeguards in place to ensure the safe use of ketamine for severe depression. It is classified as a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, which means that the product must be kept under lock and key with stringent records of the product inventory. Further, it can only be supplied to hospitals and clinics providing specialist services for psychiatry, and prescribed for use by a registered psychiatrist. It is administered strictly under nursing supervision with resuscitation equipment and doctors on standby. Patients are continuously monitored during and after the treatment for adverse effects before they leave the clinical setting. Specialists also review patients regularly to assess treatment effectiveness.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal. Keep it short because we are running out of time.
\tDr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I can hear that ketamine is indeed effective. So, how can we extend this usage of ketamine, knowing that it is actually quite costly, to make it affordable for patients across the board?
\tMr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil. Keep it short, too, because Mr Yip has a supplementary question to ask.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for the supplementary question. The use of ketamine is not a substitute for all the other treatments that are available for depression and other psychiatric treatment. It should only be used when indicated and for those situations where the other treatments are not effective. So, we will continue to study its effectiveness, analyse the cost benefit analysis and make sure it is available for those patients who need it.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Considering the potential stigma and misconceptions associated with ketamine due to its history as a recreational drug, what initiatives will the Ministry undertake to educate the public and healthcare professionals about its therapeutic use in depression? And how will these efforts help in mitigating societal concerns and promoting informed acceptance?
\t
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the number of patients that could potentially benefit from this is relatively small. The education and counselling is done for those patients and their families on a one-to-one basis by the clinical providers, and I think that is probably the correct approach for now.
There are many drugs with serious side effects or potential abuse and misuse, where use in a controlled setting is possible. This is something that we have been doing for, for example, opioid agents, anesthetic agents and many other controlled drugs and substances, where there is a public protection and it is a drug of abuse outside this controlled setting, and then, appropriate counselling for the patient and the family when there is an indication and there is a benefit.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I move*, \"That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole of society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. (proc text)]
In 2022, I filed an Adjournment Motion titled \"Celebrating SG Families: Embracing Parenthood through Live, Work and Play\". In my speech, I acknowledged that much effort has been made by the Government throughout the years in the preservation and strengthening of family ties, since it is the fabric of our nation.
This year, we see our national plan, \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\" (MFF 2025), which builds on the momentum of the Year of Celebrating SG Families in 2022.
I quote extracts from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat's foreword on this national plan: \"Family has always been at the heart of our social compact. We achieved this as a society, as a whole, is deeply committed to supporting families. But there are greater challenges that families face, such as greater caregiving needs as our population ages rapidly, greater demands at our workplaces, higher cost of living pressures and more. So, we must explore new ways to support our families. This is a key national priority under the Forward Singapore exercise to refresh our social compact. MFF 2025 is our plan for creating a Singapore that values and supports family well-being.\"
Indeed, over the past five years since the launch of MFF 2025, as a young parent myself, I am delighted to see and have benefited from many bolder changes in the policies that were rolled out by the Government in this aspect. Many innovative ideas and suggestions, calling for more versatile changes, such as the flexible Shared Parental Leave, were also adopted along the way.
To this end, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's 2025 Chinese New Year message reinforces the Government's commitment in supporting families, and I quote: \"Families are the bedrock of our society. They nurture our values, provide emotional support and inspire us to dream big. In today's fast-paced and competitive world, balancing work and family life has become harder. Yet, families remain at the heart of what matters most to us. I am encouraged that many Singaporeans continue to prioritise marriage, parenthood and family. The Government is committed to supporting families at every stage of life. For young couples, we are ramping up the supply of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and making public housing more affordable. We are enhancing leave arrangements, including through a new Shared Parental Leave scheme. We are also investing significantly in schools, especially preschools, so that every child, regardless of background, gets a good start in life.\"
In 2023, my husband and I welcomed our second bundle of joy. But in that same year, our nation's total fertility rate (TFR) fell to 0.97. This is a historic low, notwithstanding the Government's continuous efforts in supporting families.
On the marriage front, there were 24,355 citizen marriages in 2023, which was a decline of 1.7% from the preceding year. According to the Population in Brief 2024, the average number of citizen marriages per year in the last five years was 22,800, which is lower than the preceding five years of 24,000. These are worrying trends which present, in Minister Indranee Rajah's words, \"serious implications\" for our country's future.
This Motion, led by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Zhulkarnain and I, is a continuous effort by us to review and update policies, and a continuation of our commitment to Singaporeans as well as rallying a call by this House to the whole of society to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\".
I had acknowledged in my speech on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill (CDCA Bill) in November last year that prospective parents would have varying concerns and reasons militating against or for delaying starting a family. In the People's Action Party (PAP) Women's Wing, we have been investigating the reasons underlying these phenomena, not least by engaging our constituents individually and through various platforms and forums. Our research group had conducted several rounds of surveys, with the most recent involving over 1,000 married individuals, where the policy group collaborated with Friendzone to organise a series of heart-to-heart focused group discussions with youths aged between 20 and 40 years on topics, such as dating, relationship, marriage and parenthood.
I welcome my Parliamentary colleagues who will come forward to speak on this Motion, to join me in sharing the issues faced and perceived by Singaporeans that may impede or delay marriage and parenthood and share some possible solutions that we have distilled through our respective engagements.
One of the common strands of feedback I have received from Singaporeans who aspire towards marriage and eventual parenthood, is the challenge they face in finding the right partner. This could be due to a lack of socialising opportunities or social spaces, being occupied with work or caretaking obligations at home, amongst other reasons. In this regard, some Singaporeans have shared their hope for the return of the Singapore Social Development Network (SDN) or some other form of Government-led and encouraged social interaction platform with the objective of leading to marriage.
Granted, the present-day social and dating landscape is markedly different from when the Social Development Unit (SDU) was set up in 1984, before I was born, and to which the SDN traces its roots, the advent of technology and shifting socialising and dating norms have been growing acceptance or even popularity of online dating.
According to a 2021 National Population and Talent Division survey, the proportion of singles who met through online platforms and started dating grew more than four-fold, from 7% in 2012 to 29% in 2021. The same survey also found a significant increase in acceptance of meeting one's prospective partner on dating sites or apps. Could we, therefore, synthesise the purport of SDN with technology and Singaporeans' current dating mindsets, to produce a solution?
To this end, we could perhaps draw some inspiration from China's state-sponsored matchmaking efforts. In the city of Guixi in China's Jiangxi province, an app known as \"Palm Guixi\" was launched to function as a matchmaking platform. The app matches users based on their background information and also assists to organise blind dates.
In fact, following one of the PAP Women's Wing’s collaborations with Friendzone focus group discussions that I had attended, one of the attendees, Jasper, shared with me that he has had a similar idea for an app, where singles provide answers to a set of questions which will be fed into a matching algorithm that matches singles based on their personal priorities amongst other attributes, such as desired age group. Achieving a match would not, however, be the end-all and be-all, as the app could, and correctly should, facilitate follow-throughs, such as by recommending or helping to book dates at restaurants or other activities, based on the matched couple's shared interests.
Such a Government-led app would be distinguished from other dating apps, not least because it would likely provide prospective participants with assurance on trustworthiness and reliability, a point shared by another attendee, Christopher, who, also after the session, wrote to me to share that the SDU, or its current incarnation, can further evolve and serve as a platform that works with public and private agencies, including professional matchmaking or dating agencies, to organise events and create safe social spaces for young adults to bond over common interests. I concur with Christopher, creating opportunities to encourage the young to learn and play together, perhaps through sports, such as pickleball, would be a good follow-through on the app's achievements.
Once a couple has been formed, we hope that they would share a blissful and everlasting relationship, and who will, together, go on to attain the milestones of marriage and starting a family. I quote an extract from Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech at the launch of the National Family Festival on 25 May 2024: \"I firmly believe that the true measure of success in life is not based on one's status or material possessions. Instead, the richest treasures are the moments we share with our family members and loved ones – these relationships are our legacies and the truest reflections of our lives' worth. So, let us all pledge to cherish and nurture our family bonds. Let us work together to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\", where we can create many happy memories with our families and where everyone can enjoy an enriching family life here in this Garden City we call home.\"
I could not have said it better myself. The concept of a \"home\" embodies so much more than acquiring a \"house\". Though admittedly, many Singaporeans feel that one of the first few steps, if not the first, is to acquire and get a place of their own.
Since August 2022, Housing and Development Board (HDB) has shared with us that more flats have been prioritised for first-timer families: a 15% increase for 3-room BTO flats in non-mature estates; a 10% increase for 4-room and larger BTO flats in non-mature estates; and 95% of 3-room and larger BTO flats in mature estates. For first-time home buyers, they receive at least two ballot chances as opposed to the one ballot chance for second-time families. HDB has also allocated the majority of 3-room and larger HDB flats for them.
In cases where the first-timer families have a child aged 18 and below, as well as for first-timer married couples who are aged 40 and below, these families have been receiving greater priority since August 2023. An additional ballot is given to these families in addition to the two ballot chances given to first-timer families.
There are also other schemes designed to increase the chances of getting a house for eligible families, such as the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme, Married Child Priority Scheme and Third Child Priority Scheme.
With regard to housing grants, up to $80,000 for new flats or up to $160,000 for resale flats with even higher amounts for lower-income families are available and these are in addition to the subsidies applied to new flats. Especially, if looked at against the backdrop of Singapore's housing demand and supply, the Government's housing policy is laudable. However, the mindset of the Government and this House, must always be the relentless pursuit of improvements.
At my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) in the PAP Woodgrove branch, I frequently receive requests for assistance from residents who aspire to start their families but are understandably anxious due to the waiting times and costs involved in getting a house, which to their minds, is the essential first step in building a home. On this note, I seek clarification from the Government as to what other plans and policies, in respect of housing for young couples and growing families, could still be in the pipeline.
I shared during the 2023 Budget Statement's debate about several of my Woodgrove residents, who commented that as young couples with limited savings, they have opted out of resale flats as an option because the Cash Over Valuation (COV) component is often in the high range, in the region of $30,000 to $50,000, which has to be paid out in cash as it cannot be covered by housing loans or Central Provident Fund (CPF). Similar feedback continues to be heard today whenever I probe many of my residents who come to see me about appealing to HDB to increase their chances of securing a Sale of Balance flat and why they do not wish to consider purchasing from the open market.
I, therefore, hope that HDB can review the current measures to continue to ease the COV situation that young couples face or allow for more flexibility in allowing housing loans or CPF savings to be used for the payment of such COV component.
Also, would it possible for families to seek a lower and/or deferred housing loan repayment rate from HDB for the first few years of their child's birth? This could go a great length to ease part of the financial burdens and pressure on new parents, whose primary focus should rightly be on their newborn. Furthermore and/or alternatively, the same arrangement should also be considered to be extended to large young families, until the youngest child enters primary school education.
We must not only actually do better in terms of policy-making, but also do our best to keep Singaporeans informed, in order to provide assurance and certainty, which would be essential to Singaporeans' family planning.
This brings me to my next topic – welcoming a new child to the family.
Child-bearing and child-raising are, in my view, the noblest of pursuits in life. Children are the element that completes a family unit. The critical message that this House and the Government ought to convey to every Singaporean, is that none of you – whether as a single parent or as a married couple – would ever feel alone in this rewarding and fulfilling journey.
The typical Singaporean who is aspiring to become a parent would invariably ask him or herself, \"How am I going to cope with a newborn on top of my work?\", \"Would I have to drastically change my lifestyle to accommodate my baby?\", \"Will my quality of life drop if I have kids?\", \"what is the quality of life that I would be able to provide my child with?\", amongst other questions. These were also the questions that I pondered on when I was deciding whether to have more kids.
To varying degrees in a myriad of ways, the lives of both moms and dads are changed forever whenever a child joins the family. My Parliamentary colleague Mr Zhulkarnain will be sharing more in the aspect for the challenges that many fathers encounter during this journey later in his speech.
This House recognises the challenges of starting and expanding a family, and so does the Government, as evidenced by its constant improvements to its policies. For example, I shared earlier, the Baby Bonus Scheme comprising the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits is provided as soon as the child is born. The Baby Bonus Scheme was most recently enhanced in 2023.
There is also the MediSave Grant for Newborns, which sees to it that a CPF MediSave account is opened for each newborn and the grant is credited automatically. This grant provides support for each child's healthcare expenses, including MediShield premiums, recommended childhood vaccinations, hospitalisations and approved outpatient treatments.
Adding to the comprehensive coverage is the MediShield Life Coverage for Newborns and Fully-Subsidised Nationally-Recommended Childhood Vaccinations and Developmental Screenings. As our children grow, we also get to utilise education subsidies totaling up to $180,000.
Most recently, through the CDCA Bill passed by this House in November last year, enhancements were made to the Parental Leave. Government-Paid Paternity Leave has been doubled to four weeks and is applicable to the fathers of children born on or after 1 April this year, as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of application to adopt a child is on or after 1 April 2025.
There is also the new Shared Parental Leave, which will entitle working parents who are eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave and Adoption Leave, to Shared Parental Leave. By default, each parent will be allocated half the entitlement totaling three weeks from 1 April 2025, which is slated to be increased to five weeks per parent from 1 April next year. There is also a built-in mechanism to allow for flexibility based on each family’s needs and taking into account the parents' employers' operational requirements.
Mr Speaker, I have so far attempted to consolidate the various support measures that this House and the Government have provided to parents and prospective parents, albeit not exhaustively. But soon-to-be, as well as new parents would still be saddled with so much, and be under constant and immense pressure. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be constantly aware and keep track of this policy developments made to assist them on their own.
To this end, I reiterate a suggestion I had made during the debate on Budget Statement in 2021, to call for the introduction of a \"Mommy's Milestone Booklet\".
This booklet would be akin to a baby's health booklet but instead, would help to track the expecting mother's physical and emotional development. It would also contain helpful information regarding necessary preparations for each stage of pregnancy, parenting best practices and a list of support systems available to all parents at least for the first years of their journey into parenthood, along with a checklist of vaccinations required for expecting mothers, recommended estimated dates to sign up for prenatal classes, a checklist of items to prepare for the arrival of the baby, tips on how to spot signs of labour and how to spot signs of post-natal depression.
This booklet could be similar to the Families for Life Parenting, a one-stop portal for parenting resources, but personalised to each family's needs and with relevant information conveyed to the parents-to-be by professionals at each milestone basis.
Like many parents with young families, I appreciate the Government's enhancement of the Baby Bonus in 2023. However, during my interactions with many young parents in Woodgrove, many of them shared their view and their hope that the Government can explore increasing the cash gift component and the release of funds even before the child is born as they have to incur many expenses on things, such as prenatal check-ups, purchase of baby essentials in preparation for the arrival of the baby. As such, I implore the Government to consider releasing the Baby Bonus once the expecting mother clears her first trimester.
Another suggestion which has been frequently brought up by young parents, particularly those who are staying in BTO flats, concerns the challenges they face in securing a preschool spot for their toddlers. This has been a problem which my Woodgrove residents in the Champions Court and Champions Green area have been encountering. In this regard, I hope that HDB and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) can work together to review and improve its current system to shortlist the Anchor Operators that will be serving the estate at the earliest opportunity, even while the BTO project is still under construction and to get the appointed Anchor Operator to set up and be ready to operate once HDB begins its key collection exercise. To cushion the operating costs of the Anchor Operators during this period, HDB can consider offering rent-free or higher subsidised rent rate until the enrolment rate achieves a certain desired number. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the recent dialogues organised by PAP's Women's Wing, several participants provided feedback and suggestions to me.
As this year is Singapore's 60th birthday, they asked if the Government could consider providing more cash incentives from this year onwards, to encourage and assist Singaporeans in achieving important family-building milestones.
One participant suggested that we could call this a Kickstart Fund.
As we all know, even though the Government already provides many grants, subsidies and assistance for marriage, home ownership and parenthood, there are still many expenses that require cash payment. Without sufficient savings and stable income, many Singaporeans, even when they meet the right partner, will think twice about having a baby immediately after marriage.
Therefore, I hope this Kickstart Fund can help Singaporeans when they embark on important life milestones and ease their financial burden, for example, wedding expenses, new home renovation costs, prenatal check-ups and various postpartum confinement expenses, and so on.
Mr Speaker, the old saying \"raise children for the purpose of being looked after in old age\" may seem less relevant today. For many young couples, it might be seen as a long-term burden, a process that is mixed with moments of joy, and mental and financial stress.
Overall, when building a family-friendly Singapore, I hope the Government can understand why Singaporeans are afraid of having children. We should continue to listen to the people's concerns and as time and lifestyle evolves, be bold in introducing novel, yet practical measures to support Singaporeans in building their beautiful families.
(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I am heartened by the Government's commitment and continuing efforts to cultivate an environment that supports Singaporeans in starting and raising a family.
I look forward to my Parliamentary colleagues' speeches as well as a fruitful debate on this Motion.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Ms Hany Soh for moving this Motion. When Ms Hany Soh approached me to sponsor this Motion, I fully and readily supported it.
I have four children of my own, ranging from toddlers to teenagers. So, this means, for the past 16 years, I have experienced various stages of their childhood and hence, these eye bags as well.
I was blessed with my extended family support in this parenting journey and it helped a lot. So, I strongly believe in strengthening support for our family units in Singapore. I raised this in my maiden Parliamentary speech when I likened our nation building to Lego bricks: creating a myriad of structures from different shapes, sizes and colours and that our nation is strong only when each of our basic building block, the family unit, is strong. In my speech, I am focusing on support for fathers as partners in raising a family.
Research consistently highlights the critical role fathers play in child development. In 2020, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) reported that children with actively involved fathers showed better emotional resilience and social skills. Additionally, a 2019 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) found that fathers who spent more time with their children contributed to higher levels of family satisfaction and lower rates of marital conflict.
However, traditional gender roles and workplace cultures often limit fathers' ability to participate fully in child-raising. Globally, fathers face challenges, such as stigma around taking paternity leave, lack of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and societal expectations that prioritise mothers as primary caregivers.
We need to change that mindset of child caregiving amongst men, amongst society to encourage more to have children and raise a family. To do so, we need to implement changes both at work and at home.
Singapore has made strides in improving paternity leave policies with fathers currently entitled to two weeks of paid leave, increasing to four weeks from April this year. However, the uptake remains low with only 44% of eligible fathers fully utilising their leave in 2020, citing workload, stigma and unsupportive workplace cultures.
Globally, as well, paternity leave uptake is similarly low, with only about 34% of countries offering it and even fewer enforcing it as mandatory. Studies show that mandatory paternity leave increases father involvement by 25%, suggesting that Singapore could benefit from extending and mandating such policies as well.
Challenges include employers' resistance and operational concerns. To address these, employers can offer FWAs, which has been shown to boost employee retention and satisfaction by 30%. Incentives, like tax breaks or increased foreign manpower quotas, could encourage businesses to adopt family-friendly policies.
These measures could also apply to childcare leave, which currently offers six days for children under seven years, and two days extended childcare leave for those aged seven to 12. To better caregiving needs, the Government can streamline and consolidate childcare leave for all children up to the age of 12, consider a uniformed eight days of childcare leave across-the-board for children up to 12 and allow higher leave entitlement for parents with two or more children. For instance, those with two or more children, can be eligible for 10 days of childcare leave. This covers key milestones in our children's lives, like entrance to kindergarten, Primary 1 registration and the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), not to mention, other important events in their lives, like medical appointments and birthdays.
These changes, aligned with the 2023 PAP's Women's Wing and Young PAP joint paper, which advocates for expanded leave provisions and employer support for caregiving roles. Additionally, stronger enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is needed to protect fathers taking leave or requesting FWAs as countries with robust protections see a 20% increase in fathers' involvement.
Beyond the workplace, Mr Speaker, we also need to change the perspectives of men in caregiving within our society. In many societies, including Singapore, caregiving is still seen as primarily a mother's role. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) 2020 study found that 60% of fathers felt societal pressure to prioritise work over family. A 2021 global survey revealed that 63% of men in Asia Pacific countries felt that society views them as less masculine if they take on caregiving roles.
Changing societal and workplace mindsets is crucial to encourage greater father involvement. This includes redefining masculinity, in promoting the idea that caregiving is a strength, not a weakness, and that involved fatherhood is a key aspect of our modern world.
We also need to normalise shared parenting by encouraging both parents to take equal responsibility for child-raising.
In this regard, I welcome the Government's move towards implementing six weeks of shared parenting. This signifies a move towards recognising that the role of caregiving for children does not fall on the shoulders of mothers alone, but it is a shared responsibility of both parents together. How the couple shares that load or childcare leave, is left to them.
However, we can incentivise equitable sharing of such parenting leave by drawing from the lessons learnt in other jurisdictions. We can encourage shared leave by introducing financial incentives, such as tax breaks or childcare subsidies, for families where both parents take equal childcare leave. In Sweden, its \"Daddy Month\" policy, which reserves a portion of parental leave exclusively for fathers, has been highly effective.
That being said, government policies alone will not change mindsets on child caregiving. For parents, there are many other things that we ourselves can do to make the most of our time we spend with our children. Families can create structured plans to divide caregiving responsibilities equitably. For example, fathers can take on specific roles, such as bedtime routines, read your story books before bedtime, school drop-offs in the morning, to build consistent involvement daily with their children.
Couples should practise open communication and align their expectations about caregiving roles. A 2020 MSF study found that couples who communicated openly about parenting roles reported stronger relationships and better child outcomes.
At the community level, we can launch campaigns to normalise father involvement and challenge stereotypes through the involvement of \"Dads for Life\" or the vernacular \"Bapa Sepanjang Hayat” movement to reach out to more workplaces and increase community engagement. Fathers who participated in community programmes such as these, reported higher levels of confidence and involvement.
We can establish \"Dad Hubs\" in neighbourhoods to provide parenting resources and support. In this regard, at Keat Hong, we have been organising, for many years, annual talks and workshops for men on Breaking the Patriarchal Mindset in families, supported by MSF and organised by Casa Raudha Women Home. This is to normalise caregiving and help end domestic violence in our communities. Bapa Sepanjang Hayat also organises talent competition shows with Keat Hong Community Centre where fathers take to the stage with their children, and showcase their singing and musical talents together. What I find most touching was how they struggled and ultimately bonded in the journey during the preparation and audition for the competition.
Mr Speaker, in summary, my proposals are as follows.
Firstly, consider making paternity leave mandatory and reward companies or businesses with tax incentives or increased short term foreign manpower quota for certain sectors. Secondly, expand childcare leave further to raise the age to 12 years to cover almost all primary school children. Thirdly, higher childcare leave entitlement for parents with two or more children. Fourthly, increased legal protection for fathers who take leave or request FWAs against discrimination based on our existing legislative framework. Fifthly, encourage couples to share parental leave equitably. Sixthly, proper planning and communication within families on sharing of duties and responsibilities on parenting. Lastly, increased support through engagement and resources provided in the community for fathers. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Motion moved by the hon Member Hany Soh. It aims to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families. When she first suggested that we move this Motion together, I readily supported it because I believe that parents play a crucial role in their children's education, especially the involvement of fathers in their children's lives. With the Government's family-friendly policies in all aspects of family life, such as education, housing and childcare, we can provide an environment that will better enable and support our young couples to start families and have children. This is crucial in order to build the next generation that can continue to strive for the overall prosperity and progress of our nation.
We have a large number of young parents in Keat Hong. Many couples are both working and at the same time, they strive hard to raise children who are still in school.
During my house visits and interactions at preschool events in Keat Hong, I heard their concerns about the challenges of raising young children. There are also some young couples without children who are worried about the cost of supporting and raising children in Singapore.
In fact, in Keat Hong, I met many multi-generational families, where the elderly parents lamented that their grown-up children have settled down, but are not ready to have children. Thus, they did not yet have the chance to cuddle a grandchild and be called \"grandfather\" or \"grandmother\".
As for our young couples, they are worried about the challenges of starting a family and educating and raising children. I want to dispel the notion that raising children is only about money. Instead, it involves establishing a comprehensive ecosystem, which includes childcare in nurseries or kindergartens, a home environment that is conducive to family life, a family-friendly workplace and also parenting support and guidance for our families.
In this respect, the Government's M3 initiative has reached out to many young couples via the Bersamamu programme and through the Matematika classes, which help parents and their preschool children prepare for primary school. In fact, MENDAKI’s tuition classes provide high quality and very affordable tuition for our children. Thus, there are various ways to manage the costs involved in supporting families and educating children, aside from the various Baby Bonus, subsidies, and tax rebates provided by the Government.
Apart from Government policies, we need initiatives that involve all parties, not just women, but men as well. Therefore, the involvement of fathers in raising their children is not only beneficial for the child and family, but also for society as a whole.
Every year in Keat Hong, we organise various programmes to support fathers in their parenting journey, in collaboration with Government agencies and community partners. For example, at M³@Chua Chu Kang, we have a series of programmes under the \"Nakhoda Bahtera\", or Ship Captain, initiative, touching on issues related to men and fathers, like leadership, parenting and men's health.
We also organise bowling events with fathers through Dads for Life and talent time competitions.
Since 2020, we have also been co-organising with MSF and Casa Raudha Women Home, a series of workshops and seminars for fathers and young men, to eradicate patriarchal thinking and end domestic violence.
By addressing cultural, workplace and Government policy barriers, Singapore can take the lead in promoting shared parenting and redefining the role of parents.
As Malay/Muslims, we also believe that children are not just a sacred trust bestowed upon us, but they are also a divine gift that brings blessings and prosperity for the family. Therefore, I call upon all young couples to cherish every aspect of marriage and raising children. As for the fathers, your sacrifices can never be fully repaid, but the reward will be apparent when the child that you raised and educated becomes a valuable and worthy individual in the eyes of society and the world, which is a testament of the efforts taken and to you who raised the child.
A verse of pantun or Malay quatrain:
On the mountain, taro grows
Tigers and deer, its slopes they climb
A father's love forever flows
Endlessly through the stream of time
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, fathers' involvement in child-raising is not only beneficial for children and families, but also for society as a whole. However, we fathers suffer sometimes what is called \"dad guilt\" in our experience in fatherhood. We may be too busy with our careers, balancing between duties and responsibilities. Let me share a story.
My work as a disputes lawyer in international arbitration and my pro bono work in the community space meant that I am often travelling and takes me away from home. My eldest daughter, when she was very young, was very often curious what I do. Whenever I leave for my pro bono work, she will ask me, \"Ayah, where are you going?\" I did not have time to go into the details. So, I would just say, \"I am going to help some people.\" This went on for a few occasions.
And then, one day, she stopped me at the door and asked me again, \"Ayah, where are you going?\", and I replied again, \"To help some people.\" And then, she said something to me which I remember to this day. She said, \"Help me\". And those words broke my heart. I realised that in all my busyness, I had neglected the attention to my child. And on that day, I brought her and her young sisters – she was like six years old then – to Casa Raudah, a women and children shelter home at which I was volunteering, to see first-hand what I do away from home and what I do during that time that I am away from her.
At the end of the day, she understood. She saw first-hand the other girls in the home and she said to me, \"Ayah, help more people then.\"
Just like how children want to be in our lives, we fathers must involve our children actively in our lives. This is the crux of parenting. By addressing cultural workplace and policy barriers, Singapore can lead the way in promoting shared parenting and redefining the roles of fathers, ultimately changing mindsets and empowering fathers to take an active role in parenting, which will strengthen families and contribute to a more equitable society for decades as building blocks.
Our families make up Singapore. Hence, let us build a \"Singapore Made for Families\". I support this Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, it felt like it was not too long ago when I spoke on this topic of how we can better support Singaporeans in starting and raising families, even though this is a topic I have regularly visited throughout my term in Parliament. Specifically, it was just about three months ago when I shared my thoughts on paternity leave, Shared Parental Leave, FWAs, childcare leave provisions during the debate on the CDCA Bill in November last year.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, let me briefly recap some of the key points on these specific policy measures that I have been raising not just as a Member of Parliament reflecting the views of our residents, but also my personal experience as a father of two young boys, trying to raise a family in Singapore.
To begin with, the Motion before us seeks to calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies.
However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record low TFR of 0.97 that is before us. And we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results, if we do not make a serious effort to reimagine our approach to tackling this issue. Three years on after the \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?
On specific policy measures, let me first start by reiterating the point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House.
The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which came into effect back in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs \"properly\". Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs.
On 30 November 2024, a Straits Times article reported that according to data from Blackbox Research's platform SensingSG, which polls 1,500 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) aged 18 and up every three months, 27% of respondents still enjoy hybrid work arrangements, down seven percentage points year-on-year.
Ironically, despite the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines in December, Blackbox Research's head of strategy expects to see a continued gradual decline in remote and hybrid working in 2025.
In the same article, KPMG's CEO Outlook, which polled 1,325 CEOs between July and August, highlighted that 83% of bosses expect a full return to office within the next three years, up from 64% in 2023. Even in the United States (US), President Donald Trump has basically signed an executive order demanding all federal employees end their remote work arrangements and return to the office on a full-time basis or lose their jobs.
While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work-from-home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may be more appropriate, the point remains that I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.
Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October 2024 to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs. This would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments.
FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions. If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis?
In my speech in November last year, I shared that parents would need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to ECDA, could be up to eight working days a year, an increase from six days a year previously. I acknowledge that I had misspoken on this and Minister of State Sun Xueling clarified in her closing speech that there has been a net increase of only 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days, as all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays.
Does this not further prove my point that the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone when our children fall sick?
Moreover, it seems that many preschools now have eight designated closure days and still have half-day closures on the eves of selected public holidays, anyway.
Even though Minister of State Sun further shared that a working couple would have a total of 12 days of childcare leave on top of their annual leave provisions, are we not splitting hairs a little here? Yes, the manpower and operational needs of employers need to be taken into consideration, but should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, then perhaps, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution.
Beyond the provision of FWAs and childcare leave, let us also take a moment to examine the lived realities of young Singaporean families: searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market; giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living; stressing about the rising cost of living; facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child's early years. The physical, emotional and mental toll of a society where parents are hard at work is very real. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real.
According to an IPS' survey shared at the Singapore Perspectives conference on 29 January 2024, on Singaporeans' attitudes and views toward issues, such as family, well-being and work, seven in 10 of Singaporeans in the youngest group aged 21 to 34 feel it is not necessary to get married and have children. Across all age groups surveyed, the main reasons among this include a career focus, lacking time and energy and being deterred by the high stress and costs of doing so. The survey also highlights the trend of reluctance and disinterest among young women's views on marriage and parenthood, where respondents are worried about burning out from juggling caregiving responsibilities and work demands, without equal support from their partners.
Individual choice aside, this is a society that places much higher emphasis on work over family. We are also often reminded in this House, by the Government and some Members of Parliament (MPs), of the pushback from employers whenever we try to do better for our families, such as the impact of the parental leave enhancements on businesses and their manpower arrangements.
Adults of working age, including young Singaporeans parents or parents-to-be, are viewed as labour contributing to the output of this economy. A parent that chooses to prioritise caregiving over a return to the workforce is an economic trade-off for Singapore, a role that does not contribute to gross domestic product (GDP). Our hyper-competitive economy pressures and expects new parents to return to the workforce, to pursue career growth and maximise earnings in a cycle where Singaporeans need to increase their earning ability in order to maintain living standards in an environment of rising costs.
The measures we have today revolve heavily around financial support. Besides the enhanced parental leave provision and infant care leave, this includes Baby Bonuses, Government contributions to child development accounts, child relief and childcare subsidies for working mothers and foreign domestic worker levy relief, again for working mothers. I recognise that these have provided significant relief and helped many Singaporeans build and raise families over the years. However, we also know that generations of Singaporean children were primarily cared for through a mix of grandparents, domestic helpers and professional childcare, as their parents from the baby boomer generation generally prioritised work to earn a decent living. Even for myself, I cannot imagine how my family can cope without a combination of help from full-day childcare, a domestic helper and my mother-in-law.
We recognise that raising and nurturing a family is a lifelong journey, taking love, time and continual effort. Being a parent and caring for your child is a privilege and responsibility. However, the existing frame does not seem to encourage this. Instead, it prioritises the outsourcing of caregiving and incentivising parents, especially mothers, to return back to the workforce quickly. MSF's Social Compact wants families to be pillars of support and for families to be individually responsible. However, there is a fundamental disjunct between this and parents not having time or being empowered to prioritise childcare responsibilities.
When we provide childcare subsidies, tax reliefs and foreign domestic worker levy reliefs for working mothers only, we are saying, \"We want you back in the workforce\". While this is ultimately dependent on parents' individual choice and we want to ensure that mothers are fully empowered to take charge of their own careers, parents should feel that they are empowered to make a choice to prioritise caregiving in the early years if they choose to do so.
If we truly believe in a \"Singapore Made for Families\", we need to expand and shift our frame from one that advocates for parents to outsource caregiving starting from as young as two months for infant care due to return to work demands, to a frame that champions parenthood. We should be saying, \"We want you to be proud of being a parent\", and how we can rethink flexibility at work in the critical first years of a child growing up, so that parents are able to dedicate more time to directly care for their children. Allow me now to say a few words in Mandarin, Sir.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today’s Motion calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies.
However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record-low total fertility rate of 0.97 that is before us. To achieve extraordinary results, we must make greater efforts and reimagine our approach. Three years on after the \"A Singapore Made for Families 2025\" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?
Searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market. Giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living. Stressing about the rising cost of living. Facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child’s early years. These are real predicaments that many parents are facing. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real.
A \"Singapore Made for Families\" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their children’s formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a \"Singapore Made for Families\", we need to rethink our starting point and reimagine our policies.
We must reimagine the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. The key lies in how we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to truly build a \"Singapore Made for Families\", a society that values parenthood deeply. That is the question we should be pondering.
(In English): Mr Speaker, beyond policies, we need to question the value that we place on work and the economy against that of parenthood and caregiving. A \"Singapore Made for Families\" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their child's formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a \"Singapore Made for Families\", we need to rethink our starting point and re-imagine our policies.
Re-imagining the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. How can we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\" to one that champions parenthood? That is the question we should be pondering.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh: Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a clarification to Mr Louis Chua. While I understand the context of his speech, but it is not clear from his speech whether he is in support of my Motion. So, I want to take this opportunity to seek his confirmation on that. Because I perceive that he is supporting my Motion, based on what I heard, especially in his Chinese speech, but I wish to seek his confirmation.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Yes, at this point, we do support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's TFR has been falling for many years. Last year, Elon Musk declared that Singapore is going extinct with our low birth rate. We do not need Elon Musk to point out that our low birth rate is a problem.
During his first National Day Rally speech in 2004, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had already pointed out that the low TFR was, I quote, \"a very serious problem for us\". At that time, Singapore's TFR was 1.26. It has since hit a new low of 0.97 in 2023.
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) stands firm behind families and family values. We understand that many Singaporeans desire to get married and have children, and we support these aspirations. However, it is ultimately a personal decision whether to get married and have children, and we respect these decisions too. Women are not duty bound to have children and neither should singles be ashamed or treated differently because they are not married.
I have a quote on my Facebook page since I entered politics in 2020, \"Politics decide how a society looks like and society conditions what a person can do or cannot do. We seek to establish the right kind of politics in our country so that all Singaporeans can perform to his full potential.\"
I believe that each person makes the best possible life decisions for himself or herself under the socio-economic circumstances created by the Government and the society. Accordingly, I also believe that the low TFR we see today is a result of the socio-economic circumstances that have been created by our Government's policies over the years. Despite decades of policies, like the Baby Bonus scheme, increased parental leave and financial support for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), our TFR has continued to fall.
PSP believes that this shows that these policies are not enough to resolve deeper societal issues that are discouraging Singaporeans from having children. As the birth rate continues to fall, the Government has largely relied on immigration to make up for the population shortfall. This is not ideal.
We strongly believe that the Government should not continue to rely on immigration as a solution to our nation's low TFR. Instead, we have a duty to create conditions of economic and financial security so that Singaporeans can be optimistic about the future and feel confident about raising a child and build a society that is conducive for Singaporeans to start and raise families.
Older Members of this House will recall that during the 1980s and 1990s, good job opportunities were plentiful in Singapore. HDB flat prices were affordable even for single income families. There was strong wage growth. \"明天会更好\" or \"Tomorrow Will Be Better\", was a popular Chinese song in the late 1980s. It captured the spirit of those times. It was common to have two children or even three children and we were confident that our children will have better lives than us.
Today, with the rise of the gig economy, falling wage growth and resale HDB prices increasing faster than wages, Singaporeans are worried about their financial security. Many Singaporeans look at the million-dollar HDB flats in almost every town and wonder whether their children will be able to afford a decently sized HDB flat in the future. The majority of married couples need dual incomes to afford the cost of living in Singapore.
Many young Singaporeans are also very worried about the impact of climate change.
Many Singaporeans no longer have the confidence that the next generation would have better lives than ours. PSP believes that we need to reset and re-imagine our socio-economic policies so that we can bring back confidence in the future.
We have previously proposed many alternative policies in this House with that aim and we will do so again today.
Firstly, we must ensure better job security and financial stability for Singaporeans. I have spoken extensively about rebalancing our foreign manpower policies to create better opportunities for Singaporeans. Family formation will be delayed if our university and polytechnic graduates are taking longer to find well-paying permanent jobs and also finding it harder to keep these jobs. We need better policies to improve the job security of Singaporeans.
While the Government has put in many measures since the loss of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in 2011, such as Fair Consideration Framework, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) and adjustments to the minimum qualifying salary, many Singaporeans are still concerned about job security. We will not be able to increase TFR without allaying the concerns of Singaporeans about job security and work-life balance.
Secondly, we must slow down the increase in the cost of living, especially the cost of housing. For housing, PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme, which reduces the price of BTO flats by removing the cost of land for owner-occupied flats. PSP has also proposed the Millennial Apartments Scheme, which aims to provide young Singaporeans with a quality rental option while they are waiting for a new flat. We are confident that these two schemes, taken together, will reduce the cost of housing for Singaporeans and allow young Singaporeans to get their own home as quickly as possible once they are ready to set up a family.
Thirdly, we must further defray the cost of prenatal gynaecologist visits, childbirth and postpartum medical checks. PSP believes that maternity and child-bearing medical fees should be fully claimable from MediSave without limit. Given our low TFR, there is little concern about overusing MediSave for such fees. Female Singaporeans should have full autonomy over how much MediSave they want to use.
Most mothers in Singapore, regardless of race, also practice confinement, which helps the mother heal physically from childbirth and adjust to a life with a newborn, which can be very challenging and even lead to postpartum depression for some mothers. But with basic confinement packages at $3,000 to $5,000 now, the cost of confinement care can be expensive. To help mothers defray this cost, PSP proposes a new $3,000 Healthier Mother Cash Gift, paid to every mother upon the birth of each child.
Fourth, we must strengthen workplace support for caregiving of children. PSP acknowledges that the Government has put in place a wide range of support programmes for parents and introduced new forms of support, such as paternity leave. However, to allow parents to spend more quality time with their children and enjoy parenting, we should have bolder policies. We should create conditions such that Singaporean families can thrive with just one-and-a-half income instead of two incomes. This means that families should be able to afford the cost of living with one full-time working parent and another parent working flexi-time.
In this regard, we can do more to encourage job-sharing and the adoption of FWAs. The Government has introduced the job-sharing incentive to support companies. In creating FWAs or job-sharing arrangements for their employees. Under the current scheme, each company receives up to $35,000, depending on the number of employees that have adopted FWAs or job-sharing. But this is not attractive enough for employers, especially given the availability of foreign labour.
PSP proposes an enhanced job-sharing incentive. We propose to allow companies to claim from the Government 20% of the wages, capped at $8,000 per month, paid to any flexi-time workers with children, on condition that these money are used to employ more full-time or flexi-time workers. We hope that this will incentivise more employers to create flexi-time jobs and help workers to better balance their work and family commitment.
Fifth, we should recognise the great unpaid contributions of homemakers and full-time caregivers of young children. Many parents, especially mothers, choose to sacrifice their careers to bring up their children. Grandparents also help full-time working parents with caregiving duties and bringing the grandchildren to school, minding them after school and cooking for them.
PSP proposes that the Government pay a $1,250 monthly allowance to one parent or grandparent who is registered as full-time caregiver of a Singapore Citizen child from birth until age seven.
I first mentioned such a monthly allowance in my Budget speech in 2023. Those who claim this allowance would no longer be eligible for Government subsidies for full-day childcare and infant care programmes. Part-time care caregivers or babysitters, like myself, would also not qualify.
Under this scheme, a 35-year-old full-time homemaker, for example, would receive $1,000 in cash and $462.50 in CPF contributions, while a 75-year-old grandparent would receive $1,156 in cash and $156 in CPF contributions. This allowance is expected to be a game-changer, as it will provide real and effective support for full-time homemakers and caregivers.
Our sixth and last policy suggestion is to reduce education pressure on families to promote happier family lives. Tuition is now a $1.8 billion industry. Most preschoolers are sent to tuition or expensive kindergartens to get a head start in life. This kind of pressure is taking a toll on young children and we cannot afford the negative effects it has on their mental health. I have heard many young Singaporeans who are choosing not to have children because they do not want them to face this kind of suffering.
To encourage more Singaporeans to have children, we must do more to reduce the pressures currently faced by the young in our education system. We reiterate our suggestion to offer an option of not having to take the PSLE. Members of the House from all parties have made this suggestion before. This will allow children to be happier and parents to enjoy happier family lives.
Let us imagine how enjoyable family life in Singapore would be if Singaporeans have stable jobs, can afford the cost of living with one-and-a-half incomes, can easily get a house to form a family whenever they are ready and can spend quality time with children who are free from exam pressures. Grandparents can spend time taking care of their grandchildren with a caregiving allowance from the Government, instead of working in old age. I am confident that more Singaporeans will be willing to have children if we can create such an environment for families.
The low TFR is an existential problem which should be tackled as a national emergency. If our current birth rate persists, there will only be 12 great-grandchildren for every Singaporeans born today. There is little point in increasing the Reserves if we do not have a future generation to leave the Reserves to. We should use our hard-earned savings to invest in our people and re-imagine our socio-economic policies, so that more Singaporeans will consider parenthood a meaningful and attainable journey.
Sir, in conclusion, PSP believes that we will not be able to reverse the decline in our TFR by simply reviewing and updating our current policies. We already know that these policies are ineffective and that is why, we are facing a national emergency today. What we urgently need, is to re-imagine some new policies and mobilise the whole of Government, and whole of society, to create an environment that is conducive for families and raising children. PSP has provided some new ideas as a starting point and hope that this will develop into a national action plan.
As such, Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion. May I hand over a copy of the amendment to you?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please let me have a copy of the amendment. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, the PSP's amendment —
Mr Speaker: Hold on, Mr Leong. Let me just look through.
Okay, the amendment submitted by Mr Leong Mun Wai is in order. Do you have copies available for Members? We will get these distributed to Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Speaker: Alright. Mr Leong, please move your amendment.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, the PSP's amendment is, in the original Motion, \"in line 2, to delete 'continued review and updating', and insert 're-imagination'.\"
Sir, the Cambridge dictionary defines \"re-imagine\" as \"to have a new idea about the way something should be\".
We hope Members will support PSP's amendment. Not everyone may agree with our new ideas, but we hope that Members will agree that we need new ideas to better support families. PSP invites all Singaporeans to join us in our journey to re-imagine our policies and build a better Singapore, together. For country, for people.
Mr Speaker: There is one amendment proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai to the Motion: \"In line 2, to delete the words 'continued review and updating' and insert 're-imagination'.\".
It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?
[(proc text) All Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"the amendment as moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai\", proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Faishal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, my speech would be in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the phrase \"Family is the pillar of society\" aptly suits the Motion tabled before us. This phrase means that families, as the smallest units in a society, play an important role and have an impact in shaping values and strengthening any society.
Therefore, Sir, when there are efforts that help improve family life, such efforts are very much welcome and must be given full support.
My colleagues and I from the Workers' Party have given various suggestions as well as underlined the importance of having more family-friendly government schemes and policies, coupled with less pressure and more happiness, in order to further improve family life in Singapore, which will thereby further strengthen Singaporean families, thus forming a more prosperous, strong and cohesive society.
Sir, among the matters I have raised in this House include Paternity Leave and Family Care leave. I have done so during my first term. In addition, I have, on many occasions, raised in this House the concerns and grievances of segments of Singaporeans who are still burdened with challenges and hardships of family life that made them feel marginalised and neglected.
In today's debate, I would like to once again focus on two groups of Singaporean families facing challenges, in the hope that their concerns and feedback will receive due attention.
Sir, firstly, I wish to once again, raise the issue of wives or husbands who are undergoing divorce and are very worried about finding a place to live for themselves and their children, because their matrimonial home needs to be sold under Court order. Due to this concern, these individuals who are about to become single parents will apply to get rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme. Usually, for such cases, HDB will tell the applicants to wait until their divorce case is settled in order for it to be evaluated and processed.
Sir, Members of this House would have often been approached by individuals in such situations during their MPS. I acknowledge that HDB will do its best when considering applications and appeals from these soon-to-be single parents. However, I feel that the existing system or process can still be improved and refined.
What I would like to suggest for such situations is for HDB to join hands and work closely with social agencies such as Family Service Centres to conduct a more in-depth analysis and establish a scoring system to measure and assess applicants' difficulties, and whether they are in dire need of shelter. If the results of the analysis show that an applicant’s situation is serious, does not have close family support and also does not have a place to live in and so on, HDB can give \"in-principle approval\" even though the divorce has not been officially finalised. This will at least provide some form of assurance to the applicants and also can alleviate the pressure that they face. At the same time, this proposed process can reduce the waiting time to get rental flats for these applicants. More importantly, a more in-depth and thorough evaluation process like this can address situations where cases are overlooked or had \"fallen through the cracks\".
Sir, the next group concerns Singaporeans who have repeatedly been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain a Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) for their life partners, as well as their family members, be it biological children or stepchildren who are foreign nationals. This group often laments that they cannot live together as a family because they are often separated due to their inability to obtain LTVPs for their partners and other family members. There are also reports of couples who are burdened with this challenge and had to divorce due to the intense pressure of having to always live separately because they were unable to obtain LTVPs.
Sir, based on my observations from appeal cases handled during MPS, it appears that LTVP+ applications that are frequently rejected, seem to be from applicants whose Singaporean partners are in financially vulnerable positions or are of advanced age.
Sir, the ICA website states: \"ICA takes into account factors such as the individual's family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile and length of residency, to assess the applicant's ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate into our society, as well as his or her commitment to sinking roots.\"
Sir, I acknowledge the importance and necessity of these factors. However, at the same time, I do wonder how an applicant would be able to fulfil the factors set out by ICA?
This situation is akin to the question \"which comes first, the chicken or egg?\". How would ICA be able to assess factors like economic contributions, length of residency, the applicant’s ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate in our society, as well as the applicant’s commitment to sink roots, as stated in ICA’s website, when the applicants themselves have little chance to try and fulfil those factors because they are in Singapore for a limited time as short-term visit pass holders?
Sir, similar to my earlier suggestion regarding HDB rental flat applications by wives or husbands undergoing divorce, ICA can also work with Family Service Centres to conduct a more in-depth analysis and establish a scoring system to measure and assess the applicant’s difficulty. By having a more thorough evaluation process, this will help ICA make more accurate and better assessment.
It is my understanding that ICA's current process only accepts appeals via email and e-forms, without any face-to-face sessions. I believe that this approach may be insufficient to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the problems or challenges that are faced by those submitting appeals for rejected applications.
Sir, it is my view that approving LTVP+ for Singaporean couples in financially vulnerable positions would enable their foreign spouses to seek employment. This will potentially increase household income and therefore alleviate any financial burden.
For elderly applicants requiring care, in addition to their partners having the opportunity to work and increase their income, the presence of their partners by their side for an extended period is very much needed, to provide companionship in their twilight years, and for those who have health issues, their partners can be there and provide the best care.
Sir, on the contrary, the implication of not approving LTVP+ applications for both these groups is that their lives will become more challenging and it will further complicate their lives.
I would like to request that ICA exercise greater flexibility to applicants who are facing the two situations that I mentioned.
Sir, in conclusion, I hope that the points I have raised in this speech will be given due attention and implemented by the relevant Government agencies.
Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, I was born in the early 1970s, just seven years after our nation's Independence, to a typical Chinese family in Singapore then. I had the joy of growing up in a big extended family. My parents' HDB flat was near my aunt's flat and my grandmother's HDB shophouse, where other uncles and aunties lived in. I had a very happy childhood, playing with my cousins every day after school, as my mom and aunties would help in my grandmother's shop and the children would congregate there after school for homework and play, before returning to our respective homes each night. I grew up thinking that everyone has a family like mine and will desire such a family like mine. For this speech, I checked and noted that the Singapore's TFR was 2.98 when I was born in 1972.
To prepare for this speech, I interviewed four groups of my Jalan Kayu residents and personal friends: first, singles who desire to marry but have not found the right person to marry yet; second, singles who desire to marry and have found the right person but have not married yet; third, young married couples who desire children but have none yet; and fourthly, young married couples who desire children and have them.
Firstly, for my residents who are single and desire to marry but have not found the right person yet, I assure them that they are a majority and need not feel left out. According to the findings of the IPS pre-conference poll shared at the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January 2024, young Singaporeans are less likely to think it is necessary to marry and have children, but most still aspire to do so. The survey was done to get a sense of Singaporeans' attitudes and views towards issues like family, well-being and work. It found that our young Singaporeans are experiencing higher levels of loneliness.
A representative sample of about 2,400 Singapore residents were also polled by IPS between November and December 2023 in three age groups: the youngest, 21- to 34-year-olds; the middle, 35- to 49-year-olds; and the older, 50- to 64-year-olds. In this poll, 70% of the youngest group think it is not necessary to get married, 58% of the middle group and 50% of the older group feel the same. Despite this, 68% of the youngest unmarried respondents, between 21 and 34 years, old foresee themselves getting married. Across all age groups, the top two reasons for not dating or getting married are that they have not met the right person yet and that they prefer to remain single.
In my 2023 Budget and Committee of Supply speeches, I urge the Government to go more upstream and enable more resources for social interactions among our young people. I cited then the Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2021, which found 80% of young single respondents intending to get married, but 50% of them were not dating, with 38% of this group having not dated before. Among those who were not currently dating, 58% of them expressed having a limited social circle and 57% of them not having many opportunities to meet potential partners.
Although there has been a growing acceptance for online dating apps, 80% of the surveyed respondents prefer meeting potential partners through more organic and face-to-face settings. I suggested then that a community approach may be more suitable for the Government to encourage more organic social mingling and urged the Government to be open to investing more to help singles expand their social circle and actively encourage our singles to mingle in social settings.
Armed with the survey data and my experience when I was a civil servant in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Office for Healthcare Transformation in piloting projects to achieve proof of concept and proof of value outcomes in hopes that the Government will consider mainstream funding support, I went about researching what I could pilot for my Jalan Kayu young residents. Around then, I met Friendzone SG at an April 2023 conversation session for young people in Jalan Kayu funded by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information's (MDDI's) Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) department.
Friendzone is a ground-up social enterprise started in 2018 by a young Singaporean who believes in building friendships, teams and communities one conversation at a time. Remembering how my own marriage, which reached its 21st anniversary last Friday, was built on the foundation of friendship, I thought that would be a good starting point and connected Friendzone to my young leaders in Jalan Kayu Youth Network (YN) to explore collaborations.
Knowing that as a social enterprise, Friendzone needed funding for materials and time to carefully plan, outreach and facilitate each conversation session, I raised the matter with our Jalan Kayu Citizen Consultative Committee. I was touched by the swift and unanimous support from long-serving grassroots leaders, many in their 50s and 60s, who readily agreed to utilising our Citizen Consultative Committee funds to pilot two Friendzone sessions. Our resourceful Jalan Kayu YN further stretched the Citizen Consultative Committee budget to do four sessions, from 2023 to 2024, by negotiating for discounted grassroot rates and collaborating with other YNs in Ang Mo Kio GRC, sourcing for National Youth Council's (NYC's) inter-generation engagement grants, People's Association (PA) GRC dialogue grants for youth and co-funding with other YNs to do more sessions for more young people to benefit.
One of the four sessions was on 7 July 2024 at our annual Jalan Kayu Day last year, where Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong was the guest-of-honour and interacted with our young residents at the Friendzone conversations on the topic of friendship and relationships. My hope is that the Government can consider one stream of funding support for every constituency to be able to conduct such sessions, without each MP, like me, having to worry about raising funds to start and sustain the platform. Our YNs can also focus on organising such collaborations and outreach rather than navigating different Government grants to carry out what they find useful.
With a good start since 2023, I will further deepen the support for Jalan Kayu young people by piloting, in the next few months, a next step Y-Connect programme, with small donations raised from donors who share my belief. JK Y-Connect will facilitate learning on topics, such as dating etiquettes, healthy dating mindset and behaviours, positive ways to find the \"right partner\" through self-discovery and discovery of potential partners in a fun, unintimidating and authentic way. I hope that Jalan Kayu young residents can have Friendzone-type of platforms to just make friends over conversations and topics of their interest, as well as the upcoming Y-Connect for those who would like to explore more dating.
Next, for my residents who are single, desire to marry and have found the right person but have not yet married. The IPS pre-conference poll in January 2024, which I cited earlier, also identified cost of living as the top of the list of social issues that young Singaporeans are most concerned about. Several of my young residents who fall into this group shared with me that they are still saving up for their dream wedding as hotel banquet costs have risen substantially post-COVID-19 pandemic and partially due to global geopolitical and economic factors, which are beyond their controls and they feel somewhat helpless about.
When I visited Seoul in 2013 on a study trip while I was a public servant in the National Council of Social Service, I was impressed by a briefing from the equivalent of our MSF on an idea initiated by their Mayor Oh Se-Hoon, who was first elected in 2006 and is the incumbent Seoul Mayor today. The initiative was to open a new, state-of-the-art architecture designed and built city hall, with a large basement comprising a citizen's plaza, a gallery, an exhibition hall and an event hall for booking and use by Seoul citizens for diverse purposes.
To commemorate the opening of this new city hall in a special way then, the city of Seoul's government hosted a \"First New City Hall Wedding\" call. The Seoul government accepted applications from Seoul citizens to become the first couple to wed at the event hall. They publicised that the new event hall was about 700 square metres in size, could accommodate about 150 guests at a booking fee then of just about 100,000 won to 200,000 won, which is about $95 to $190.
The bride and groom would be required to receive premarital education before the wedding. The \"First New City Hall Wedding\" call also offered several talented local professionals who donated their services, including a master of ceremony, congratulatory singers, photographers and so on. The couple could also receive assistance from a socially responsible wedding company consigned by the government agency. However, it is up to the couple to use the wedding company at their own cost.
After this unusual call to commemorate the opening of the new city hall, which saw overwhelming applications, the Seoul government continued to make the event hall available for wedding ceremonies weekly for Seoul citizens. For those curious, I assure you that the event hall was nothing short of a dream wedding venue that are alike those seen in many beautiful K-drama weddings, when I visited in 2013. I hope for a chance to visit again when I travel to Seoul.
Can our Government consider piloting a similar initiative, with funding support to iconic, historical and beautiful public institutions like the National Gallery or the Old Parliament House, just to name a few, to host a similar programme for our young people desiring to get married? I am sure that cost-conscious young Singaporeans with a hope for a dream wedding, alike any young couples around the world, will appreciate a similar programme to make their wedding plans less of a financial burden, but more of a real bliss.
Moving on to the group of young married couples who desire children but have not had any yet. The representative 2023 poll by IPS, which I mentioned earlier, also saw 67% of the youngest respondents, between 21 and 34, without children hoping to have kids. A researcher in that poll said that the young worry about the cost of housing. High cost and stress emerged as the top reasons for not wanting to have children across all age groups.
I can understand these concerns. While the number of young married couples still waiting for a successful ballot for a new, affordable BTO flat, whom I see at my weekly MPS has eased from the high number during and right after the COVID-19 pandemic crunch, I empathise with these young couples who are still disappointed to get no queue number or a queue number far exceeding the available units in each BTO or Sales of Balance flats application exercise.
While I fully understand the reasons and principles of fairness upheld by the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the HDB for the current ballot system, I wonder if MND can consider piloting a hybrid system of queue plus ballot for first-timer couples who have failed after one to two tries. The hybrid system can help not to delay their obtaining of a new flat much longer, in both non-mature and mature estates. For mature estates, there can be additional criteria, like proximity to parents or parent-in-laws who have been living in the mature estate for a considerable number of years and the young couples are looking to them for childcare support or need to care for their ageing parents.
Lastly, I had the joy of interviewing two couples in their mid-30s to early-40s, with four children each. Each of these couples are also working individuals and with senior parents in their 60s and 70s to care for. I shared with them that they are defying the odds of shrinking family sizes and falling TFR, experienced not just in Singapore but in all major highly-developed urban cities and countries. I asked them what their \"secret sauces\" are.
A common theme that emerged from these couples is a strong marriage bond and personal sacrifices as husbands and wives for each other over the years of courtship, marriage and parenthood. Each one stepping up and stepping down in career pursuits and other life aspirations over the course of achieving a common goal of building a big, happy family filled with laughers and, many times, cries of children.
It reminds me of a Bible verse, Ecclesiastes 4:9-12: \"Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift the other. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm.\" Even when I started drafting this speech on the second day of Chinese New Year, a young friend happily announced to me the arrival of his third child, a beautiful daughter named Caroline, which filled me with such joy and inspirations to complete this speech while shuttling from house visits for Chinese New Year and events with family and residents.
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please. 俗话说得好，有国才有家，有家才有我. Back in English, the phrase means a home thrives on the foundation of a good country, and one thrives on the foundation of a good home. While Singapore's TFR has fallen to another record low of 0.97 in 2023, 51 years after I was born, the residents and friends whom I have interviewed for this speech, especially the last group, made me realised that we do not have lost generations who do not want marriage or parenthood. We just have many good policies and initiatives still to be implemented and good stories still to be told.
It gives me hope for this homeland, this nation, this Singapore, that we all love and the people in this land who are the most precious, both when we first achieved Independence in 1965, as it is today in 2025, as we celebrate SG60 as one nation and one people. As we celebrate SG60 with pride and new hopes, surely, the best is yet to come with daughters and sons of a better age in writing new history and uplifting records, including our TFR, for Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Motion. I have recently been blessed with the chance to become a mother and the arrival of our little boy has brought new perspectives as well as solidified previous beliefs. One such belief is from the old phrase, \"It takes a village to raise a child.\"
I would like to take a moment to express my deep respect and appreciation for all parents and caregivers who raise children; from infant carers and early childhood educators who look after children when mummies and daddies go to work; foreign domestic workers who share the load of keeping a home neat and tidy; grandparents who go through a sequel of raising the grandchildren later in life; friends who happily babysit our children for a few hours; well-wishers who offer encouraging words; doctors and nurses who bring them into this world and care for them when they are sick, it does indeed take a kampung and I am very grateful for mine.
Sir, there are families with children, families without, families who do not want any, and families who do. It is not our place to impose our personal preferences on others, but from a statistical perspective, encouraging more families to have children is indeed critical to Singapore's future.
Our TFR fell below one for the first time in 2023. This is not just a concern economically in our ageing society, due to a shrinking local workforce which demands supplementary talent as we strive to remain competitive in a turbulent world, but also socially, as demographic changes affect the composition and fabric of our society. It also results in more Singaporeans being sandwiched, with the old age support ratio projected to decrease to 2.7 in 2030. The caregiving burden will grow, and in family units where there are single children, this typically falls upon them.
However, this pressing need at the country level may not find resonance at a personal level with Singaporeans for many reasons. Coming out of the Chinese New Year period, I am sure many around my age are asked some permutation of the famous trinity of questions. One, when are you getting married? Two, when are you having a baby? And the third, no matter how recently you have given birth, when are you having a second one?
I answered the first question, \"When are you getting married?\", after I turned 28, just 1.5 years shy of the median age of first marriages in Singapore for brides in 2023. For grooms, this is 31, also in line with the global trend of later marriages. But peak fertility age is in the earlier part of our 20s. For those who are graduating from Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs), 20s is often a time of \"chiong-ing\", pursuing career, supporting older parents, saving up for that BTO. For many, it is also the first time out of formal education, where the world seems less linear, opportunities abound and experiences like travel open up more. So, for many youths today, the picture of marriage and family where men go out to work and women stay at home to raise children is outdated and less enticing.
According to a 2020 Singapore Population Census, the percentage of couples with both parents working is 52.5%. In particular, as women today see unprecedented levels of self-autonomy and financial independence, they desire a shared partnership instead of reinforced gender roles. However, a study which polled more than 22,000 people in eight countries, found that Singaporeans do not place as much emphasis on egalitarian gender relationships in a marriage as people in other countries, such as Spain or Norway.
One of the principal investigators in Singapore, Prof Yong, said that \"Singaporeans seem to think that women who work and do most of the domestic duties at home are not any worse off than if both husband and wife share the domestic duties equally when they are both in the workforce\". Many wives tell me they disagree.
Despite much progress over the years, women still find themselves carrying an unequal mental load and face bias in workplace and society, for example, in terms of sexist comments and being the default parent. And so, a rising number of women choose to stay single, prioritising freedom and the ability to invest in their career, hobby and other pursuits.
While moves have been made in recent time to nudge equality in family life, for example, through Shared Parental Leave, ultimately, it will take time for mindsets to shift. Society must also change its views on men who choose to stay home at work or work more flexible roles, appreciate those who are active fathers alongside their partners and give them space to participate meaningfully in the raising of children. We are all responsible for the gender stories that we live and tell, and these affect our social identities, from how we advertise to the way we value care work, how we interact with each other at home in terms of chores, careless stereotypes and how we speak to girls and boys from a young age. Society must do better to challenge these stereotypes.
Which leads me to the second question, \"When are you having a baby?\" At our wedding, my husband shared that how he knew we were right for each other was that it was the first time he could see himself starting a family. I, too, could envision him, not just as a good husband, but as a great daddy. Intentional and thoughtful about the kind of values we would hope to impart to our kids, but also aware of just how much it takes to try and raise them accordingly. But for six years, as much as we wanted, we could not answer the second question, for a variety of personal reasons. Every year which passed would see more questions, reinforced this time with \"don't wait so long\" and \"you're not getting any younger, you know\". Auntie, trust me, I knew. As I neared 35, the reminder that my biological clock was ticking loomed over me, as did reminders that I was born with a fixed number of eggs, which were depleting, both in quality and quantity, as the months went by.
While some may choose to stay single or childfree, not enough is said for those who long for children of their own but are unable to become a parent. This could be due to health reasons, whether physical or mental, anxieties or traumas from their own childhood, a lack of information or a lack of financial resources to seek help early. Defined by World Health Organization as a couple's inability to conceive after one year, infertility currently affects about 15% of couples in Singapore. While questions often focus on the woman, causes of infertility are actually relatively split evenly between male and female factors.
Sir, it starts with awareness. I would like to ask what fertility health education programmes are available, whether in schools at the appropriate age or in the community, for youths to have better awareness of fertility health. It is one thing to encourage people to have children, but even more important for people to be empowered with information to make their own informed decisions. These topics can also be included as part of marriage preparation programmes, such that young couples can discuss things like fertility screening, having children and financial considerations early. Female and male infertility can be a sensitive issue and it would be helpful for couples to have the option of facilitated discussions by experts.
Fertility treatments can also be taxing both emotionally and financially. While elective egg freezing is not a guarantee for babies later in life. I am glad that we have moved on permitting this as of 2023, including raising the age limit from 35 to 37, so as to cater for women to have more options. Various hospital websites state that the cost can range from $7,000 to $15,000, amounts that would make most of us think carefully before pursuing this. Beyond that, there is also the time off from work required, the check-up, the injections, the careful counting, the restrictions on diet and lifestyle. My favourite is the advice \"try not to stress\" in an already very stressful situation. To quote a Reddit user, egg freezing is an amazing innovation, but it is so far from cost free.
I would like to ask if the Government can consider supporting fertility screening and elective egg freezing through permitting MediSave withdrawal subsidies or co-funding, subject to the assisted reproductive treatment limit of $15,000 in a lifetime. A Straits Time article published that KK Women's and Children's Hospital has recorded more than 40% increase in IVF cases between 2014 and 2023, and that hospitals are ramping up capacity to support assisted reproductive treatments.
I am glad that we are doing more to help Singaporeans fulfil their dreams of having children for those who choose to do so and hope that more will come forward to support each other on this journey. To this end, I am grateful for platforms such as Fertility SG, a non-profit started by IVF warriors, which provides a safe space for men and women who wish to find out more about fertility health and assisted reproduction. It is important that this information and support is available to people from all walks of life.
Sir, while the process of trying to conceive itself can often feel lonely and helpless, many new moms and dads after conceiving also struggle with the transition to parenthood. Modern parenting can be overwhelming with society's expectations and our own, from Instagram posts on expensive gender reveal parties, pregnancy and baby photo shoots, breastfeeding, milk supply woes, the never-ending list of things to purchase for our little ones, to advice from well-meaning strangers. The list goes on.
We have read cases of postpartum depression affecting marriages and cases which have also ended in the tragic loss of life. It could be helpful if there was an automated process where parents receive an email or SMS after registering their child's birth or before leaving the hospital, where parents could consider and consent to have their contact information shared so as to join community circles near their homes, perhaps at the nearest community club or other organisations. Hospitals can also provide bite size information to spot signs of postnatal depression via text if parents consent; and this can also be provided upon discharge after delivery.
Sir, for the third and final question, \"When are you having a second one?\" I would like to talk about the space to raise families. Over the last few years, I have come across residents who have tried very hard to start their own journey into familyhood, or who wish to grow their families but housing remains a challenge. The recent October 2024 sales exercise revealed that the median application rate for first-time families was 2.6, with the Central Trio at Ang Mo Kio being 4.1.
For many, the desire to have a home starts from having a house. Even though the Government has introduced a slew of measures, such as first-timer priority and the family and parenthood priority scheme, for those who live in estates such as Ang Mo Kio, new sales launches are few and far between due to the lack of land parcels to build on. Young residents who have lived here all their life often lament the inability to secure housing near their parents who they wish to stay near to for caregiving purposes. For longevity, couples also tend to prefer at least a 4-room flat to cater for a bedroom for themselves, a combination of one or two children, a caregiver, such as a helper or their parents, and living space to cater to work-from-home arrangements.
While resale flats are an option, a quick search on the HDB website of resale flat prices in the last six months in Ang Mo Kio for 4-room flats range from $455,000 to above $1 million. I recognise that the Government has taken steps to cool the market and that this is, ultimately, a case of \"willing buyer, willing seller\", but this can be very daunting for young couples. I would like to ask whether median income of Singaporeans has kept pace with the average cost of resale flats and if the Government can explore different ways of supporting young couples who wish to live near their parents beyond the proximity grant.
Also, given that grandparents often play an important caregiving role in raising children, could the Government also consider building more 3Gen units in such towns so that families have the option of staying together under one roof? It would also be helpful if elderly who do not have much savings are able to continue receiving certain subsidies or reliefs, which they would have otherwise enjoyed if they are still staying in their own flats, should they choose to move into these 3Gen units with their children.
Finally, on the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme. I am grateful for this option, which has grown in popularity in recent years and been a lifeline for families, married couples, applicants under the fiancé-fiancée scheme and divorced or widowed parents with children, the latter being a family unit, often going through much pain and changes. I also note that the Government has ramped up supply dramatically, with the intention to double the amount of available units to 4,000 this year. While this also means that redevelopment into potential new BTO housing is halted, for example, in the case of Tanglin Halt, I know that many are relieved that they are able to secure this interim housing while awaiting their keys.
Under this scheme, the Government considers families with greater needs first, couples with at least one child, including expectant parents, get priority in the allocation of flats. While many understand this, a young couple shared with me their disappointment in failing to secure a unit despite multiple applications. Although they are married, they continue to live separately with their respective parents due to space constraints and the expensive private rental market. This too, can be a barrier to starting a family.
Sir, does the Government expect the increased flat supply to be able to meet needs based on the existing application pool? Could the Government also share how the take up rate of the Open Market vouchers has been since its launch in July 2024 and what is the proportion of the average 4-room and 3-room flat unit rental cost that is subsidised by the Open Market vouchers?
Sir, watching our son's little fingers curled around mine fill my heart with a love like I have never known before. Success for me has been redefined somewhat and can be as simple as having 10 minutes in between work to hold him and feed him, or watching him interact with his daddy and his grandparents. As we build a \"Singapore Made for Families\", I am grateful that we already have several of the key building blocks in place: safe streets, well planned towns, with homes and with childcare options, decisive shifts on paid parental leave, good education system and more. We must continue to support families of all shapes and sizes, to assure Singaporeans that the Government and society at large will walk alongside them in this journey.
To tie my speech back to Chinese New Year, amidst the well wishes of 早生贵子, or may you be blessed with a child soon, I wish you strength, patient and hope your hearts find peace.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion as amended by my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai. PSP absolutely agrees that a whole-of-society approach is needed to build a Singapore that is made for families. However, PSP believes that without new policy ideas or major policy shifts, we will not be able to adequately support the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, or reverse or stabilise the decline in TFR that we have seen over the last few decades.
That is why we have raised an amendment to the Motion today to call for a re-imagination of the current policies which, in our view, have not been enough.
For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. But for those who wish to have children, there are things the Government can do to lower the barriers and reduce the obstacles in their way.
One key concern of potential parents is the cost of raising children. If our young people are struggling with the cost of living, it will dissuade them from having children which will further add to their financial burden.
As the cost of living issue has been raised in this House many times before, I will today simply repeat the major calls PSP has made previously to reduce cost of living: one, reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) back to 7% and exempt basic necessities; two, pricing HDB flats without land cost, unless sold in resale market; three, manage property prices and rents, and in particular, reduce rents at hawker centres; and four, MediShield Life premiums to be paid by the Government.
Another area of concern is jobs. Young people are naturally concerned about whether having children would affect their jobs and career progression. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, has already spoken about job-sharing. I will speak on improving the attitude of employers towards their employees having children.
For employers, their manpower situation is adversely impacted when employees take maternity or paternity leave. There is, therefore, a potential conflict in the interest of society and the interest of employers. We need to implement measures to instead align the interest of employers to the interest of society. PSP urges the Government to introduce incentives for employers with family-friendly policies and environment.
While we exercise control over our dependence on foreign manpower at the national level, we can tilt the balance towards family-friendly employers, by giving them relatively higher access to foreign manpower. For example, one way is to give additional quota or COMPASS points.
To illustrate, we can reduce the quota for S Pass from 10% to, say, 9% for all employers and give additional quotas to employers with employees going on parental leave. If the total parental leave taken by the employees is 30 weeks, then the employer can be entitled to the additional quota for 60 weeks, to more than compensate them for the loss in manpower.
Employers may be incentivised to introduce policies and environment for better work life balance so that their employees have more time and energy to socialise, meet their better halves, form families and carry out parental duties. For Singaporeans to be more receptive to foreigners, Singaporeans must be able to see that the participation of foreigners in our economy improves their quality of life.
I will move on next to housing. PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme to deal with the high cost of housing, but another key impediment to raising our TFR is the long waiting time for a HDB flat, as has also been pointed out by the hon Member, Ms Nadia Samdin, just now. The waiting time under the BTO system plus the requirement to find a partner first before you can apply, can greatly delay Singaporeans' family formation.
Whilst the Government has started building flats with Shorter Waiting Time (SWT), the number of such flats at 2,000 to 4,000 units per year is way too low. The number of citizen marriages in 2023 is over 24,000. We urge the Government to more aggressively increase the supply of the SWT flats.
With young people prioritising career development and the long waiting time for housing, Singaporeans are getting married later and having children later. These delays can result in fertility issues, compounding the problem.
The struggle with infertility is a personal one for me. I tried to conceive naturally for 10 years after getting married to no avail. I sought medical treatment after that, but my body reacted badly to the medications. Thus, my husband and I decided to turn to adoption. It seems like yesterday when we brought our two sons home as infants, but they are already 18 and 17 now.
I therefore empathise deeply with couples who are struggling with infertility and going through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatments like IVF. Such treatments are often especially taxing for women, who may have to endure multiple rounds of medications, self-administered injections and hospital visits. PSP believes that as a society, we can do more to support couples going through ART.
Based on the latest available data, about 10,500 cycles of ART treatments were carried out in Singapore in 2022. This has increased 81% since 2013.
Currently, the Government provides up to 75% in co-funding for couples going through ART at public hospitals, who are under age 40 and have been assessed by a doctor to have met the clinical requirements for ART. The Government co-funds a maximum of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles. The last two co-funded cycles can be completed after age 40, as long as ART or intrauterine insemination procedures have been attempted before age 40.
Sir, before I proceed, I would like to share with the House the experience of Israel. Israel is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country that is still reproducing above the replacement rate. An OECD report in 2024 found that it has a TFR of 2.9, with Mexico and France in second place at 1.8. Part of this is due to religious reasons as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have many children. But even secular women in Israel have a TFR of 2.0.
It is believed that part of the reason behind this is strong state support for assisted reproduction. Israel has the world's highest per capita rate of IVF procedures and fertility clinics. This is because the Israeli government provides full public funding for an unlimited number of IVF cycles for any Israeli woman under age 45 until she has two children with her current male partner. It is estimated that at least 2% of the Israeli health budget goes towards funding IVF treatments.
This is in stark contrast to our funding policies, which only provides up to 75% co-funding, with stricter age limits and co-funding limits based on the citizenship status of couples and the number of ART cycles.
Currently, only couples where both spouses are Singapore Citizens are eligible to receive the full 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures. The Government will only co-fund 55% if one spouse is a PR and 35% if one spouse is a foreigner.
Trans-national marriages now make up 36% of citizen marriages, as of 2023. PSP believes we can do more to support trans-national couples to start their fertility journey, especially since any child born out of such marriages will be a Singapore Citizen by birth. Thus, PSP proposes that all couples can receive up to 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures, as long as one spouse is a Singapore Citizen.
Next, PSP believes that we can increase the number of ART cycles eligible for co-funding. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Louis Ng in January 2024, Minister Ong Ye Kung, said that the current co-funding limit of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles strikes a balance between providing public-funded financial support to couples aspiring to be parents and ensuring the prudent use of public funds by taking into account clinical efficacy.
But given that our fertility rates are currently extremely low, we should rethink our approach towards rationing ART cycles and move closer to an Israeli approach to funding. Even if the Government provided the maximum $7,700 funding for all 10,500 ART cycles carried out in Singapore in 2022, the total cost to the Government would be less than $81 million. The Israeli experience suggests that this would be a worthwhile investment.
PSP believes that we should co-fund unlimited ART cycles for women under the age of 40, until they have two children who are Singapore Citizens. For women from age 40 to 45, we should co-fund three fresh and three frozen ART cycles.
Sir, the PAP Government has always prided itself on fiscal prudence. This has extended to the Government's financial support for couples facing fertility issues. If we really hope to stop our TFR from declining, or reverse the decline, we should re-think the balance between fiscal prudence and supporting couples with fertility issues.
Finally, I would like to touch on egg freezing. At the Committee of Supply last year, I called on the Government to consider some level of subsidies in public hospitals and allow the use of MediSave for egg freezing. Such financial support is already being extended in countries overseas. Conditions on subsidies can be imposed to prevent abuse. Unutilised frozen eggs can be donated to other couples or used for other purposes like research or education.
In a Parliamentary Question reply yesterday, Minister Ong Ye Kung said that our financing policies for egg freezing are designed on clinical grounds and from a population policy perspective, the Government does not want to inadvertently encourage young couples to delay their plans.
Sir, there are many factors involved in having children, including whether a suitable partner is found. Our young people should be given the freedom to decide on their life choices, including marriage and parenthood, based on their own personal circumstances, not pushed into it before they are ready. What we can do, is to provide an environment that can help them be ready earlier and support them in their efforts to become parents.
I urge the Government to reconsider our proposals. Women who choose to go through the pain and discomfort of egg freezing demonstrate strong parenthood aspirations. We should do more to support them, even if it means doing something unprecedented with regard to our health policy. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP believes that in the face of our country's continuous declining TFR over many years, it is not enough to merely continue reviewing and updating our policies to support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations.
We need to reimagine these policies to adequately support Singaporeans in building families and to reverse or stabilise the decades long trend of declining TFR. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment to the Motion today.
For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. However, for those who wish to have children, the Government can take more measures to pave the way for them.
Today, Mr Leong Mun Wai and I reiterated PSP's proposals to reduce the cost of living and housing cost. We also proposed that the Government should increase efforts to encourage employers to support employees with FWAs, allow family-friendly employers to receive relatively higher foreign worker quotas, provide subsidies for full-time parents or grandparents caring for young children, increase subsidies for ART treatment and better support women who choose to freeze their eggs.
We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals and reimagine current policies to address the issue of continuously declining birth rate.
(In English): We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals to lower cost of living, provide employer incentives, more SWT flats and greater financial support for fertility treatments and egg freezing, to support Singaporeans in their parenthood aspirations. I hope all Members will support the amended Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore's fertility rate has been low for a long time, which is a major problem that bothers us. Although the Government has taken many measures, there are still few results. However, we should not be discouraged. Instead, we should be determined and have the courage to continue to introduce more favourable measures to increase the fertility rate and change the declining trend in the birth rate.
The survey by our National Population and Talent Division shows that the main reason for married people not having children is the economic burden, which is 64% of the respondents. But the main concern of singles is that the cost of raising children is too high, which is 89%. Clearly, economic factors are still the main reason affecting fertility. Therefore, I suggest providing all-round economic support at all stages of a child's development.
We can increase the parenthood subsidies, increase the quantum of Baby Bonus and expand it to more families, and increase childcare subsidies.
The cost of commercial childcare centres is very high and the Government should increase funding for them, improving their quality and reduce the cost of childcare for parents.
Mencius once said, \"For the order and stability of a country, it is necessary for its people to have a property of their own.\" We also pursue our home ownership policy in Singapore. I think the Government should create a housing policy that is more friendly to young couples. We know that birds will build their nests before they lay eggs. Young couples who are about to become parents would always want to buy a house for their new family before considering having children. It can be said that buying a house is a must for young couples! We must take care of the housing needs of these young couples, give them higher priority in the queue, increase their housing subsidies, lower the threshold for home ownership and shorten the waiting time. We can also increase the housing subsidies for young couples under a certain age, in order to encourage them to get married early.
We can shorten the waiting time for home buyers and start building HDB flats in advance, based on the number of first-time applicants and the average number of marriages yearly in recent years, therefore reducing the waiting time to about 18 months.
While waiting for a BTO flat, we can provide short-term subsidised rental flats for couples. We can also give priority to families with more children to move to larger HDB flats first, exempt them from the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) requirement and increase the number of subsidies.
(In English): Will HDB consider allowing couples to upgrade and exchange to bigger flats with more rooms when they have at least three babies, without requiring them to fulfil the MOP, and only need to top up the difference between their original purchase price and the bigger BTO flat upon exchange with HDB? The bigger flat also takes into consideration the family's need to accommodate a helper or grandparents to take care of the young ones.
Next, the size of our flats may be a contributing factor to low fertility. If we build more smaller flats based on the norm of smaller households, it may become an entrenched, self-fulfilling trend, where new households have fewer children to fit comfortably into the available flat sizes. Would the Government consider increasing the sizes of flats and the number of bigger flats with six rooms or more, and in tandem, increase the quantum of HDB subsidies with every child born, up to four children, specifically for the family with more than two children? These subsides should be claimable with the birth of each qualified child.
We must continue to expedite the building of HDB flats and the collection of keys. We should give allocation priority to first-timer couples, followed by families based on the number of children under the age of 18 in the household.
Declining fertility has been a challenging issue in many developed countries, even among those with generous Government support schemes, such as Sweden and Norway. Nonetheless, we must persist with initiatives to create and maintain a conducive environment to encourage Singaporeans to have and raise children.
I commend and endorse our Government's continuous efforts over the last few decades to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\". It is heartening to note that from April, the Government will pay for four weeks of mandatory paternity leave and an additional six weeks of mandatory Shared Parental Leave, with the latter increasing to 10 weeks from April next year. The assistance will ease the transition for the arrival of a new baby and nudge some parents to consider having more.
When the Prime Minister suggested more maternal and paternal leave, this was welcomed by couples but some also expressed concerns over the potential trade-offs, such as the loss of opportunities due to competition in jobs. Some in the corporates have also expressed concerns over the sharing of heavier loads among colleagues that may not be rewarded. On a positive note, it may also encourage employers to relook at the need to retain senior staff to give support to their colleagues with young family. This could potentially be a win-win situation for the job market and employment.
We need to factor in the growing trend of more singles across all age groups, with the most significant increase amongst those age 25 to 34. For many of them, marriage is no longer as much of a priority, but they are open to marriage if they meet suitable partners, as was mentioned by some of the Members here. We are also operating in an environment of greater caution due to the worrying number of scams, including on dating apps. Would the Government consider running a social networking agency and app, where participants and organised activities are screened and vetted? This framework could provide a safe and trusted space for busy singles to network and meet potential partners beyond their usual work and social circles.
For younger couples under the age of 30, they have less time to accumulate savings and this concern may lead them to postpone having children. I urge the Government to consider providing more subsidies for this group for pre-natal care and deliveries at our public hospitals. The Government may consider building confinement care facilities to support both parents and baby at subsidised and affordable rates in new towns and estates. Would the Ministry of Education (MOE) provide more places and lower fees in Government-supported preschools?
Finally, would the Government consider following Sweden's example, where grandparents are now eligible for government subsidies to babysit their grandchildren? More senior citizens today continue to work longer, some even past their retirement age. It may be quite a financial loss to them to babysit their grandchildren. The government subsidies may be helpful to certain families which prefer their grandparents to look after their grandchildren. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.
Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): \"Four seasons fill the measure of the year; there are four seasons in the mind of man.\" This excerpt from the poem \"Sonnet. The Human Seasons\" by 19th century English poet John Keats, likens human life to the passage of the four seasons. As we transition from the spring of childhood into the summer of youth and graduate into the autumn of middle age and the winter of old age, many of us count on our families to be there for us.
Indeed, over 90% of Singaporeans polled by the IPS for its global World Values Survey 2020, valued family as \"very important\", compared to less than 40% for other facets of life such as work, friends and leisure time.
While family mattered most to Singaporeans, the same IPS study shared that work was a higher priority for Singaporeans aged between 36 and 50 than other age groups, likely because this group of Singaporeans tend to be breadwinners who feel responsible for their family’s finances, care and well-being.
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion put forth by Members Hany Soh and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim because the Motion urges a rational yet intuitive approach to refreshing and renewing Singapore's social compact, so that Singaporeans can be supported and strengthened to cherish and value their families, whether they be families with young children or three-generation households or singles living with ageing parents, through the uncertainty, adversity and challenge of the different phases we pass through in a lifetime.
The Motion calls for a Singapore social compact that can help these Singaporean breadwinners to balance the economics and emotions of working and caregiving, because doing so is integral to a \"Singapore Made for Families\". Then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also gave similar assurances when he said at the launch of the Forward Singapore exercise in June 2022, that \"Singaporeans and Singaporean workers will always be at the centre of everything we do.\"
Such assurance matters because year 2025 is unfolding in a world that is increasingly driven by technology and often times delicate, uncontrollable, unpredictable and impossible to comprehend. Allow me to share about three groups of Singaporean breadwinners who must show courage as they brave a new wave of technological disruption that could upend livelihoods and intensify the challenge in raising their families. What could be strengthened in our social compact so that these Singaporean workers can rise above new areas of adversity, challenge and uncertainty and be a pillar of strength and support for their families?
First, platform workers. During the debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, I pointed out that some became platform workers because platform work allowed them to earn a living despite their limitations. For instance, some platform delivery members from the National Trade Unions Congress' (NTUC's) National Delivery Champions Association are single parents and the main caregivers to their young school-going children. Because these platform delivery workers are careful to only accept platform jobs that they can fulfil when their children are at school, they worry that they could be deprioritised in job allocation and/or fares by biases learnt or internalised by platform algorithms. Such action by the platform algorithms would hurt such platform workers' livelihoods and compel these workers to unfairly choose between work and caregiving.
Given the rise in algorithmic management of workers, it is timely for a refreshed social compact to include safeguards that protect workers against exploitative algorithmic management practices that could arise when the business environment becomes complex and uncertain.
I would thus like to urge the Government to consider requiring companies that apply artificial intelligence (AI) to decisions affecting workers, such as ride hailing and delivery platform operators, to provide transparent disclosure of the safeguards, whistle-blowing avenues and recourse in place to uphold non-discriminatory and responsible use of AI for decision-making that impacts workers. I would also like to continue urging the Government to consider requiring these AI-centric companies to adopt the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) AI Verify governance framework that would guide companies to be transparent about their AI and build trust. Such moves would give greater assurance to breadwinners with precarious work, such as platform workers.
Second, creative freelancers. Nearly 70% of 4,000 global marketing and creative leaders, surveyed by Canva, a multinational graphic design platform, expressed concern over potential job loss across industries due to Generative AI (GenAI). GenAI and globalisation are reshaping the nature of creative work in Singapore. NTUC's Visual, Audio and Creative Content Professionals Association that represents freelance creative professionals, observed that companies are becoming more cost-conscious and have increasingly delegated tedious time-consuming tasks, such as localising and personalising creative concepts for marketing campaigns to AI.
To further save costs, these companies are also offshoring entry-level creative work activities to lower-cost countries. These forces have brought upheaval to the creative work value chain in Singapore and has affected a big swathe of local creative freelancers, some of whom had experienced up to a 30% drop in their income from creative work.
Given the increase in such external pressures on Singaporean freelance creative professionals, it is timely for a refreshed social compact to provide safe spaces for Singaporean creative professionals to unlearn and re-learn, so as level up their thinking and technology-adoption in tandem with the opening of new avenues to monetise creative talent.
I would thus like to urge the Government to take the lead in supporting the capability development of our local freelance creative professionals and the development of Singapore's creative industry, by requiring principal creative agencies engaged by Government Ministries or agencies for creative projects to prioritise engaging Singaporean creative freelancers or enterprises for specialised expertise needed.
This is similar in concept to how the UK's government procurement framework requires government departments to consider social value in awarding contracts. For instance, departments are guided to consider social value outcomes that have lasting impact to individuals, communities and the environment, such as \"tackling economic inequality, including creating new businesses, jobs and skills\" as well as \"driving equal opportunity\".
Likewise, having the Government take the lead in contracting and subcontracting Singaporean creatives for Government-commissioned projects would provide the safe space for these creative freelancers to apply new knowledge and technology that expand creative frontiers, capture new value and elevate the standing of Singaporean creatives.
Such move would pave the way for local creative freelancers to translate upskilling efforts into a differentiated creative portfolio. A differentiated creative portfolio matters because it can be a springboard for local freelance creatives to pitch beyond Singapore for higher value creative work and to command a premium for their expertise – both aspects critical to supporting Singaporean creative freelancers as breadwinners and pillars for their families.
Last, low-wage workers that technology could substitute. In July 2023, the McKinsey Global Institute published a report which found that many low-wage jobs in the food industry and in customer service in the US could be eliminated by GenAI by 2030. For instance, devices like smart kiosks have allowed eateries to operate a single site with fewer employees. The same study suggests that workers in lower-wage jobs are up to 14 times more likely to need to change occupations than those in highest-wage positions and most will need additional skills to do so successfully.
In Singapore, the 2023 edition of the Government's Jobs Transformation Map for food services sector highlighted the urgency to redesign food services jobs to make the sector attractive to Singaporeans. In response to lean staffing and technology advancements, redesigned food services jobs – whether service crew, kitchen assistant or outlet manager – would likely see a shift towards an increase in the scope and responsibilities of roles.
Given the faster pace of change and wider scale of technology adoption, a refreshed social compact must include measures to help low-wage Singaporean workers, who may be less literate in English language and digital skills, deal with the stresses and expectations arising from the increased scope and responsibilities of their job roles.
I would thus like to urge the Government and industry stakeholders to prioritise connecting low-wage workers with training that can help these vulnerable workers to pivot to the refreshed job scopes or to new career paths if their jobs will likely be replaced by automation. I would also like to urge employers to take a broader and longer-term view when making business plans; planning for the future must go beyond investing in automation and ought to extend into capability building and increasing accessibility to work to help these workers to balance work/life needs.
For instance, low-wage workers could be more willing to pivot if their employer had catered adequate training and the time to build these workers' competence in interacting with emerging technologies and changing customer demands. These workers could also be more prepared to stay on in the job if their employers offered flexi-work arrangements that could allow these workers to manage work around their needs at different life situations.
Such moves would give cause for optimism than worry of job displacement; it would also boost the confidence of these vulnerable breadwinners in facing the challenge of technology advancement and stressful life situations head-on.
To conclude: for many of us, around one-third of our lives would be spent working. Work gives us dignity, income security and boosts our feelings of self-worth. A \"Singapore Made for Families\" must therefore be anchored by a refreshed and renewed social compact that would give a boost to the livelihood skills and opportunities of our over-500,000 Singaporean platform workers, creative freelancers and low-wage workers facing the advancement of emerging technologies and economic renewal.
As a whole-of-society, we must step up to the plate in our roles as Government, employers, unions and more, to give these groups of fellow Singaporeans a leg-up to start and raise their families well, and to imbue confidence in these families that they, too, can access support to thrive and find joy in their journey through life.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I stand in full support of this Motion. As we call for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, we must confront two pressing challenges. The first is how social media is reshaping our children's minds and relationships in ways we are only beginning to understand. The second is more structural; the daily challenges faced by families raising children with disabilities, challenges that often remain invisible to many.
The first: protecting youth development in a digital age. Since 2021, one key focus in our Telok Blangah Division is \"Building Stronger Families\". This commitment is reflected in a range of initiatives, including father-child programmes, a curated Mental Health Series, support for caregivers and initiatives to enhance seniors' well-being. In 2021, we also launched the \"Telok Blangah Mentoring Club\", designed to journey with our youths aged 11 to 17. I love our youths. And after decades of working with them, I have grown increasingly concerned about the impact of smartphones and social media on their well-being. The effects are real and harmful when left unchecked.
I intend to dedicate a significant part of my speech to safeguarding our young in the digital age, particularly amid the challenges of social media. I recently addressed this topic during the Edusave 2025 as well as Bursary Award Ceremonies. A good number of parents and older youths later approached me to share similar concerns. It is clear that this issue resonates deeply with our community, highlighting the urgent need for collective action and support. Unchecked social media use does not just change how our children communicate, it rewires how they see themselves. As Jonathan Haidt powerfully puts it in his book \"The Anxious Generation\": \"The rise of social media isn't merely a passing trend but a seismic shift in how young people relate to themselves and each other.\"
Recent studies have shown that frequent social media use can significantly impact adolescent brain development, with heavy usage linked to poor mental health and increased social isolation among young people. In contrast, youths who spend more time outdoors, engaging with others and connecting with nature tend to develop stronger mental resilience and better social skills. This contrast underscores the need for regulators and parents to view social media with enlightened eyes; to see it not as harmless entertainment, but a force that can make or break the well-being of our young people. We must therefore approach it with awareness and responsibility.
In fact, we should scrutinise social media with the same vigilance as products that pose risks to our health. Just as governments regulate tobacco to protect public health and parents limit junk food to safeguard their children's well-being, we must take decisive steps to shield our young from the mental health risks of unchecked social media use. The stakes are too high to ignore; stronger measures are not just an option, but a necessity.
Countries like South Korea and Finland have set an example. South Korea has introduced \"Digital Detox Zones\" and camps, while Finland prioritises outdoor play in schools. Australia equips parents with tools to manage children's screen time via the \"eSafety Commissioner\". Singapore must continue to take steps to ensure our children will not be trapped in a digital world that constantly compares them with often impossible standards.
Singapore has rolled out initiatives such as the Cyber Wellness and Digital Literacy programmes. Building on these efforts, I would like to share three key considerations for better protecting our youths in today's digital landscape.
First, delay social media use. I urge parents and teens alike to consider delaying social media use until at least age 16, or for as long as possible. This recommendation, supported by the research of Mr Haidt, is not arbitrary; it is rooted in the critical stage of brain development during adolescence.
The prefrontal cortex, which plays a crucial role in regulating emotions and controlling impulsive behaviour, does not fully develop until around age 25. I am not suggesting that social media should be off-limits until adulthood. But science does show that the older the teens are, the better they can manage their emotions and navigate the complexities of digital spaces. Until then, unchecked exposure to social media can easily undermine their self-worth and emotional well-being. Just as we delay giving teens the keys to a car or access to bear arms, we must also delay their entry into the world of social media. The older they are, the better equipped they will be to handle the pressures that social media often amplifies, such as comparison, anxiety, insecurity and envy.
Singapore is currently studying Australia's proposed ban on social media for those under 16. Even in the absence of legislation, I urge parents to delay social media exposure and stay vigilant about what their teens are engaging with online.
Second, promote outdoor play and physical activity. To help teens disconnect from social media and nurture their overall well-being, we must create more opportunities for outdoor play and physical activity.
Finland offers a great example by integrating outdoor play into its school curriculum, recognising its profound benefits on mental and physical health. Closer to home, I am inspired by Blangah Rise Primary School, where some classrooms intentionally open to a garden. Each morning, the teachers take their students to the garden to explore nature, gifting them a peaceful outdoor space. This simple yet powerful practice supports a holistic development. Our co-curricular activities (CCAs) system lays a strong foundation for youth development and MOE's recent decision to remove primary school CCA trials is a commendable step forward. This change allows children to explore sports without the added pressure of performance, fostering a more inclusive and enjoyable experience.
However, many secondary school students still face barriers to participating in sports CCAs. Parents have shared that it remains challenging for their children to join sports they are interested in or want to try, as trials are still required in some schools, even for non-competitive participation. At this stage of their development, when a teen expresses interest in taking up a sport, our response should be, \"yes, come and try\", not \"sorry, you're not good enough\".
How many parents have seen their teen come home dejected after being turned away because they were not considered \"good enough\"? Could there be a deeper connection between young people turning inward to social media to channel their energy, energy that could be far better directed towards sports that not only promote physical health but also foster real-world social connections? How might MOE review the secondary school CCA system, to ensure that every student who wishes to engage in a sport beyond Physical Education classes has the opportunity to do so?
At the same time, I acknowledge the practical challenges the Ministry faces, such as limited resources and logistical constraints. Nevertheless, we can explore solutions that balance these realities while ensuring all students have access to physical activities that energises them. Just as Earth Hour gives our planet a much-needed break and Home-based Learning Day prepares students for remote learning, I propose the introduction of Disconnect to Connect Week, a dedicated week for students to disconnect from social media and replace it with real-world social connections.
A recent experiment involving a group of US teens who swapped their smartphones for flip phones for just seven days yielded striking results. While some experienced minor inconveniences, the majority reported improved focus, better sleep, more meaningful family conversations and increased time spent outdoors with friends. For this initiative to succeed, the disconnection must be paired with opportunities for authentic human connections. Without these, even the best intentions risk falling short.
Our schools and families must collaborate to make this happen. We need to provide easy access to opportunities like sports, community volunteering and other meaningful pursuits that encourage real-life interaction. Parents play a crucial role in shaping a child's relationship with technology. One of the most effective ways to counter social media's negative effects is by encouraging outdoor activities as a regular part of family life.
If I may be clear about this, the solution is not adding more structured activities to already packed schedules. A conversation with two clinical psychologists revealed something startling. They each had different teenagers share with them, saying: \"A dog's life is better than mine; at least they have time to rest and play.\" Think about the weight of that statement.
These youths were not just making casual observations. They see how family pets receive affection, rest and the freedom to play, while they feel they have to earn affection and rest through achievements.
The encouraging news is that many families are already making unstructured outdoor activities a regular part of the family life, whether through walks, cycling or simply spending time together at a nearby park – and Singapore is blessed with many amazing parks. I hope parents will continue to prioritise regular family outings and protect their time with their children.
Third, strengthen parental support. Being a teenager today is challenging and being a parent of one may be even more demanding. In an era where screens dominate nearly every aspect of daily life, it is crucial for parents to have the right tools to set clear boundaries around screen time.
Children observe everything about their parents. If they notice their parents are not addicted to their devices, they may just follow suit. Parents must be intentional in modelling healthy tech habits. Smartphones should not control us. Instead, we must take back control over how we use them.
A friend of mine practices what is referred to as \"digital Sabbath\", where she turns off her phone for a significant period each day to be fully present with her children. This simple, yet powerful habit has become a precious gift for her family. Without distractions, meaningful conversations flourish.
I love this same question families can ask at the dinner table daily: \"what is one good thing that happened to you today?\"
We can expand initiatives that empower parents with strategies for creating screen-free zones at home while also helping them monitor and guide their children's online activity. By equipping parents with these tools, we can foster healthier relationships with technology, benefiting both teens and parents.
I have seen this shift happening in some of my residents. During house visits, I have observed families making conscious effort to use phones and computers only in shared spaces, like the living or dining room. This is such a wise practice and I sure hope it becomes the norm across all families.
Beyond IMDA's Digital for Life resources, schools could consider making workshops on healthy digital boundaries compulsory for parents. Just as parents know exam schedules and school entry requirements, they should also learn how to help their children navigate the digital world responsibly.
Parents also need to feel equipped to have open conversations about the risks and benefits of technology and social media, especially when it comes to mental health. These discussions are urgent during the pre-teen and teen years, when children are most vulnerable. More importantly, parents can create space where their children feel comfortable sharing their online experiences and emotions, free from judgement.
A friend of mine only recently learned, in an open conversation with her son, that he had been severely bullied online when he was 13. He is 21 today. She now understands why he struggled with anxiety attacks and depression throughout his teenage years and into junior college. This is surely not an isolated case. We must not be afraid to get help. Parents need to be equipped to recognise these challenges early.
I am always blessed when parents approach me, unafraid to seek help in this area. They come fully aware of how social media and constant digital communication have impacted mental health.
I will now move to the second pressing challenge: supporting families of children with disabilities. Beyond screen time concerns, another group I am concerned about are families of children with disabilities. We must not forget this special group and ensure they receive support through every stage of caregiving.
Currently, childcare leave ends at age 12. May we explore considerations for parents caring for children with disabilities who require long-term medical care?
I propose extending childcare leave for parents of children with disabilities with high support needs, to at least age 18. In addition, I urge the Government to increase the number of paid leave days per year for them. If extending leave is not feasible, FWAs should be legislated, with medical certification required to prevent abuse. I also look forward to the expansion of the Enabling Services Hubs, for which I am very, very grateful. This will provide much-needed respite for caregivers of persons with disabilities (PwDs).
As I have highlighted in previous speeches, FWAs are not merely a preference for caregivers. They are an absolute necessity. This group, in particular, faces a unique set of challenges. They need steady income to support children with high and often complex support needs.
Despite being educated, competent and possessing a diverse range of skills, many caregivers find themselves in jobs that under-utilise their talents and pay them significantly less simply because these positions offer the flexibility they desperately need. Faced with the demands of both childcare and job hunting, caregivers of children with severe disabilities are often forced to accept whatever opportunity comes their way, regardless of whether it aligns with their qualifications or financial needs.
Given that reasonable accommodations for this group are still not legislated, I urge the Government to allocate resources and collaborate with employers to create job opportunities that offer FWAs, while also recognising and leveraging the professional expertise of these caregivers. Just as SG Enable works with companies to facilitate employment for PwDs, could they consider expanding their efforts to include caregivers of individuals with severe disabilities and rare disorders? These caregivers possess valuable skills and experience that, with the right accommodations, could greatly benefit both the workforce and the companies that hire them.
The challenges facing our youth and families of children with disabilities are deeply intertwined. They call for a collective, unwavering response. We must not only protect our young people from the harmful effects of social media but also empower them to build resilience and emotional strength for the future. At the same time, we will stand with families who are navigating the complexities of raising children with disabilities, offering consistent and meaningful support.
These are not issues that can be solved with temporary fixes or half-measures. They demand our sustained commitment, compassion and urgent action. My hope is that we can create a future where every person and every family can flourish in their own lane.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I will suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.52 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Sir, I stand in support of the original Motion standing in the names of hon Members Hany Soh and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Sir, raising a child in Singapore, today, is not cheap at all. So, I like to focus my speech today on how the Government can do even more to support parents with the financial costs of raising children. And I have four suggestions to make.
First, I hope the Government can make full-day childcare even more affordable. I suggest to raise the Basic Subsidy for full-day childcare by $100, and correspondingly, reduce the minimum co-payment for median- and low-income households by $100. In this way, young parents across the board, whether higher- or lower-income, can benefit from $100 less in full-day childcare fees every month. And so, a parent at roughly the 35th income percentile, with per capita income monthly of $2,250, would pay $108 every month, instead of $208 currently at an Anchor Operator centre. And a parent at median income, with per capita monthly income of $3,000, would pay $239 every month, instead of $339 currently.
Indeed, beyond the specifics, what I would also like to put forth is a refreshed benchmark – a new definition – of affordable childcare in Singapore. Today, affordability is defined as a dual-income family with a child in Anchor Operator full-day childcare paying around the equivalent of primary school and student care fees. I think we can and should go further.
I would like to suggest that affordable childcare, going forward, be defined as a median-income family being able to cover four full years of full-day childcare from three to six years old, at an Anchor Operator, using just the CDA, after maximum dollar matching and grant from the Government, without any further out-of-pocket payment needed.
Today, the maximum CDA dollar matching from Government for a first child is $4,000. So, my suggestion is that median-income parents who contribute $4,000 to the CDA, with $4,000 matching from the Government plus the First-Step Grant of $5,000 also from the Government, making a total of $13,000 in the CDA, should be able to cover four full years of full-day childcare fees at an Anchor Operator.
This works out to a fee of around $250 per month, which is also why I suggested earlier to raise the Basic Subsidy by $100 and to reduce the minimum co-payment, by $100, so that the co-payment at the median-income level can be brought down to around $250.
But the bottom line is this: $4,000 contribution from parents into the CDA should be able to cover four full years of childcare from three to six years old, if the parents are at median income and the child is with an Anchor Operator. This is my suggestion for a refreshed benchmark for affordable childcare in Singapore.
Sir, my second suggestion is a repeat of a call that I had made in the 2023 Budget debate, which is to give every school-going Singaporean child, between seven and 16 years old, a \"Child Development Bonus\" of $600 in cash every year. Think of this as an extension of the CDA, which supports our children in their preschool years. So, as they enter and step through their formal schooling years, my suggestion is to extend the CDA and support them with a Child Development cash bonus in their primary and secondary school years.
Why $600 each year? Because the latest statistics tell us that educational expenses for our children do not quite drop after their preschool years, when they enter their formal schooling years.
Indeed, our families are spending, on average, roughly $600 every month on private tuition for their school-going children.
To be clear, I am not passing judgement on whether or how much, private tuition is appropriate. Indeed, I am just looking at the facts, looking at the actual cost burdens that our parents today are facing and suggesting a way in which we can better support our parents in the face of these realities.
And I believe that, ultimately, parents all want to do their best for their children and give the best to their children, and what is \"best\" can be very personal and varies from individual to individual.
So, those who spend on private tuition do so, because they want the best for their children. And the reality is tuition is a key cost driver today for raising children in Singapore and so we ought to lean in and help. I believe that $600 every year, this cash bonus for every student, will go some way towards helping our parents and yet contain the risk of unintended inflationary effects on the private tuition market or, indeed, on any other area that our parents may choose to spend on, to provide the best for their school-going children.
My third suggestion is on how to fund my first two suggestions – for both higher childcare subsidies and cash bonuses for school-going children. Specifically, I like to suggest that we create a new Future Generations Package, with a new Future Generations endowment fund, to fund these two suggestions in perpetuity.
The higher childcare subsidies that I have suggested will cost the Government at most $200 million more each per year. Whereas the Child Development Bonus that I have suggested will also cost around $200 million per year. So, put together, around $400 million each year and my suggestion is to set aside a new endowment to fund these in perpetuity.
We have set aside $8 billion for the Pioneer Generation Package, $6 billion for the Merdeka Generation Package and $7 billion for the Majulah Package, all to take good care of our seniors and, rightly so. I think it is about time that we also have a package for our children today and those yet to be born – a Future Generations Package, for our future generations. Set aside a package, to send a strong signal of this Government's commitment to our future generations and to the parents who are, or will be, nurturing these future generations.
As with our past packages for seniors, the commitments in this Future Generations Package should be fully funded by the Government of the day, with funds set aside from its term of Government, so that future Governments are not burdened by these commitments.
Sir, my fourth and my final suggestion is to make student care more affordable for our lower-income families. Where is the gap today? Well, for families at the lowest income decile, that is, with per capita monthly income of up to $750, there is one tier of Government subsidies for childcare, and one tier of financial assistance for school-going children, namely MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme. But there are seven tiers of fee assistance for student care, even for families within the lowest income decile.
So, student care can cost as little as $5 per child per month, or as much as $120 per child per month, after Government fee assistance for these families within the lowest income decile, depending on very small differences in their income levels. If we go to the next income decile, there are another five tiers of fee assistance for student care. And for families in this income decile with per capita monthly income of $1,125, student care can cost almost $250 per child per month, after fee assistance.
I think we can be more consistent and more client-centric across our financial assistance policies for children. As importantly, there is much scope for us to make student care a lot more affordable for lower-income families. I think student care should cost only $5 per child per month for all families in the lowest income decile; and $25 per month per child, not $250, for families in the next income decile, 11th to 20th percentile, just like full-day childcare is costing today, after subsidies.
So, I urge the Government to review, streamline and harmonise our framework of student care fee assistance to make it more consistent and more client-centric, and to increase and enhance the fee assistance to lower-income families to make student care more affordable.
Sir, in summary, my four suggestions to the Government to better support parents with the financial costs of raising children.
One, make full-day childcare even more affordable; raise the Basic Subsidy for full-day childcare by $100; reduce the minimum co-payment for median- and lower-income households by $100; and refresh our benchmark for affordable childcare – $4,000 contribution from parents into the CDA should be able to cover four full years of childcare from three to six years old, with Government grant and maximum Government matching, if you are at median income and your child is with an Anchor Operator.
Two, give every school-going Singaporean child, between seven and 16 years old, a \"Child Development Bonus\" of $600, in cash, each year.
Three, create a new Future Generations Package; set up a new Future Generations endowment fund; to send a strong signal of the Government's commitment to our children, both born and yet to be born.
And four, make student care more affordable for our low-income families and streamline and harmonise our framework of student care fee assistance for these families.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I fully support the Motion.
Sir, it has been almost 20 years since Singapore first formed the National Family Council in 2006 to champion and promote resilient families. Over the years, the council renamed itself as the Families for Life Council, to better reflect its evolving approach to connect with Singaporean families.
The Families for Life Movement rallies community partners and employers in promoting marriage and parenthood programmes in the community and at workplaces.
The movement has since expanded to 18 towns, allowing many families to benefit from an extensive range of marriage and parenting programmes and resources. I commend the work that the MSF has put in, in helping to grow the Families for Life Movement. However, we must also acknowledge that more can be done, given how Singapore's TFR has continued to trend downwards, despite the various initiatives to encourage more Singaporeans to have families.
Over the years, I have provided various suggestions in this House on how we can strengthen marriages and ease the anxieties that many young couples face when making the decision on whether to start a family. I wish to use this opportunity to reiterate my various suggestions under three buckets.
They are: one, providing families with greater work-life balance; two, provide better support for parenthood; and three, more support for lower-income families. Let me elaborate.
First, on the need to provide workers and their families with greater work-life balance. During my regular house visits and community engagements in my Radin Mas constituency, I have spoken to many young couples and grassroots volunteers about what we can do better to encourage more Singaporeans to start families, to have babies, to have more babies. One common theme has surfaced, which is the importance of having work-life balance, so that they can have enough quality time with their spouse and their children.
Such sentiments are also reflected in the findings by NTUC's Youth Taskforce, which found that work-life balance ranks top of the list of concerns for our youth workforce. A survey by the NTUC-Singapore National Employers Federation Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) Taskforce similarly found that the lack of a work-life balance was one of the top three challenges at work cited by our PMEs.
According to a November 2024 policy brief from A*STAR's Institute for Human Development and Potential, preschool children who spend extended hours – and that is, over 40 hours a week – in preschools suffer in terms of their academic performance. The brief reported that close to 40% of preschool children in Singapore spend more than 50 hours a week in preschools, due to their parents' long working hours.
Sir, we must do more to improve the work-life balance of our workers, so that they can spend more quality time with their children during their critical early years. Not just quality time, but more quality time.
Since I first raised the issue of the \"right to disconnect\" in this House in 2020, I am glad that the Government has taken steps to help provide workers with avenues to improve their work-life balance. In 2023, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) enhanced the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-being at Workplaces to include the establishment of an after-hours work communication policy. I would like to ask, how many employers today have adopted such \"right to disconnect\" policies at their workplaces?
Since 2020, more countries have adopted their own \"right to disconnect\" legislation. In addition to European countries like France, Belgium and Spain, Australia, too, passed laws in 2024 to allow workers to disconnect after work. The momentum for clear \"right to disconnect\" legislation is growing globally.
Employers play a key role in providing work-life balance. I urge all employers in Singapore to implement a \"right to disconnect\" policy at the workplace. I hope that we can show the world that we do not need legislation for workers to have a basic \"right to disconnect\" from work, to be able to spend quality time with their family and, more importantly, so that our parents do not need to leave their young children for extended hours at the childcare centre and as the hon Member Miss Rachel Ong aptly put it, \"let us disconnect to connect.\"
So, how can we provide better support for parenthood? What can we do more to help working parents better cope with the stressors of balancing between family life and work?
The quality and accessibility of preschool education is a key form of parenthood support. Today, many working parents send their young children to preschools, preferably one that is affordable and near to home. The hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan has touched quite extensively on preschool affordability. I will cover the need to improve the quality of our preschool education and the need to ramp up supply of preschool placements in areas where many young families are moving in.
I have said this many times: being an early childhood educator is tough work. In addition to caring and handling a class full of energetic toddlers, preschool teachers today also do lesson preparation, administrative work, classroom set-up and attend training.
To manage cost, many preschools operate on a lean workforce. In preschools that are constantly short-staffed, some teachers tell me that they even find it hard to find time to go to the bathroom or to have their lunch during working hours. I was, therefore, glad when ECDA launched the Relief Staff Pool initiative to help preschools access affordable and reliable relief staff services. I would like to ask, how many preschools have adopted this initiative? I understand that hiring relief staff adds cost to the preschool operations and some operators may be reluctant to do so.
Previously in this House, I asked about ECDA's efforts to ensure that all our preschools are adequately resourced. I would like to add on to ask, when was the last time that MSF reviewed the teacher-to-child ratio for our preschools. According to a 2015 research paper that studied the impact of students per teacher on student achievement, lower teacher-to-child ratios are beneficial for children.
ECDA had also announced, in 2021, new initiatives to establish more inclusive classrooms and equip our preschools with the necessary resources to better support children with developmental needs. I, therefore, urge MSF to review and to lower the teacher-to-child ratio, so that more teachers and more para-educators will be required at each preschool.
We can, and we must, do more to increase the supply of preschool teachers, which would directly result in higher quality preschool education. On this front, I would like to commend MSF for taking on the many suggestions to make early childhood educators a profession of choice. In addition to the Relief Staff Pool initiative and the removal of mandatory Saturday classes, the pay for early childhood educators has also increased in recent years by between 10% and 30%. But we do need to continue to pay close attention to the hygiene factors at the preschools that cause our teachers to leave.
We must also ramp up the supply of preschools in towns where we expect an influx of young families. Even mature towns like Radin Mas would require a ramp up of preschools, as the Government redevelops estates, like Redhill, through the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme programme. Supply must be built well ahead of demand, so that parents do not need to worry about infant care and childcare when they move in and start their families.
Sir, I am also concerned about the 10% of households who do not enrol their child in preschools. According to statistics by MSF, nine in 10 children aged three to four years old are enrolled in a preschool. That means that one in 10 children do not attend preschool. Does the Government have data on the profiles of households who are not sending their children for early childhood education? Do we know the reasons behind their reluctance to send them to school? How can we better support the families to send their children to preschool?
When it comes to children from lower-income families, the preschool participation rate drops to eight in 10 children. I first raised concerns about this at the Committee of Supply last year and had asked if MSF could do more to support children from lower-income households to attend preschool.
Sir, our children's foundation years set them for success and more support should be given to lower-income families to help their children attend preschool and build a good foundation for them to excel in school for years to come. I urge MSF to provide greater preschool subsidies for our lower-income families and improve their accessibility to parenting resources.
I was glad when MSF incorporated preschool requirements under the ComLink+ Progress Package to encourage participating families to send their children to preschool. Can MSF provide an update if this has helped to increase the preschool participation rate for these families?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it takes a whole-of-nation effort to raise Singapore's TFR and to encourage more couples to have children. While we acknowledge that the Government has done much over the years in supporting Singaporeans who wish to have a family, we can do more to help address some of the structural issues that discourage Singaporeans from having children. Special care must also be taken to help our lower-income families.
This year is SG60, an important milestone year in our nation's history. I would like to reiterate my calls for parents who have babies born in the first quarter of 2025, to enjoy the same benefits as all other parents with SG60 babies. They should be accorded with benefits under the enhanced marriage and parenthood measures that will come into effect from 1 April 2025. Parents with children born in the first quarter of 2025 should also be entitled to the same SG60 baby bonuses that have yet to be announced.
Sir, every SG60 baby matters. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on this Motion, one that strikes at the heart of who we are as a society, a \"Singapore Made for Families\". Families are the foundation of our nation and the policies we craft today must pave the way for generations to thrive. But let us not forget that families do not exist in a vacuum. They depend on a supportive ecosystem of opportunities, resources and workplaces that enable them to flourish. As a member of the business community, I speak not only to lend my support to this Motion, but also to shed light on the vital role businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), play in shaping a family-friendly Singapore.
SMEs are often underappreciated when it comes to their role in supporting families. They are the silent engines of our economy, contributing 70% of local employment and forming the backbone of our society. But beyond their economic contributions, SMEs bring something deeply personal to their role, a genuine understanding of family priorities.
Many SME owners are not just business leaders. They are also fathers, mothers, husbands and wives who intimately understand the challenges of balancing work and family. They have experienced the struggle of managing a growing family while meeting the relentless demands of running a business. For our business owners, their employees are often more than just workers. They are like extended family.
It is, therefore, not uncommon for these business owners to quietly offer financial help to an employee facing unexpected challenges, a gesture rooted in a deep desire to support. Some celebrate the birth of an employee's child by giving extra cash \"hongbao\", while others invest in their employees' families by sponsoring bursaries and scholarships, or funding school supplies for their children.
In times of family emergencies, many SME owners go further, extending not only financial assistance, but also additional time-off to help employees focus on what truly matters. These acts of care and support are often invisible. They are not captured by Government surveys or reflected in national statistics and their true impact on families and communities often goes under-reported.
Yet, they demonstrate that being pro-business does not go against the grain of being pro-worker. In fact, SME owners and their employees are partners in a shared commitment to success, one built on trust, mutual support and a deep understanding that businesses thrive when their people do, reinforcing the idea that economic success and employee well-being are not mutually exclusive, but intertwined.
However, while we celebrate and recognise the kindness and generosity of our SMEs, we must also acknowledge the very real operational challenge they face. Many SMEs operate under tight margins, grappling with manpower shortages, rising cost and the need to stay competitive. While larger corporations may have the resources to implement FWAs or extended parental leave, smaller enterprises struggle with the cost of hiring temporary replacement or redistributing workload. The SPF National Business Survey confirms this, with 37% of businesses reflecting that the availability of manpower remain a key concern. For SMEs, these challenges are even more acute, compounded by customer demand uncertainty, which has risen sharply from 30% in 2023 to 40% in 2024.
It is, therefore, crucial that even as we strive to do more for Singaporeans and build stronger family support systems, we must consider the realities of SMEs. By addressing these challenges with practical and targeted solutions, we can enable them to remain viable while continuing to play their vital role in supporting families and communities.
I spoke previously about the operational strain SMEs face when employees take extended leave, especially during peak seasons like Chinese New Year that just happened, for those in retail business or in highly specialised roles, like in the security sector or project management within the construction industry. Similarly, for smaller businesses with lean teams, the absence of even one key employee can have a significant impact on daily operations. Even as we prepare for the increase of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and Shared Parental Leave, both laudable initiatives, these challenges are amplified.
Re-integrating employees after extended leave also requires careful planning to maintain productivity. SMEs often incur additional cost during overlapping periods when both returning employees and temporary staff are needed. I spoke on this issue and, again, I continue to urge the Government to consider introducing support measures, such as extended pay coverage for returning employees for one to two months. This additional support could help offset the operational impact of SMEs during this critical transition period.
To address broader challenges, I had also previously proposed that trade associations and chambers (TACs) work with the Government to establish shared pools of talent that SMEs can tap into during periods of employee absence. These shared resources can provide temporary staffing for parental leave coverage, ensuring that businesses can maintain operations without overburdening existing staff. This can be particularly helpful for specialised roles or roles requiring certification, where finding suitable replacement on short notice is often a challenge. I continue to be hopeful that the Government will work with TACs in this regard.
Mr Deputy Speaker, practical solutions like shared talent pools must be complemented by a workplace culture that prioritise employee well-being. As such, beyond policies and operational fixes, it is crucial to foster an environment where employees feel valued and supported. From my earlier speech on mental health, I emphasised the importance of work-life harmony strategies that balance operational needs with employee well-being. FWAs, like those found in the new tripartite guidelines on FWAs requests are one way to achieve this balance, but the true culture of care goes further. It requires intentional efforts from leaders and human resource (HR) teams to create an environment of respect, inclusion and support.
However, achieving this vision requires a focused effort on HR management. SMEs, in particular, may struggle with limited HR resource or expertise. Therefore, my next recommendation is for the Government to continue supporting companies in upskilling HR professionals and senior managers. This could involve working closely with organisations, such as the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) and then Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI), to build these critical competencies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we work towards a \"Singapore Made for Families\", it is imperative that we recognise and celebrate companies that align with our national objectives of supporting families. Businesses that adopt family-friendly practices should be acknowledged for their efforts. We should start a public awareness campaign publicising best practices and success stories to inspire others, highlighting companies that have successfully implemented family-friendly policies, especially SMEs that have overcome resource constraints to do so, can demonstrate that such initiatives are not only achievable but also beneficial to both employees and businesses alike.
In many of my previous speeches, I have underscored the importance of integrating a recognition framework with tangible economic incentives to drive meaningful change. This Motion presents an opportune moment to reinforce that call. I urge the Government to consider prioritising businesses that meet family-friendly benchmarks by granting them advantages, such as expanded prioritisation in Government procurement processes or temporary enhancements to foreign work pass access. By linking recognitions with practical incentives, we can amplify the ripple effect of progressive practices across industries. This approach not only rewards companies for doing their part but also ensures they remain competitive in a challenging economic environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Motion rightly calls for a whole-of-society approach – families, businesses and the Government must work hand-in-hand to achieve the shared goal of creating a \"Singapore Made for Families\". A society with aspirations for family and career are not at odds but mutually reinforcing. I applaud the Government for making significant investments towards such a future and our plans to add 40,000 new infants and childcare places in the next five years in partnership with five Anchor Operators, demonstrating a long-term commitment to supporting families. This initiative will greatly assist working parents.
But even as we strive towards this vision, we must also keep an eye on the bigger picture. Singapore competes on a global scale where multinational enterprises have choices. They choose Singapore because of our skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure and stable policies. These are advantages we have cultivated over decades and they have made us a hub of innovation, commerce and opportunity.
The recent National Business Survey results show that while 40% of businesses are satisfied with the current business climate, 66% still consider manpower costs as the top challenge. This underscores the delicate balance we must maintain. We, therefore, cannot afford to take this position for granted.
As regional economies develop, offering younger, increasingly educated and more cost-effective labour forces, they present compelling alternatives for global businesses. If the cost of doing business here rise disproportionately or if productivity does not match rising demands, we risk losing our competitive edge. This is a sobering reality, but it is also a call to action, to remain relevant and competitive. We must ensure that our policy strikes the right balance, one that supports family, while preserving the economic vibrancy that makes Singapore a place where businesses want to operate and people want to live.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us move forward with clarity of purpose and a shared commitment to ensure that Singapore remains a land of opportunities, both for families and businesses for generations to come. With this, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, creating a family-friendly Singapore goes beyond policy, just as navigating family relations successfully and harmoniously requires practical, everyday solutions. Family-friendly policies, need to be pragmatic, empathetic and offers solutions that benefit and support everyone in the family ecosystem. These include working parents, single parents, grandparents, caregivers and employers.
The Labour Movement and NTUC's Women's Committee have long championed a Singapore that supports families, advocating for workplace policies that balance career and caregiving responsibilities. Navigating the workplace successfully, charting out happy plans for family and reaching for our own personal North Stars are age-old perennial Singaporean aspirations, and is something that that the NTUC and this House has worked hard to enable and equip Singaporeans to achieve. While we have made significant strides, including stronger workplace fairness laws, improved FWAs, enhanced caregiver support, there is still much work to be done.
A recently concluded marriage and parenthood survey conducted by the NTUC Women and Family Unit and PAP Women's Wing, from 17 December 2024 to 9 January 2025 with 1,000 respondents, revealed key actions we can take to encourage childbearing. The top priorities identified were: one, prioritising FWAs for parents, 77% of respondents said they wanted that; two, improving access to affordable childcare and healthcare services, 74.0%; and three, increasing financial assistance and subsidies for families, 72.2%.
While we will release the full survey results nearer our International Women's Day celebrations, these early findings highlight the collective voices of our workers and the continued need to carry on our advocacy to ease financial burdens, improve work-life balance and, of course, provide accessible support systems to foster family growth.
The Labour Movement has been advocating for FWAs since the 1990s and caregivers have shared that FWAs are their most preferred form of support in balancing work and caregiving. The launch of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements in April 2024 is a significant milestone in this effort. These guidelines are designed to address the fact that every caregiver's needs are unique and that these needs may evolve depending on job requirements and business realities.
As the Co-Chair to the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements Tripartite Workgroup, the NTUC not only played an instrumental role in drafting the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements but also collaborated with industry partners and employers to publish briefing papers on FWAs, offering actionable insights to help employers implement these arrangements effectively and more importantly, sustainably.
To this end, with more than 70% of Singapore companies already offering one form of FWAs, the focus going forward must be to normalise FWAs and the requests for FWAs.
FWAs must be sustainable and create win-win outcomes for both employers and employees alike. We call on our employers to continue their implementation of progressive and fair FWA practices in line with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. Such practices would include setting up clear outcomes-based key performance indicators for our employees, implementing more frequent and regular check-ins with staff, and upskilling/equipping HR personnel with current FWA practices. We too call on the Government to provide more resources to progressive employers, especially lesser resourced SMEs, on implementing programmes and policies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not surprising that our marriage and parenthood survey respondents spoke about the importance of affordable childcare and healthcare services. FWAs and Workplace Fairness Practices forms just a part of a broader caregiving ecosystem. Other initiatives, such as parental leave and caregiving support, such as childcare services, trusted helpers at home, completes this ecosystem of comprehensive support for women and their families.
A union sister summed up the sentiments of the working mom best: \"It is not that women do not want to return to work after having a child. Many women can, in fact, strike a good balance between family and work. However, what women need most is peace of mind when they are back in the workplace and the very thing that will cause a woman to give up her career is the absence of a trusted network of care for her children\".
The NTUC is no stranger to this sentiment, and a needle-moving move that the NTUC made in the 1970s was to create an island-wide network of childcare centres to provide that exact peace of mind to mothers when they return to work. This network of childcare centres would be later known as MyFirstSkool and today, MyFirstSkool continues to provide affordable childcare, supporting mothers returning to the workforce.
Many mothers also rely on their domestic helpers to provide trusted support at home to care for their children while they are out at work. The NTUC Women Committee noted that first time employers of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) often need help in navigating the complexities of employer-helper relations. To support our mothers, we launched a new initiative in 2024 and it is called \"To-Gather: Power of Women\". This initiative brings together resources and partners, such as the Association of Employment Agencies and the NTUC's Centre for Domestic Employees, to strengthen relationships between caregivers and their MDWs via fun care-carnivals and awards recognising good relations between MDWs and their employers. Feedback from our mothers, and fathers of course, is that this initiative has proven to be effective in fostering trust and understanding, and we call on the Government to provide more resources to employers of MDWs in this respect.
In 2012, the Labour Movement called on the Government to introduce two weeks of paid paternity leave and today, we see that evolve into four weeks. This new Shared Parental Leave scheme offers parents the flexibility to decide how to share their parental leave, something the Labour Movement has long championed. This flexibility ensures that parents can make the best decisions for their families and we thank the Government for heeding our workers' call for shared parental leave.
While we have made significant strides, there is still much more to be done. SME employers with less resourcing often struggle to find temporary replacements when their staff go on parental leave. This burden frequently falls on other colleagues and this can be overwhelming, especially in smaller teams. SME owners may also face financial strain when reimbursing employees for parental leave. With SMEs employing up to 70% of the Singaporean workforce, I urge the Government to explore solutions that will support SMEs in this area so that employees can take parental leave with the peace of mind that their jobs remain secure.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Labour Movement supports the recent initiative by the ECDA to introduce eight official days for childcare centre closures that do not coincide with public holidays and we recognise that this is a positive step to improve the welfare of our childcare teachers and administrators, many who are parents themselves.
While we understand that both parents can take turns to share childcare responsibilities for these eight days of closure, we also recognise that young children tend to fall sick often or just have their off-days. We call on the Government to monitor feedback on whether the current provision of six days of Government-paid childcare leave remains sufficient, vis-à-vis the accessibility and utilisation of FWAs to meet our growing childcare needs.
In modern-day Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, the lack of workplace support or facilities should never be a factor for a mother who chooses to breastfeed. While majority of employers we speak with have provisioned for adequate lactation spaces, we still hear from the ground, women who have to use toilet cubicles to express their breastmilk or to store their expressed milk in communal fridges, next to someone's salad or packed lunch.
It is with this, that the NTUC Women and Family Unit implemented the Better Workplace Programme to support progressive family-friendly employers with lactation and wellness spaces for employees. This programme comes as an extension of our 2013 Project Gold initiative that helped to raise awareness of the needs of breastfeeding mothers in the workplace. I would like to call for the Government to support SMEs in creating more conducive workspaces for lactating mothers and to co-create with the Labour Movement wellness programmes for lactating mothers in the workplace.
Our survey respondents also spoke about the financial pressures they face while raising a family and have indicated that they hope for more financial assistance and subsidies for families. I believe that this would need to be taken with the view of providing more employment opportunities for return-to-work mothers, or mothers entering the workforce for the first time. This would allow for sustainable long-term financial independence instead of dependency on Government subsidies alone.
In view of this, the NTUC Women and Family Unit introduced the \"C U Back at Work\" Programme in 2023, which helps caregivers, especially women, return to work with FWAs and flexible training schedules and, of course, an attractive pay package. We have close to 1,000 cubbies, as we call them, in the programme since and in 2025, we plan to expand this programme to reach more employers and roles, including PMET ones, making these opportunities available to more return-to-work moms.
Joanne joined the \"C U Back at Work\" Programme in February 2024 after being a stay-at-home mother for over a decade. With caregiving responsibilities for her three kids, she found it difficult to re-enter the workforce, especially due to her lack of technical skills. After being referred to the programme through MSF, she appreciated the supportive, pressure-free learning environment and the flexibility to choose her working location. Now, she oversees housekeeping matters for, not one but two banks and she remains positive about learning and believes that more women could benefit from FWAs and an empathetic employer.
The combination of FWAs, paired with fair wages and good career pathways is a winning combo to help women get back into the workforce in a smooth, dignified fashion. Recently, I have in my MPS met with several expectant mothers who have fallen on tough times. Ms R, not her real name, has two children and is now expecting her third child. She has a troubled marriage and after being thrown out of her home by her soon-to-be ex-husband, she needs to find work to support her family. She is finding the job hunt process hard, as many employers, fair or otherwise, are concerned about her pregnancy status and ability to continue with work once she delivers. I would like to ask if there is more that we can do to support expectant mothers like Ms R, and perhaps we can look to more support from the Government to expand our \"C U Back at Work\" Programme to cover expectant mothers like Ms R.
The Labour Movement remains steadfast in our commitment to support working families in Singapore. We will continue to advocate for family-friendly workplaces, greater flexibility for caregivers and stronger support for all parents as they balance their work and family responsibilities. With the support of the tripartite partnership, I am confident that we can build a future where Singapore families continue to thrive. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion and a \"Singapore Made for Families\".
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the initiative by hon Members Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Ms Hany Soh in tabling this Motion. It is of utmost importance that we continue to review and regularly update our policies to better support families, marriage and the parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans wholeheartedly.
The family is a fundamental unit of society. Where the family is functioning well, it is an anchor point from which we begin our lives, a home base from which we start exploring the world beyond and in times of need and crisis, a place of safety where most of us return to.
The family is a source of motivation and strength, a place where we first learn to form our social bonds and shape our identity. The family is where values, behaviours and character are shaped; where discipline, resilience and morality are nurtured; and where traditions, cultures and heritage are preserved. A stable family unit contributes directly to a functional and flourishing society. If we fail at the first unitary building block of society, it will be incredibly challenging, in fact, impossible, for us to do well as a society and as a nation.
We all hope for families to remain intact at the outset, that their children eventually do well in school, mature emotionally and socially, and grow into good persons of character and fulfil their parental aspirations. We also hope that familial relationships remain firmly intact throughout their lives.
However, Mr Deputy Speaker, the truth is families can fail, marriages can be upended and parenthood aspirations can go awry, the effects of which can be damaging for both partners and their children. On divorce, MSF's research on Inter-generational Effects of Divorce on Children in Singapore, published in 2020, shows a clear correlation that, compared to children whose parents remained married, those whose parents were divorced, were less likely to obtain a university degree, earned less and had lower CPF balances, were less likely to get married themselves and were themselves more likely to undergo divorce.
It was clear from the report that there is a long tail in terms of the impact of broken families on children and young people, including their eventual likelihood of maintaining stability in their own lives as well as in their own future marriages and relationships. The inter-generationality of the impact in broken families is clear and we need to be resolute to break the cycle, difficult as it may be.
Of course, the starting point should always be to reinforce systemic support for an intact family and buttress families for success. However, it should not be that in the case where families break down in the first instance, that we have fewer levers to recalibrate our efforts to help these families. We should spare no effort for the single parents, their children and their extended family to get back on their feet, to come together as any other family would and to be supported as part of our society.
My first hope is that the Government continually reviews and updates its policies to support specifically single-parent families, blended or step-families, as well as children in such families. I refer to blended families as those that comprise a couple, any children that they have together, as well as any children from their previous relationships as part of the current family unit.
Single-parent families could occur in cases of marital separation and discord, as well as through grief and loss of a partner. It can be challenging and lonely for a single parent to manage the multiplicity of challenges, which may bear on his or her shoulders alone. If there is grief over the passing of partner, young children in tow, coupled with the need to continue working and feed the family in spite of a turbulent emotional state of affairs, this becomes even more complex and challenging to handle.
Blended families are also unique in their own way. However, what blended families suggest is that, perhaps, despite initial challenges or difficulties from the first marriage, both parents show a willingness to look past a painful period in their lives, still with every hope and desire to nurture another relationship forward. It suggests that the institution of family remains a key part of their lives despite what may have happened.
While we structure most of our policy towards raising and strengthening a family unit in the traditional sense, we should recognise there would be very unique challenges in single-parent or blended settings that need support and should be helped with the same, if not more, rigour. Children remain the most vulnerable in these families and it is something that we must pay attention to. Where there is a gap in fulfilling the policy intent to support such families, which are distinct and different in the traditional sense, we must be flexible enough to accommodate up to the last mile for them, especially in their time of need.
My second hope is that the Government also strengthens familial support structures beyond the initial nuclear family. From a policy perspective, it would always be easier to calibrate support at the unitary level of a family; the father, the mother and their children. While families can be nudged and encouraged from within, for example, through Baby Bonuses and better shared paternity and maternity packages, I wish we could do more to buttress nuclear families from outside-in, by strengthening grandparenting as well as the concept of kinship arising from the extended family, such that these too can benefit from the Government's policy support.
The age-old saying goes, Mr Deputy Speaker: \"it takes a village to raise a child\". To some extent, the part of a kampung or village that we have not been able to replace and replicate, as effectively through our current housing and policy strategies, is this concept of extended family and kinship. What I mean is the support and interwoven structures and bonds that a nuclear family used to have vis-à-vis the extended family, such as grandparents, uncles and aunts who used to exist in a very close proximity and who were within reach previously.
This is something I think is worth looking into as a policy, to establish levers where help outside the nuclear family, but within the extended family, can be encouraged, reinforced and nudged to be more forthcoming. In fact, I argue that this is not merely an instrument of practical caregiving support when both parents are at work.
It functions as yet another multi-layered social scaffold: one, for our families to remain intact and tightly knit against the threat of social challenges and divorce rates; two, to further impart our traditions, our cultures and our heritage to our young alongside their lived experience of modernity and technology; and three, to nourish genuine relationships and close kinships in our families as part of a building of cohesive society and a united nation.
I do hope these are areas that the Government will look into as we work towards strengthening our families, our marriages and our journeys in parenthood. Ultimately, it is with a hope that Singapore remains safe and conducive for our children and their own families to grow and benefit in turn. Notwithstanding my comments, I rise in full of support of this Motion in its original form.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today's Motion holds a special place in my heart. It is a topic I have spoken on many times in Parliament since I first became a father 10 years ago and I experienced many of the joys as well as challenges that young couples in Singapore face.
Over this time, I have also witnessed the significant strides that the Government has made to support families at every stage of life. For example, our new parents enjoy 16 weeks of Government-Paid Maternity Leave, four weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave and up to six weeks of shared paternal parental leave.
Tripartite partners have also drawn up the guidelines on FWA requests to support employers in offering FWAs more tailored to individual needs, including those of young parents, as shared by fellow labour Member, Ms Yeo Wan Ling. To support young parents in returning to work, the Government has increased and will double the availability of infant care places in the next five years. The Government has also improved access to affordable homes for families, through the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples) priority category and the one-year Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (Open Market) Voucher.
These are substantial support appreciated by our unionists and young parents. Our collective efforts are building a stronger foundation for families to grow and thrive in Singapore. However, some young couples still struggle to juggle their parenthood aspirations with other career aspirations and caregiving priorities. I want to highlight three key areas where we can better support them in managing these trade-offs in their marriage and parenthood journey.
Many young couples today are supporting their parents at the same time as caring for children. I would like to call on the Government to study additional support for families with, or with aspirations, for larger families.
For those who wish to have three or more children, I note that the Government already provides additional support to help manage costs, such as a larger Baby Bonus Cash Gift, higher co-matching for the CDA and higher parenthood tax rebates. However, these families still need help to manage daily costs and it applies to those with more than one child.
Money is also not the only constraint. Time is too, and perhaps even more so. During my house visit over the weekend, a young mother of two children lamented that childcare leave is her greatest need. She is a social worker, which is a highly intensive vocation. To her, the current childcare leave allocation works well for parents with only one child. As all parents know, we all know full well that children do not fall ill at the same time. They conspire sometimes to always fall sick consecutively. The cycles of flu then require multiple trips to the doctor’s and home rest, and the cycles then repeat themselves.
I encourage efforts to see how we can further support these families, for example, through increased childcare leave for families with more than one child. We would also need to regularly review the costs faced by young couples in child-raising, especially on childcare necessities and provide more childcare support.
Next, on more options for couples to start a family later. Some women do prefer to start a family later, when they are more established in their careers. For women, sometimes their best years for bearing children would also be the years when they are advancing their careers. They aspire to have children and want the flexibility to have children later in life when they are also more established in their careers. Studies suggest that egg freezing and thawing at a younger age provides a higher pregnancy success rate than using fresh eggs or embryos for women starting families later during assisted reproductive technology.
In Singapore, the Government took a significant step forward in 2023 by legalising elective egg freezing for women aged 21 to 37, regardless of marital status. However, the high cost, estimated at $10,000 per cycle, remains a substantial barrier for many women. To support women in their reproductive choices, 11% of companies with more than 500 employees and 19% of companies with more than 20,000 employees in the US included egg freezing in the coverage of their fertility benefits in 2020.
As the benefits of egg freezing become more widely recognised, I hope Singapore employers can lean forward to offer fertility benefits, including egg freezing, to support their female staff who would like the flexibility of having children later in life. In addition, subsidies are available for ART treatments like IVF, but these are accessible to women below the age of 40 and are limited to procedures conducted in public hospitals.
Given the rising age of first-time mothers and the advances in medical technology, I would like to reiterate my call from 2017 to adopt a more nuanced approach, rather than removing subsidies entirely for women above 40, subsidies could be progressively reduced or adjusted according to a health assessment. And such subsidies can be offered in the private sector too.
Finally, more support for mothers. We need to give more support to our mothers. Many of them make sacrifices in their careers to care for their families. Research over the last 20 years shows that there remains a wage gap between men and women, and this is due mainly to the impact on their wages when women interrupt their careers to have children.
In Singapore, the median gross monthly salary for a woman with at least one child in their 40s is $1,000 less than woman without children and $1,000 lower than a man's median income.
Interestingly, according to a 2023 Pew Research Centre study, while having children often leads to less pay for mothers, fatherhood leads to an increase. Men with children typically earn more than both women with or without kids and men without children. Men tend to increase their work hours and receive the bonus when they have children, a phenomenon also known as fatherhood wage premium. Women, meanwhile, experience the motherhood penalty. I must admit that this is an overseas study, but perhaps, worthwhile for us to study this further too.
Therefore, I encourage companies that can and should step up and do more to close the gender pay gap. Last year, I encourage HR practitioners to reconsider some of the common performance evaluation criteria in practice today. For example, should the performance of women on maternity leave be assessed based on the full year, or just based on the eight months, during which they were at work?
Companies can also take a longer-term view to create more options for women. With FWAs becoming more common, companies could re-design higher-level jobs, so that they allow flexible or reduced hours and workloads, but still offer the possibility of promotion.
They can also explore structured career breaks – where a mother can take a leave of absence for say, a couple of years and be assured that she still has a job when she returns. When mothers are ready to come back, companies can offer \"returnship\" programmes. These combine upskilling, on-the-job training and mentorship that help mothers reintegrate into the workplace.
Globally, major companies like Goldman Sachs, Amazon and Chevron already offer such programmes. In Singapore, employers like DBS and Jacobs have started offering \"returnship\" programmes too. I hope to see more employers follow their example, so that we can play our part in helping mothers resume their careers.
In conclusion, we should celebrate marriage and parenthood, and support Singaporeans in this journey, especially young families and women. We should support young couples with aspirations for larger families. We should enable more options for women to conceive later in life and we should give more recognition to women who make career sacrifices to care for family. Let us help our young Singaporeans to be the parents they aspire to be. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand today to express my support for the Motion moved by hon Members Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
The Motion calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans. It also calls for a whole-of-society approach to build a \"Singapore Made for Families\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I proceed, I would like to declare my position as President of Persatuan Pemudi Islam Singapura (PPIS), a non-profit organisation focused on women empowerment and note that some of the comments are drawn from the many years of PPIS' engagement with women and their families. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Strong families are the very foundation of a stable and thriving society. Families are not merely biological, social or legal connections, they are the cornerstone of our communities and the source of love, security and guidance necessary to shape individuals, the community and ultimately, our nation.
Families are our first educators, our caregivers, our protectors and our emotional anchors; and the concept of family resonates deeply with the many cultural traditions present in Singapore, where marriage and parenthood are welcomed and celebrated.
Sir, the Malay proverb \"Clustered like lemongrass, arranged like betel leaves\" reinforces the notion that when we are united, we will be strong and resilient, and when we are divided, we will become weak and fall apart. This is particularly relevant in the context of today's Motion.
Families are our past, present and future, and need to be cherished. We must ensure that our families are strong, healthy and resilient, and that everyone within a family unit is supported and empowered to stand together as a single, unified entity.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now touch on some of the contemporary challenges faced by parents and families in Singapore and then suggest some initiatives to assist and support parents and families.
Before highlighting these challenges, I would like to note that Singapore has a commendable track record when it comes to supporting parents and families and has already implemented a suite of innovative and successful policies and programmes. It is clear that families are a priority across the Singapore Government, community and private sectors. Yet, there is always more to do.
Our commitment to making Singapore a nation that supports families is ongoing. However, laws and policies alone cannot change personal attitudes and behaviours. The challenges I will address today are reflections of our reality and in reviewing how we best support families, it is important to engage all stakeholders. Creating a family-friendly Singapore is a collective effort, involving not just the Government, but everyone in our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the increasing cost of living, including housing, healthcare, food, childcare and education, continues to place significant financial strain on many families. For example, a survey by Blackbox Research in June 2024, found that 52% of respondents identified \"cost of living\" as their primary concern. An article published by TODAY, on 13 August 2024, loan applications from middle-age Singaporeans have surged due to rising living costs.
Individuals aged 40 to 59 have seen a 28% increase in application, with average loans of $22,000. This suggests that the middle class may be at greater risk of unsustainable debt cycles driven by escalating household expenses, medical cost and credit card debts. And the TODAY Youth Survey in 2022, reported that 52% of young people consider the cost of living as a major source of mental health struggles.
Mr Deputy Speaker, despite notable progress towards gender equality in Singapore, traditional gender roles continue to influence various aspects of family life, including caregiving responsibilities, housework, income, employment and health. For example, according to MSF, 60% of informal caregivers are women. And, a 2020 survey by Ipsos showed that women in dual-income households, were five times more likely than men to manage housework and caregiving responsibilities and nearly four times more likely to have left their jobs for caregiving purposes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, many Singaporeans experience long working hours and challenges in achieving a healthy work-life balance. In a 2022 study by Randstad, 70% of Singaporeans reported having a poor work-life balance, primarily due to overwhelming workloads. In 2023, a survey by the ADP Research Institute found that 40% of Singaporean employees think they work up to 10 unpaid hours weekly and that this time often includes working during lunch breaks and staying late. Notably, over 50% of parents with newborns in Singapore feel they put in up to 10 extra unpaid hours each week. And in 2023, a survey by Randstad found that 41% of employees in Singapore were considering leaving their current jobs in search of better work-life balance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, related to the above is the impact of Singapore's education system on children and young people. Singapore's education system is internationally recognised for its rigorous academic standards, attention given to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and effective bilingual policy and consistently produces high-achieving students in international assessments like Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
Singapore would not be the global success story it is today without our schools. However, emphasis on academic performance and accompanying pressure to perform well in exams and standardised testing, has been linked to increasing mental health issues among students, including stress, burnout, anxiety and depression.
A 2022 study by the National Institute of Education showed that 90% of secondary school students in Singapore reported experiencing stress related to their academic work and that this stress stemmed from the competitive educational environment and high societal expectations placed on academic success.
A 2017 report by the OECD showed that 86% of Singaporean students were worried about poor grades at school, compared to the OECD average of 66% and 76% of Singaporean students reported feeling very anxious for a test even if they were well-prepared, compared to the OECD average of 55%.
Another issue impacting on families is that of the increasing use of \"social media\". Through social media, everyone, including very young children, is increasingly exposed to illicit, disturbing, meaningless or untrue information and there has been an accompanying rise in mental health issues, developmental disorders and learning disabilities among children and young people.
For example, a 2016 study by DQ Institute and the Nanyang Technological University showed that 77% of 12-year-olds in Singapore are active on social media and chat apps, and spend an average of six and a half hours on these daily; and that 55% of nine-year-olds actively use social media and chat apps, and spend an average of three and a half hours on these daily.
The same study showed that even moderate amount of time spent on digital screens can lead to disturbed sleep, memory lapses, weight gain, spine and neck problems, poor school performance, depression and poorly developed social and communication skills. A 2023 study by Institute of Mental Health reported that excessive social media use is one of three factors linked to mental health symptoms among young people, including symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress.
Mr Deputy Speaker, related to social media is the issue of \"phubbing\". Phubbing is a combination of the words \"phone\" and \"snubbing\", refers to the act of ignoring your immediate social interactions, in favour of engaging with a smartphone. Phubbing is increasingly common with adults, children and young people, all choosing to interact with a digital device than another person.
Phubbing within families can have a significant impact on the health and well-being of the individuals within the family and the family as a unit. For example, a 2023 research publication from China looked at the relationship between parental phubbing and mobile phone addiction in junior high school students, showed that parental phubbing significantly disrupt the parent-child relationship, which in turn led to higher levels of mobile phone addiction.
The study also found that 51% of the young people who experienced frequent parental phubbing, had increased behavioural issues, including depression, aggression and mobile phone addiction. And a 2024 publication on systemic review and meta analysis on the relationship between parental phubbing and adolescence depressive symptoms, showed that parental phubbing poses a significant threat to children's social-emotional development, disrupts parent-child interactions and contributes to feelings of neglect and reduced emotional connection for children.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the final challenge I will consider is the ongoing shift in traditional values, particularly among people. Men and women want different things today than they did before and this has had a significant impact on how, when and why families are formed, how they live and whether they have children. For example, traditional multi-generational households are becoming less common as young adults prioritise independence, career, delayed marriage and smaller family units.
Dual-income households are more common, with a greater emphasis on shared parenting and work-life balance, and non-traditional family structures, including single-parent and blended families, are gaining recognition.
An online survey by TODAY released in 2021 indicated that only 44% of a sample of Singaporean millennials felt that it was important to have children. Reasons given for not having children included, the rising cost of living, pressures of a demanding education system, insufficient time to spend with their children and a lack of confidence in their parenting knowledge and skills.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now present some potential initiatives to assist, support parents and strengthen families.
Before I do so, I should note that successful implementation of these initiatives will require cooperative partnerships between the Government, community and private sectors. We cannot simply fall back on the assumption that this is all the Government's responsibility and we all have a role to play in supporting families.
First, introduce Corporate Family Responsibility Certification for companies that implement family-friendly policies, including FWAs; equal paid maternal and paternal leave; free on-site or subsidised childcare; family care leave, including elder care leave; reproductive leave and free employment assistance programmes.
Second, establish a community time banking system where families can trade time and skills, such as babysitting, meal preparation, elderly care, transportation, house cleaning or home repairs.
Third, establish a family ambassadors programme to train and empower family ambassadors within communities to provide advice, guidance, support and resources to families in need.
Fourth, create family innovation hubs that provide safe, age and culturally appropriate spaces where families can share issues and co-create with other parents, or families, innovative solutions to their challenges, such as collaborative childcare models or shared community resources.
Fifth, establish Human Libraries, where people act as \"living books\" and share their real-life experiences and personal stories with \"readers\" through one-to-one or small group conversations.
Sixth, developing a family well-being index that measures family well-being and that can guide policy decisions and highlight areas of service delivery needing improvement.
Seventh, provide free universal marriage preparation courses to assist newlyweds, engaged couples and those contemplating marriage, to develop the skills, knowledge and mindset for a strong and lasting marriage.
Eighth, continue the work already been done to address gender inequality, particularly through programmes that assist to challenge and shift the traditional gender norms that are attributed to women and men.
Ninth, encourage agencies to review and update existing policies and programmes to ensure that they recognise and are relevant to the diverse range of families, including single-parent and blended families.
Tenth, monitor international developments regarding access to social media and the use of digital devices, particularly by children and young people. Alternatively, be innovative and lead the world in addressing what is an emerging public health crisis.
Eleventh, undertake a review of the Singapore education system, including consideration of whether reliance on exams and standardised testing is in the best interests of children, young people and their families.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my final comments relate to the importance of reviewing and updating policies. Despite the importance and value of marriage and parenthood, shifting social and economic factors in Singapore, some of which I discussed above, mean that the concept and practice of \"family\" is changing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government, community and private sector need to adapt to these changes, and to develop and maintain policies and programmes that are contemporary, evidence-based and responsive to the diverse needs and circumstances of all Singaporean families, including those considering starting a family. In reviewing and updating policies and programmes, it is important that agencies seek the views and wishes of families and potential families of all descriptions, and that these views and wishes are respectfully considered and acted upon.
Developing policies in isolation, or in response to a perceived or preferred reality, is ineffective and expensive.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am unsure if there has already been a community-wide consultation on this topic, but, if not, perhaps it might be helpful to consider such an activity. It might be helpful to gain an accurate and representative picture of the contemporary preferences, hopes, concerns and needs of current and future Singaporean families.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in 2022, the Government released the \"A Singapore Made For Families 2025\" plan, which reflected our whole-of-society commitment to a family-friendly society. It is important that we review and update this plan and in doing so, that we seek input from across the community and from across the spectrum of Singaporean families.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to thank the hon Members Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for raising this important Motion and once again, note my full support. As I have indicated in my speech, families play a special role in Singapore and are a critical element in the continuity of our culture, society and nation. We must continue to cherish and nourish families and do so in a way that recognises the ever-changing nature of what it is to be a family and the challenges that families face. I believe that by working together, hand in hand, we can achieve this goal.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, families are the backbone of our society. They are where we learn our values, build our dreams and create the future we all share. When families are strong, our nation is strong. And when families struggle, we all feel it because we are all connected.
As a father of five, I have experienced the joy, the pride and yes, the challenges that come with raising children. It is one of life's greatest gifts, but also one of its greatest responsibilities. And for too many families in Singapore today, those challenges are becoming harder to bear.
So, today, let us talk about what our families truly need. The things that matter most: a home, a sense of security, time to nurture relationships and a community to lean on. These are not just policy issues. They are the foundation of a thriving society and they demand our attention.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a home is more than four walls and a roof over our heads. It is where we lay down our roots. It is where families grow, support one another and build their futures. But for far too many young Singaporeans, the dream of home ownership may be slipping further out of reach.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
In 2024, HDB resale prices experienced a significant increase of 9.6%, almost double the previous year's rise. Additionally, there was a record sale of 328 million-dollar flats within a single quarter. These trends highlight not only escalating property prices but also growing concerns among young families aiming to secure housing in our nation.
A resident recently shared her predicament with me: she and her boyfriend intend to marry, but their combined income slightly exceeds the eligibility limit for a new BTO flat. On the other hand, it is insufficient to purchase a resale flat from the open market. Consequently, they are unable to marry and start a family due to the lack of affordable housing options. This scenario is not unique. I am sure that many of my fellow Members of Parliament have encountered similar cases. So, what can we do about this?
First, we need to index housing grants to resale market prices. As prices rise, grants should rise too, ensuring that young families can still access the support they need to achieve home ownership. Second, let us shorten the BTO waiting times. I recognise that this is already an MND priority. But we need to push even harder, considering new construction techniques and focusing on building homes for young families, first and foremost.
Third, to support young couples waiting for new homes, we should expand affordable rental housing options. This can be achieved by relaxing the criteria or increasing the supply of the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme. We should also explore co-living spaces for young families and multi-generational housing models that not only make homeownership more attainable but also foster stronger community bonds.
We cannot wait. Every young family deserves a home, a stable foundation upon which to build their future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point is about work flexibility and family time. Work is a big part of life. But so is family. So, let us ask ourselves, how do we strike the right balance?
With the increase in workplace flexibility, many of us now have more choices. But how will we use that time? Will we simply rush from one enrichment class to the next or will we slow down and focus on the value of time spent together, just being a family?
A study recently reported that preschoolers spending over 40 hours a week in childcare may see their academic performance dip. So, let us ask ourselves, should we rethink the time children spend in structured settings? Could part-time childcare or more flexible arrangements provide the balance our children need?
I have some proposals: promote family-friendly workplace policies, like staggered hours, hybrid work and perhaps even four-day work weeks to give parents more time with their children. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Working Arrangement Requests are a positive step and we should encourage more adoption by employers and employees.
We should promote activities that unite families. Invest in community programmes that encourage family bonding through sports, arts, crafts and local events. It is about creating genuine connections, not just \"quality time\".
Offer more subsidies for family-oriented events and activities. By making cultural and recreational experiences more accessible, we can ensure that all families, no matter their income, have the opportunity to spend valuable time together. And let us not forget the moments that truly strengthen relationships are the simple and everyday moments. They do not come from over-scheduled calendars. They come from being present, together.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been said that it takes a village to raise a child. But for many families today, it feels that village is no longer there. Grandparents, neighbours and extended family have always played a critical role in supporting families. But, too often, they are doing so without formal recognition or support. Many also lead busy lives. While grandparents once minded children in their retirement, they now continue working to fund retirement. Some are caregivers to their spouses. The result is that many families are left to navigate the challenges of caregiving on their own.
We need to rebuild that village and we can do it by creating networks of care that provide families with the support they need. One proposal is to expand respite care initiatives. We must provide regular breaks for caregivers, whether through in-home services or respite care facilities, so they can recharge and continue providing quality care.
We should also enhance training for caregivers. Let us partner with community organisations to offer accessible training for grandparents and other informal caregivers, equipping them with the skills to care for both children and seniors.
We should also promote inter-generational mentorship programmes. Let us create initiatives that connect young parents with experienced caregivers, building bonds that strengthen families and communities. In addition, we should further incentivise volunteerism in caregiving, enabling neighbours to support one another through organised networks where everyone pitches in. When we support one another, we make our communities stronger.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the heart of all of this is one simple truth: families are the foundation of our nation. When we make sure that every family has a home, we provide them with the stability they need to thrive. When we create work-life balance, we give them the time they need to connect, to grow and to nurture relationships. When we rebuild the village of support, we give them strength. The strength to face life's challenges together.
But we cannot and should not stop there. The tasks we have discussed today are big, but they are not beyond us. They are essential for the future of our nation because the strength of our families determines the strength of our country.
So, let us act. Let us think creatively. Let us work together to build a Singapore where every family feels supported, valued and empowered. Because when our families succeed, Singapore succeeds and that is a vision worth fighting for. Thank you and I support the original Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, parenthood has been the most fulfilling journey of my life. This is a journey of laughter, joy, tears and exhaustion. Sometimes, all at once.
I cannot imagine life without my three girls – Ella, Katie and Poppy. They feature a lot in my speeches in this House over the past 10 years because they are a part of almost every aspect of my life. I love seeing the world through their eyes – their pure, untainted view of the world and how they view the world without lens of discrimination.
In a \"Singapore Made for Families\", I hope more couples can experience this for themselves.
Over the years, we have made great progress in our parenthood policies. We have our slew of financial assistance, we have increased parental leave and we have made FWAs a reality. As we celebrate what we have done, there is yet more that we can do.
Today, I am continuing to speak up for parents to have more time with their children. It has been more than a decade since we increased our childcare leave provisions. I hope we can increase childcare leave and provide it on a per child basis. I also hope we can extend the current childcare leave provisions of six days to all children up to the age of 12 years.
My first ask is that we increase childcare leave and provide it on a per child basis. Yes, I have asked for this many, many times now and I am asking for it again because I know how precious time is. Working parents with children under seven years old can take up to six days of childcare leave every year. This is six days, no matter whether you have one, two, three, four or more children. How does this make sense?
It does not make sense for two reasons.
First, we must remember that most childcare centres are closed for about seven-and-a-half days a year. We give parents six days of childcare leave and childcare centres close for about seven-and-a-half days. Think about it. For couples, who have a combined 12 days of childcare leave, almost more than half is already wiped out from school closures.
What about parents who have children in kindergarten and also in primary schools? The school closures might not coincide and they face an even more severe shortage of childcare leave and, for them, having childcare leave on a per child basis is very much needed.
Second, our policy seems to suggest that our children will fall sick all at the same time. We know that cannot be true. They fall sick at different times and so, again, how sure are we that six days of childcare leave for all our children is sufficient?
Just over the week, a parent shared with me about how his child contracted the dreaded hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD). On Monday, the child contracted a fever and went to the doctor. The child was not diagnosed with HFMD and was given a medical certificate (MC) for three days. On Monday night, very night itself, spots started to appear on the child and he suspected it was HFMD. On Tuesday, he brought her back to the doctor and her HFMD was confirmed. She was given six days of MC until Sunday. On Sunday, the child was cleared of HFMD, but had an infection due to an insect bite and was given another five days of MC.
I feel tired for the parents just by sharing the above but that is the reality for many, many parents. At one shot, this would have wiped out 10 days of his leave. What about leave for the six days of annual school closures?
I should add that this parent has three children. He would not have any leave left if his other two children subsequently contracted HFMD, which does have an incubation period. He would have no more leave left if any one of his three children fell sick again at any point in the year and we are only in January. There are 11 more months of the year.
Just over the past week, I also received a letter from my daughter's primary school informing us that there are HFMD cases in school. We were strongly urged to immediately seek medical attention if our children are not feeling well and to allow them to rest at home until the end of their medical leave.
This is common sense and good advice from a public health perspective. But this can also be incredibly difficult for working parents who do not have sufficient leave entitlements. Without sufficient childcare leave, parents who run out of childcare leave then face a choice between being there for their sick child or go to work. They could, of course, take their annual leave, but many do not have sufficient annual leave too.
I hope we can relieve more parents from the stress of this decision by increasing childcare leave and providing it on a per child basis. This would make sense.
My second ask is that we extend childcare leave for all children up to the age of 12, instead of the current age of seven. Your six days of childcare leave entitlement is lost when your youngest child enters primary school. You now get extended childcare leave of only two days, again, if your youngest child is in primary school.
But us parents know that a primary school kid cannot look after themselves when they are sick. What happens when the school is closed for the day or ends early?
Just in January, most parents would have used up two days of their extended childcare leave. For those not in Primary 1, school is closed on 2 January. School also ended early at 10.30 am on 28 January 2025 for Chinese New Year celebrations. Your extended childcare leave is gone in just the first month of the year.
What about all the other days of primary school closure or early closure? For example, on Youth Day, National Day, Teachers' Day, PSLE marking days, Honours Day and Primary 1 Orientation, just to name a few in my own daughter's primary school.
Do we really think that primary school students can go home and stay home on their own when schools close or close early? We must remember that not all children go to student care and not all families have helpers to look after their children. There is a gap in our policy and for the sake of working parents, we ought to address this gap and extend childcare leave to all children up to the age of 12.
Being a parent is the most rewarding and also the most demanding job. As every parent knows, every day, you make so many difficult decisions and impossible decisions: choosing between sleep, work, time for yourself and your spouse, chores and your children. There is always a compromise and you feel like you are never doing enough.
I hope we can do a little more for all parents by increasing our childcare leave provisions and providing it on a per child basis. Again, this we have not reviewed for over a decade now.
Let me end with this quote which I love, \"Parenthood: a constant battle between wanting them to stay little and the love of watching them grow. It is wishing to rewind time, while begging for more. It can be a struggle. It can be confusing. But what a beautiful mess it is.\" In a \"Singapore Made for Families\", I hope that every parent can be there for their child in moments that will last a lifetime. Sir, I support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Motion because our Government has been putting in much work to support our Singaporean families. However, there is still more to be done. Hence, I would like to take this chance to share my ideas with the House. I would like to focus my speech on the caregiving needs of families, on parenthood and how precious resources can be best allocated to achieve better outcomes for our families.
In my interactions with my residents in Henderson-Dawson, I am very heartened to see that the fathers are very much involved in their fatherhood journey and prioritised spending quality time with their children. I hope to see clearer and sustained acknowledgment from our Government departments, community organisations and the media of the crucial role that fathers play in the development and the well-being of children. Research has shown that their involvement can lead to better emotional, social, behavioural and cognitive outcomes for children. Highlighting these benefits through public campaigns and community events can help raise awareness about the positive impact of active fatherhood.
While paternity leave has been expanded in recent years, some fathers may still feel the pressure to return to work quickly or fear professional consequences or judgement from others if they take full advantage of the leave. Employers should offer more flexible options for working fathers, such as part-time work, work-from-home or extended paternity leave, without stigma. I believe that the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests that was rolled out recently will come in very useful in this regard. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] While paternity leave has been extended in recent years, some fathers may still feel the pressure to return to work quickly or fear professional consequences or judgement from others if they take full advantage of the leave. Employers should offer more flexible options for working fathers, such as part-time work, work-from-home or extended paternity leave, without stigma. I believe that the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests that was rolled out recently on 1 December 2024 will come in very useful in this regard.
(In English): It takes a village to raise a child, especially when both parents are working. Most families will have in place arrangements for the care of their children while the parents are at work, tapping on grandparents, domestic helpers and childcare centres. We are lucky to have such options, but I also know of childcare centres who have had to impose penalty fees on parents who are late in picking up their children. While we may not be ready to explore the option of night nurseries, like in Sweden, shall we have in place policies to support the staffing needs of childcare centres so that they can accommodate parents who are late? How about setting industry guidelines for the extension of time as a service option, rather than being imposed as a penalty fee?
For families with older children, including those in primary school and secondary school, they face a different set of challenges and worries, especially when it comes to education-related stress. MOE has been taking the initiative to redefine success beyond merely achieving high scores and, instead, tilt towards cultivating skills for lifelong learning and adaptability. But this will take time and mindset shifts do not take place overnight.
We have to realise that building Singapore into a conducive place for families is not just about baby bonuses and, while monetary support is important and must continue, we also need to look into resolving pain points and challenges that may deter people from taking the next step in becoming parents.
Mr Speaker, Sir, for the future stability of our nation, it is critical for us to have a strong and substantial young Singaporean Core today. Short-term sacrifices and investments would be necessary to achieve our long-term goal of building stronger Singaporean families. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): I thank Members for affirming the importance of supporting families. Families are the bedrock of our society. I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng that when families are strong, our society will be strong. Building on this strong foundation, the Government is committed to supporting all families as they journey through key stages of life, from couples seeking to get married and raise families, to parents with young children. Let me elaborate on them in turn.
Marriage aspirations among young Singaporeans remain strong and the Government will continue to work with our partners to support young Singaporeans to build their own future families.
Ms Ng Ling Ling suggested piloting an initiative to allow young couples to hold their wedding in an iconic, historical and beautiful public institution. Since 2022, couples have had the option of holding their solemnisation ceremony at the picturesque Family Zone @ Gardens by the Bay. The Registry of Marriages (ROM) and Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) at Canning Rise has also been a cherished venue for couples embarking on their marital journeys for over four decades. To better meet the needs of couples, the current ROM/ROMM site will be undergoing redevelopment.
Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested providing Marriage Preparation Courses to assist newlyweds in developing skills and mindset for a strong and lasting marriage.
The Families for Life (FFL) movement, led by the FFL Council, brings together various partners to offer marriage programmes to provide pre-marital education through the FFL@Community initiative. The goal is to equip soon-to-weds and newlyweds with the necessary family skills to strengthen their marriage.
Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested to enhance training for caregivers and Ms Nadia Samdin mentioned community circles for new parents. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum proposed establishing a Family Ambassadors Programme to guide and provide resources to families.
Under FFL@Community, families can conveniently access parenting and grandparenting programmes, as well as parent peer support groups formed and led by volunteers, to equip themselves to step into their roles more confidently. As Mr Melvin Yong has highlighted, FFL@Community has been expanded to 18 towns today and we are on target to roll out nationwide to all towns by the end of this year.
The Government has also launched Grow Well SG recently, a new national health promotion strategy which aims to inculcate healthier lifestyles in children. Miss Rachel Ong and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum mentioned concerns around screen time and social media use among children. Under Grow Well SG, ECDA has incorporated explicit guidelines on screen time into the Early Childhood Development Centres Code of Practice. To help educators internalise these guidelines, ECDA will provide guidance on screen use within the upcoming Educators' Guide for the Early Years Development Framework. We are also collaborating with partners to develop accessible resources, so that parent and caregivers can be equipped to reinforce these habits at home.
Besides strengthening marriage relationships, we have also enhanced our support for parents, especially for those with young children and who need to balance caregiving and work responsibilities.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested supporting families by providing more places and lowering fees at Government-supported preschools. Indeed, preschools now play a key role in meeting families' caregiving needs and complement parents in supporting our children's development. We have invested significantly in early childhood care and education in recent years. The Government's annual expenditure on the early childhood sector has more than doubled, from $1 billion in 2018, to over $2 billion today. Much of this funding is channelled towards building more infant care and childcare places and improving their affordability.
We note Mr Xie Yao Quan's suggestion to increase the basic subsidy, which we provide to all Singaporean children attending preschools. Basic subsidy is only one of several avenues ensuring preschool affordability. In recent years, the Government has enhanced preschool affordability via other means to effectively lower families' preschool expenses.
In 2020, we raised the household income ceiling for means-tested subsidies from $7,500 to $12,000 and increased the subsidy quantum across all eligible income tiers, so that more families could benefit.
For children attending Government-supported preschools, infant and childcare fees are capped. For the past decade, parents have seen their out-of-pocket payment for fees decrease as there is significant funding provided by ECDA to these Government-supported preschools to lower fee caps.
A middle-income household with a monthly income of $8,000 currently pays around $500 per month for full-day infant care in an Anchor Operator preschool, which is around two-thirds of what they would have paid 10 years ago. For full-day childcare in an Anchor Operator preschool, a middle-income household pays around $200 today, less than half of what they would have paid 10 years ago. With the enhancements to the CDA and First Step Grant since February 2023, middle-income households with their child enrolled in Anchor Operator preschools can tap on CDA monies to fully cover four years of childcare expenses if they save up to the co-matching cap.
As I announced last year, we will make a final reduction for childcare fee caps in 2026 such that families enrolled in full-day childcare in Anchor Operator preschools will pay similar expenses to that of primary school and after-school student care, before means-tested subsidies.
We have also significantly increased infant care and childcare capacity and built them in areas where families with young children are concentrated.
Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Hany Soh spoke about the challenges that parents with young children face in securing preschool places. To plan for new preschool places, ECDA analyses the demographics, projected resident birth cohort, enrolment trends and existing supply in each planning area, especially in BTO developments, to meet projected demand. To ensure that these preschools are operational when residents move in, ECDA facilitates Anchor Operators' early access to technical plans and arranges site visits so that renovations can commence once the keys are handed over. ECDA further supports Anchor Operators by providing infrastructure and manpower recruitment funding in advance, to prepare centres to receive children promptly.
We have also grown full-day infant care places nearly threefold over the past 10 years, from around 6,000 places in 2015 to around 16,000 places in 2024. Full-day childcare places, on the other hand, have significantly increased over the past 10 years, from around 115,000 places in 2015 to around 200,000 places in 2024.
The preschool landscape as a whole has changed significantly since ECDA was set up about a decade ago. In particular, we set our ambitions high and made a decisive move to expand Government-supported preschool places. Back in 2019, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong committed at the National Day Rally that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in Government-supported preschools by around 2025.
In just a short span of six years, from 2019 to 2024, we have increased Government-supported preschools to cater from just over 50% of preschoolers in 2019 to 70% today. By the end of this year, 2025, we will achieve our commitment to provide enough Government-supported preschool places to cater to 80% of preschoolers, allowing the vast majority of Singaporean families to benefit from accessible, affordable and quality preschools.
To support the aggressive expansion of preschool capacity, we have also made moves to attract, retain and develop early childhood educators. Mr Melvin Yong suggested increasing staff-child ratios in preschools to support the well-being of educators. The staff-child ratio requirements are minimum requirements to ensure the safety and well-being of children, though in practice, preschools can and do operate with more staff than required.
ECDA has made concrete moves to improve the career proposition and working conditions of preschool educators. This includes salary enhancements and the removal of the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays from this year. In October 2024, we also appointed relief staff service providers for the sector to have access to a pool of affordable short-term manpower. This is to allow educators to take time off for their personal or professional needs. While still a relatively new initiative, we have been encouraged by the interest and take-up rate thus far.
At the same time, we are exploring innovative new ways to better cater to the differing caregiving needs of parents. In December 2024, ECDA launched a new childminding pilot for infants. Under this pilot, parents can engage childminders to look after their infants in the childminders' homes or in a community setting. With subsidies, parents using these services full-time will pay around $700 a month, lower than the cost of most childminding services today.
While the pilot is still in the early stages of ramping up, we are encouraged by the signs of interest from parents thus far. Other parents who may prefer more personalised attention and greater flexibility in their infant care arrangements can consider tapping on this option.
As we strengthen our support for families, we recognise that certain groups face unique challenges and we have provided additional upstream support for them.
Dr Syed Harun mentioned the need to support single-parent families, such as those who have undergone marital separation, as well as children in these families. For married couples facing relationship challenges, the Strengthening Families Programme @ Family Service Centre (FAM@FSC) provides a continuum of support that begins even before they reach the point of divorce. For example, through the provision of family counselling and related resources on the Family Assist portal, we hope to help families overcome their differences and remain intact as a unit. Nonetheless, we understand that there will be cases where some familial relationships cannot be repaired.
In such instances, the well-being of the children is a paramount consideration. This is why, from July 2024, we had mandated that all divorcing couples with minor children must attend the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme (CPP), including those who are filing for divorce on the simplified track. The CPP encourages cooperative co-parenting post-divorce and supports parents to make informed decisions that prioritise the well-being of their children.
For lower-income families, we have moved in recent years to empower them, over and above continuing our support via ComCare. As Mr Melvin Yong has observed, the preschool participation rate of children aged three to four years from lower-income families is lower than the national average. We have taken steps to close this gap by addressing the practical barriers that these families face.
First, we have removed the affordability barrier. As of December 2024, all families with a monthly income of $6,000 and below qualify for the maximum childcare subsidies for their income tier, regardless of the parents' employment status. This means that lower-income families can pay as low as $3 per month for full-day childcare in an Anchor Operator preschool.
Second, we have proactively reached out to lower-income families and incentivised them to enrol their children into preschool in a timely manner. We expanded the Preschool Outreach Programme to more lower-income families to encourage and facilitate their children's enrolment in preschool by age three.
The ComLink+ Progress Package for Preschool encourages preschool enrolment and attendance by providing families with a $500 payout into their child's CDA if their child is enrolled in preschool in the year they turn three, and a further $200 payout for each quarter of good attendance. Since August 2024, close to 1,500 ComLink+ families and their children have been placed on this package. While still in its early days, we hope that the Package will also contribute to an improvement in preschool enrolment and attendance rates for these families.
Finally, we have implemented priority enrolment for children from lower-income families at Anchor Operator preschools.
With the above moves, we hope that lower-income families will have greater assurance that they can secure a preschool place and can afford to send their children to preschool.
Mr Xie Yao Quan asked whether it is possible to make student care more affordable for lower-income families, by enhancing and streamlining the Student Care Fee Assistance scheme. The Student Care Fee Assistance is a tiered subsidy scheme, which provides monthly subsidies of up to 98% of student care fees, up to a maximum amount of $290 a month. The scheme is designed such that families will co-pay a reasonable amount according to their means, should they require the use of student care centres as a caregiving option after school hours. The median fee at student care centres has been stable at around $295 a month over the past few years.
Based on this median fee, post-subsidy, a family who has a monthly household income of less than $3,000 may incur a cost of less than 1% to around 4% of household income per child, while a family with a monthly household income of $3,001 to $4,500 may incur a cost of up to 6% of household income, per child. We will consider the Member's suggestions as we review the Student Care Fee Assistance to ensure that student care prices remain reasonable for lower-income families.
Our efforts to support families would not be possible without the contributions of various agencies, stakeholders and volunteers. It takes a collective, whole-of-society effort to make Singapore a place where all families can grow and thrive.
In workplaces, we have been working with tripartite partners and community partners such as Families for Life Council to encourage employers to foster family-friendly practices. For instance, we work closely with CapitaLand to support its commitment to foster work-life balance and strengthen family bonding, such as offering Families for Life lunchtime talks and organising family days for its employees.
Mr Zhulkarnain has suggested launching campaigns to normalise fathers' involvement and challenge stereotypes. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum also suggested having programmes that challenge and shift traditional gender norms. To this end, we work closely with our partners such as the Centre for Fathering, who runs an annual \"Great Companies for Dads Award\" which engages and recognises organisations that nurture a family-friendly work culture through policies and initiatives that support fathers.
Ms Joan Pereira suggested instituting guidelines on the extension of childcare service hours to accommodate working parents. Under ECDA’s Code of Practice, childcare centres must operate from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm on weekdays, which are typical work hours. Many childcare educators are parents themselves and they also need to go home on time to be with their families.
Employers should play their part to support parents who have school-going children, by providing a family-friendly work environment that supports employees in managing work and caregiving responsibilities. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang will share more about support for families via employment and workplace practices.
Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested promoting activities that unite families. Last year, the Families for Life Council expanded the annual National Family Week into a month-long National Family Festival for the first time. The festival not only celebrates families and reinforces their importance but also brings together more than 200 partners from the public, private, and community sectors together to rally around this cause. Besides the National Family Festival, the Families for Life Council also organises activities to encourage family bonding and promote family values throughout the year. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few words in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A declining TFR is not unique to Singapore. TFR of the 38 OECD countries has decreased from 3.3 children per woman in 1960, to 1.5 in 2022.
As a small country, TFR is even more of a survival challenge in Singapore. Human resources have always been our most important and cherished asset. Supporting Singaporeans to build and raise family is a critical national task.
A \"Singapore Made for Families\" is the Government's initiative to mobilise society-wide efforts to support families. Creating a truly family-friendly environment in Singapore is not just the Government's responsibility. We also need support from all sectors of society, including employers, businesses and community partners.
Through frequent communication with Singaporeans, I understand that many are pondering how to balance work and life, and how to manage the cost of raising children. Empathising with the people, the Government must take public sentiment into consideration and strive to reduce the cost of raising children for families.
In this regard, we have enhanced the Baby Bonus Scheme to help alleviate various childcare expenses. Each child can receive up to $38,000 in Baby Bonus Cash Gift and MediSave Grant for Newborns.
We also provide substantial subsidies for children's education from preschool to secondary school. Each child will receive over $200,000 in education subsidies, with even larger sums for tertiary education. Considering the Government's investments in early childhood development and the upcoming enhancement to parental leave, we expect Government spending on marriage and parenthood packages to approach $7 billion in fiscal year 2026, a significant increase from the $4 billion in 2020.
As mentioned by the Prime Minister at last year's National Day Rally, we will introduce a new scheme for larger families. Specific details will be announced in this year's Budget.
Some Members have suggested FWAs and support for working parents. The Government has recently introduced a new initiative addressing these issues. With the upcoming additional two weeks of mandatory Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the new Shared Parental Leave, parents will be able to enjoy up to 30 weeks of paid leave to care for their newborns. In December last year, the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests also came into effect. We urge companies to empathise with employees and provide more FWAs for those with family care needs, helping them to achieve the dual goal of pursuing career aspirations and spending quality time with their family.
Members have suggested reducing housing cost. During this term of Government, we have increased efforts to help married couples own their homes, enabling them to start new lives and build family together. Specific measures include significantly increasing public housing supply, reducing waiting time, and enhancing housing grants and subsidies to ensure that public housing prices remain affordable.
By addressing the practical challenges that young parents may face, we hope to provide better support for them to start a family with greater peace of mind, based on their individual circumstances, needs and preferences.
(In English): The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporean families across different needs, from building strong family relationships and managing child-raising costs, to uplifting those who require additional support. We will continue to review our policies and programmes to ensure that they remain relevant in supporting our families.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.
The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their suggestions on how we can support Singaporeans’ aspirations in starting and raising families. As a mother of three children, I can relate to most of the challenges that parents feel, especially those who are working, in managing both their work and family responsibilities at the same time.
The Government is working with employers to make workplaces more conducive for employees with young children. Firstly, by enabling working parents to balance their work and caregiving duties through FWAs. Secondly, by supporting full-time caregivers to return to work when they are ready to do so.
I agree with Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Miss Rachel Ong and Ms Yeo Wan Ling that FWAs support parents in managing work and family commitments. Working parents face a tough balancing act. On one hand, we want to contribute to the best of our abilities at work and also progress in our careers. At the same time, we want to devote time and attention to help them to grow healthily and happily. FWAs can be helpful in this regard.
We often think of work-from-home arrangements, or flexi-place, whenever FWAs are mentioned. However, flexi-time, such as staggered work hours, or flexi-load arrangements, such as part-time work, can also be very helpful. In the past when FWAs were not so common, working parents often had to take leave to bring the child for a medical appointment. Now more parents are able to do so with flexi-time work arrangements, such as by reporting to work slightly later in the morning and catching up on work later in the day. Such arrangements are a game changer, not just for working parents, but their employers as well, as such arrangements effectively reduce disruptions at work
To help employers and employees constructively discuss and land on FWAs that meet the needs of both parties, the tripartite partners launched the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests in December last year.
For FWAs to work well, trust and communication are needed from both parties. Employers should assess requests for FWAs based on business grounds and communicate the outcome of the assessment to the employees, while employees should be open to exploring mutually acceptable solutions if employers are unable to accede to the original request for FWAs.
Mr Louis Chua suggested legislating the right to request for FWAs. However, such legislation may not lead to higher FWA adoption, as employers still have the prerogative to approve or reject FWA requests based on business grounds, and we have seen that in other countries. Instead, our approach is in enabling companies to implement FWAs sustainably, such as through job redesign and equipping of HR professionals with relevant tools and knowledge to implement FWAs sustainably.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Zhulkarnain spoke about the critical role fathers play and call on companies to provide FWAs to working fathers as well. Miss Rachel Ong highlighted the importance of FWAs for caregivers of children with disabilities or rare disorders. The Tripartite Guidelines allow all employees, including fathers and caregivers, to request for FWAs. I encourage working parents and other caregivers to discuss with their employers how they can use FWAs to work productively while managing their caregiving responsibilities.
For employers, FWAs are available too, to attract and retain talented employees who may otherwise choose to switch roles or sectors or leave the workforce entirely to take care of their children, MOM is working closely with our tripartite partners to build employers capabilities and confidence in implementing FWAs. I will provide further update on this at the upcoming Committee of Supply.
While FWAs and leave provisions are useful in helping working parents balance their dual responsibilities, some parents may also choose to take a temporary break from their career to focus on raising their children. However, once they are ready to return to work, many former stay-at-home parents find themselves doubting if they are still employable. They may need some help to polish up their interview skills or update their CVs. Some need a confidence boost as they navigate a job market that has evolved in the years since they were away. More crucially, many worry that their skills are no longer relevant in the workplace. This is especially so, given the rapid pace of change in the workplace due to technological shifts. This can also happen to some freelancers and lower-skilled workers whose jobs are at risk of being disrupted due to artificial intelligence and new technologies, as highlighted by Ms Jean See.
I encourage those who plan to return to regular work to make use of the wealth of resources available. Singaporeans are eligible for up to 70% subsidy for SkillsFuture approved courses to upgrade their skills and can use their SkillsFuture Credit to offset the out-of-pocket fees. Those aged 40 and above receive higher subsidies of up to 90% and are eligible for further support under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme.
Women are often the ones taking career breaks for caregiving, although men are increasingly stepping up to take on a more equal share of childcare responsibilities. Mr Desmond Choo urged companies to provide more opportunities to help stay-home mothers return to work and he mentioned several good examples.
There are also many programmes to support women in rejoining the workforce after a career break. Workforce Singapore’s HerCareer Initiative brings together employment facilitation programmes, such as Career Conversion Programmes and Mid-Career Pathways Programmes, that support female jobseekers to access available jobs, transit into new industries and job roles, and build up job-relevant skillsets.
Yayasan MENDAKI's Women@Work initiative offers training in job-ready skills like interview techniques, business communication and digital literacy, as well as a support network to connect participants to job opportunities.
And there is Mums@Works JumpStart Reintegration Programme that helps women transit back to work with the help of a dedicated coach.
NTUC's Women Supporting Women Mentorship Programme, as well as the \"C U Back at Work\" Programme which Ms Yeo Wan Ling mentioned earlier, also provide support for mothers who are returning to work. These initiatives provide a wide-ranging ecosystem of support in preparing mothers for a successful return to work, and I strongly encourage them.
Beyond individual programmes, we must also continue our broader efforts to foster a workplace culture that supports parents and families. We encourage employers to have open conversations with their employees to help them succeed at work while they navigate parenthood.
Mr Mark Lee will be happy to hear that the IHRP organises online and physical engagement sessions to equip both HR professionals and business leaders with the relevant skills and resources needed to implement work-life harmony measures. I encourage organisations to join IHRP as a corporate partner and have their HR teams certified to advance progressive HR practices.
Separately, the Singapore National Employers Federation offers training and resources for employers on building their HR capabilities to implement FWAs . Assoc Prof Razwana Begum suggested introducing a Corporate Family Responsibility Certification programme to recognise companies that implement family-friendly policies. Today, companies that implement progressive workplace practices may already apply for the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony and exemplary organisations are recognised under the \"Work-Life Excellence\" category of the Tripartite Alliance Award.
Mr Melvin Yong urged all employers to implement a \"right to disconnect\" policy at the workplace. This has been debated before and Members had recognised it is not straightforward to impose across all jobs. Instead, as recommended under the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Health and Well-Being at Workplaces, companies should provide clarity on after-hours work communication. This includes understanding the need for proper rest outside of work and establishing clear and reasonable expectations for work-related communication after hours. We will do our best to create a vibrant economy with a highly skilled workforce so that there will continue to be good jobs and job security for Singaporeans.
Mr Leong Mun Wai may wish to review the facts and data that MOM has presented on multiple occasions in this House that show how employment rates and wage growth for Singaporeans have been on a positive trend and unemployment rate for Singapore Citizens has remained low at around 3% on average, over the last decade.
I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Hazel Poa, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for their suggestions on incentivising and supporting employers to create family-friendly workplace practices and provide more flexi-work options. We are open to all suggestions, although these solutions must go beyond short-term and must address underlying problems, such as mindsets at the workplace about commitment level of colleagues who have young children. We should also be careful about unintended consequences such as increasing reliance on foreign manpower or negative impact on employability of working parents in the long term. It is more sustainable for businesses to adjust their processes and build workplaces that can better attract and retain valuable talent from our pool of working parents.
In this regard, we look towards partnerships with trade associations and chambers and the broader business community, in raising awareness of best practices and engendering progressive practices among employers. This is also part of the social compact that we would like to see in companies under Forward SG.
Together with our tripartite partners, we have made great strides in the past decade to foster family-friendly workplaces that have helped working parents succeed in their careers. Nonetheless, there are those who worry that parenthood may itself be a reason for employers to discriminate them at work. The landmark Workplace Fairness Bill which was passed in January this year prohibits such discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and breast-feeding as well as caregiving responsibilities. It does so during all stages of the employment process, including hiring, promotion, appraisals and dismissals. This is a significant step forward in entrenching fair and harmonious norms at the workplace that give working parents the reassurance they need to focus and to do their job well.
Mr Speaker, let me also speak briefly on Members' suggestions on our education system.
On education, I know that some parents feel that our education system is stressful and worry whether their children can do well, and how to support them. We want to assure Singaporeans and parents that we have a robust system in place that supports our children every step along their education journey.
Assoc Prof Razwana asked for a review of the Singapore education system. MOE has indeed been making bold shifts in our education system: the removal of mid-year examination at all levels in primary and secondary schools, the introduction of PSLE achievement level scoring system, moving away from \"T\" score, as well as the full implementation of full subject-based banding from 2024 onwards for students to customise their education at a finer level.
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested the removal of PSLE to reduce pressure in the education system. This has been raised by other Members in the past, including Ms Denise Phua. The Member may want to refer to MOE's Committee of Supply debates in 2023 and 2024 to better appreciate the considerations.
Through these shifts and moves, we are moving away from an over-emphasis on academic performance to prioritise holistic developments of our students instead. There is now greater flexibility and customisation to allow our children to discover and develop their unique strengths and interests and fulfil their potential at their own pace.
Miss Rachel Ong asked for a review of our secondary school CCA system to provide more opportunities for students to engage in physical activities. MOE will provide such opportunities to develop students holistically, develop our students' diverse strengths and interests and support their well-being, including through outdoor activities. We have started to enable students from different secondary schools to come together to pursue shared interests through collaborations between specific schools or through the centrally-run strategic partnership CCAs to support schools which might not have the capacity to run these CCAs on their own. These include CCAs in physical sports, namely, athletics and water polo. We will explore expanding this arrangement to more sports.
Mr Speaker, we have made many bold and decisive moves at the workplace and in our education system over the years to optimise our precious manpower resource, uplift those who are disadvantaged and help every Singaporean achieve their full potential.
We need bold moves in organisations and our policies but at the same time, we also need to be bold in rethinking our priorities, how we define success, our mindsets and also our culture. We also want to make Singapore a place that is made for families, but we know that the Government cannot do this on our own. Everyone can play a part in supporting parents and also all Singaporeans to give their best at work while raising children. I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.](proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee's speech, please?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee's speech\". – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Indranee.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the dispensation granted by Members, I will do my best not to exceed speech time by too much.
Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Hany Soh and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for moving the Motion on this important topic.
This Motion has two parts. The first calls for the Government to continue reviewing policies that will support families, marriage and parenthood. This has been echoed by many of the suggestions and proposals made by Members in the House today. The second calls for a whole-of-society approach, which is a call to everyone else, in addition to the Government, to do our part to support families and Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations. Mr Speaker, I support both parts of the Motion and I will go on to explain why.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has proposed an amendment to the Motion. I will deal with that later.
Supporting Singaporeans in starting and raising families has and continues to be a top national priority. Families are the building blocks of our society. They are our first line of support and a key pillar of our social compact. At an individual level, our families are the ones who give our lives meaning and purpose.
Globally, family formation and fertility rates have run into headwinds. All around the world, not just in Singapore, more are delaying marriage or not marrying at all, and even if they are married, more are having children later, having fewer children or not having children at all. Reasons include changing societal norms around marriage and parenthood, prioritisation of careers and other life goals, and concerns about the demands of child-raising. These reasons resonate with many Singaporeans too. After all, the decision to marry and have children is a deeply personal one. But we know from our surveys that the majority of Singaporeans aspire to get married and have children. This is encouraging and gives hope for the future.
We have engaged Singaporeans to understand their thoughts about marriage and parenthood. Many of their concerns and challenges have been debated and discussed in the Chamber today, namely, housing, costs, competitive stress and time. Housing, because couples want a home of their own; costs, as in the costs of raising children; competitive stress, particularly in education and time, which is perhaps the most precious commodity of all, covering a multitude of issues, including caregiving and managing work alongside family commitments.
On these, in the last five years, we have made major shifts and bold moves to help families secure affordable homes, manage the costs and stresses of raising children, and balance work and family responsibilities.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a factsheet on our marriage and parenthood support measures. Members may access the factsheet through the MP@SGPARL App as well.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Ms Indranee Rajah: The first step for many couples is to secure their own home, where they can build a new life together and start a family. Supporting first-time married applicants is a key priority of our public housing policies. We set aside up to 95% of our public flat supply for first-timers.
We started this term of Government in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely disrupted our building programme and caused a public housing crunch. However, through the efforts of HDB and the Ministry of National Development (MND) working with the built environment sector, we are now back on track. All COVID-delayed BTO projects have been completed.
In parallel, we significantly ramped up flat supply. We have not only met our commitment to launch 100,000 BTO flats from 2021 to 2025 but are set to exceed it. We launched 19,600 new flats last year and will launch another 19,600 BTO flats this year. We will continue to put out a steady pipeline of flats to meet housing demand in the next few years and are launching more than 50,000 flats between 2025 inclusive and 2027.
We are also launching over 5,500 Sale of Balance (SBF) flats later this month. SBF flats tend to have shorter waiting times, which will help families who are looking to move into a new home more quickly.
To help reduce the waiting time for flats, we committed to launching 2,000 to 3,000 Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) flats every year. We met the target last year with the launch of 2,800 SWT flats. Ms Hazel Poa has asked if we can further increase the supply of SWT flats. This year, we aim to exceed our target, with 3,800 such flats, and we will continue to explore launching more SWT flats in coming years.
Collectively, these moves have helped to bring down median waiting times to pre-COVID levels of three to four years, compared to four to five years during the peak of the pandemic. Several Members have asked if this could be further reduced down to even 18 months. There are practical and operational challenges to further shortening waiting times. These include difficult site conditions, extensive land preparation required, need for consultation with stakeholder groups and construction industry capacity. But we will do our best.
Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested providing a \"quality rental option\" for couples waiting for the new flats in the form of the Millennial Apartments Scheme. We do have quality rental options for this group. It is called the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about relaxing the criteria and increasing the supply of flats under the PPHS to help those who need a place while waiting for their BTO flat. As flat supply is limited, the reality is that we will still have to prioritise PPHS flats for those with greater needs. That said, we will double the number of PPHS flats to 4,000 units by this year.
In the meantime, we have introduced the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher as a temporary bridging measure to support households renting an HDB flat or bedroom on the open market. The voucher defrays around 10% of the median 3-room flat rent, or 40% of the cost of renting a HDB bedroom. Around 160 couples have applied for the voucher to date.
We have also been working hard to improve accessibility of BTO flats. We introduced the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples), or FT(PMC), priority category to help young married couples and families with young children secure their first homes more quickly. Since introduction, about nine in 10 FT(PMC) applicants have been invited to book a flat at each sales launch.
We have also made significant moves to keep HDB housing affordable. To help younger couples who are entering the job market but have not yet started to earn and build up their savings to get flats early, we introduced the Deferred Income Assessment scheme and the Staggered Downpayment Scheme for full-time students and National Servicemen. We also made a major move last year to introduce the new HDB flat classification framework. The increased subsidies for Plus and Prime flats make flats in these locations more affordable for Singaporean couples.
We also enhanced housing subsidies and grants for first-time buyers. These include the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG), the CPF Housing Grant for Resale Flats and the Proximity Housing Grant. With the increased EHG in August 2024, a first-time married couple can benefit from grants of up to $120,000 for BTO flats and up to $230,000 for resale flats.
We know there are still concerns about the resale market. Ms Hany Soh raised concerns about the Cash Over Valuation (COV) component. Resale housing prices have risen over the last few years, driven by strong demand as well as some temporary tightness in the supply of new MOP-ed flats. These flats also tended to be in more attractive or central locations last year. Nevertheless, the vast majority of resale flats remain affordable and most resale flat buyers do not have to pay any COV. We have also implemented several rounds of cooling measures to moderate demand, while increasing support for lower- to middle-income households. These measures will take time to work their way through the market.
Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested indexing our grants to the resale market. We do not do so as this could inadvertently further fuel resale price increases. For example, some sellers may attempt to factor in grant increases in their asking price. This is why we are careful in reviewing grant amounts in tandem with income growth and affordability outcomes and means-test our grants to target support towards buyers who need it the most.
Mr Speaker, Mr Faisal Manap raised two points on divorced parents and transnational families. As he spoke in Malay, please permit me to reply in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal asked us to allow parents who are undergoing divorce and in urgent need of housing to apply for public rental housing before the divorce is finalised. The Government understands and fully empathises with the concerns of divorced couples.
It may be that Mr Faisal is not aware but actually today, HDB does already allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing, even before the interim or final judgments are obtained. We have made this known in a reply to a previous Parliamentary Question in November 2020. [Please refer to \"Temporary Housing for Individuals Undergoing Divorce Proceedings Or Division of Matrimonial Assets\", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
In addition, they can also apply to buy a flat upon obtaining the interim judgment and resolving matters relating to the matrimonial property and custody of their children.
Divorcees who are buying a new flat with their children can also qualify for schemes such as the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (ASSIST) and the PPHS.
And beyond housing, we will also continue to support divorced parents and their children through the broad-based support measures under our Marriage and Parenthood Package, so that they can continue to thrive as with all other families.
Therefore, divorced couples need not worry. The Government will do our best to help you.
Mr Faisal also referred to the Long-Term Visit Passes for foreign spouses and shared some concerns, such as whether the current approach of online submissions and assessments are sufficient. We will refer his feedback to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, to summarise, since the start of this term of Government, despite the major disruptions brought on by COVID-19, we have kept up a strong supply and delivered new flats to home buyers. About 80,000 households would have collected keys to their new flats between 2020 and 2024.
We have continued to provide affordable housing; about eight in 10 first-timer families can service their monthly HDB loan instalments with CPF with little or no cash outlay. This remained true in 2024, despite rising housing prices. And amidst the challenges, our longstanding commitment to supporting the housing needs and aspirations of Singaporean families remains firm.
I thank Members again for their suggestions on housing. We will continue to study the ideas and improve our system to support young couples as they embark on their marriage and parenthood journey.
For couples deciding whether to have children, the next big consideration is costs. This is fully understandable as the costs of child-raising can add up with each subsequent child. Several Members have called for more financial support for couples. Today, the Government provides a wide range of financial support for families through cash payouts, grants, subsidies and other forms of support.
Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government could support expenses incurred before the child is born, such as prenatal check-ups. Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if we can allow maternity and child-bearing medical fees to be fully claimable from MediSave without limits.
Actually, it was announced in October last year, under the MediSave Maternity Package, that expectant mothers will benefit from an increase in MediSave inpatient and day surgery withdrawal limits from 1 April this year. For a typical delivery episode comprising a two-day B2 or C Class ward stay and related pre-delivery medical expenses, the amount of MediSave one can withdraw will be up to $4,280, a more than 50% increase from today.
We set a limit because MediSave is intended to help Singaporeans offset healthcare expenses over their lifetime, especially during significant health episodes, which tend to happen during old age. MediSave withdrawal limits are therefore set to strike a careful balance between improving the affordability of current treatment and ensuring Singaporeans have sufficient savings for their future healthcare needs.
Upon birth, each Singaporean baby receives a MediSave Grant for Newborns (MGN), which can be used to cover their MediShield Life premiums, hospitalisation and outpatient treatments. The MGN will be increased from $4,000 to $5,000 for babies born on or after 1 April this year. Nationally recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at polyclinics and general practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) are also fully subsidised.
In the child's early years, Government support continues in the form of the Baby Bonus Scheme, comprising the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and CDA. These help parents to defray various child-related costs, from daily expenses to preschool and healthcare.
Taking the Baby Bonus scheme and the increased MGN together, parents can receive up to $25,000 for their first child and up to $38,000 for subsequent children. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift is paid out every year until the child turns six-and-a-half, providing sustained support over the child's early years. The Government also provides strong support for infant care and childcare as outlined by Minister of State Sun earlier.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested providing subsidies for grandparents who care for young children. We are mindful that doing so might make such family support overly transactional and monetise family relationships. It would be more meaningful for appreciation for grandparents to come from their children instead. But meanwhile, we do signal our support for the care provided by grandparents through the Grandparent Caregiver Relief for working mothers whose parents or grandparents care for their children aged 12 or below.
Government support continues as our children progress through school. Education in our national school system and Institutes of Higher Learning is highly subsidised. In total, every Singaporean child can receive over $200,000 in education subsidies from preschool through to secondary school. When you add in the subsidies for higher education – ITE, polytechnics and the publicly funded universities – the amount is even higher. Students from lower- to middle-income families may access various financial assistance schemes offered by the Government, schools and institutions.
For those with more children, we know that expenses for larger families can add up. As mentioned by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally last year, we will be introducing a new scheme for large families. Details will be announced at Budget.
We are also doing more to foster our children's health, well-being and development.
Ms Hany Soh suggested providing expecting mothers with support for each stage of their pregnancy. Last year, we launched the Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Action Plan for mothers and children, including initiatives such as mental health screening, and antenatal and postnatal support.
Over the last two years, we launched Family Nexus centres in four neighbourhoods to bring health and social services closer to families in a single location within their communities. Services include child developmental assessments, postnatal support, and marriage and parenting workshops. We have served over 12,000 children and their parents at these sites.
The next thing that parents really need is time. Many parents tell us they value both family and careers. At work, they want to do their best to fulfill their responsibilities. Yet, they also need to care for their children and increasingly, their parents and grandparents too.
When it comes to child-raising, fathers need to be involved as well. As Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim highlighted, research shows that children benefit from fathers' involvement in their early years and have positive developmental outcomes well beyond the early years.
Over the last few years, we have strengthened our support in three areas to give parents more of that precious commodity – time. These include parental leave; infant care, childcare and student-care facilities which free up parents' time and allow them to focus on work; and FWAs.
In this term of Government, we have significantly ramped up leave for parents. We doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks. We doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year, in the child's first two years. We have introduced 10 additional weeks of new Shared Parental Leave, with the leave equally allocated between both parents as a default to encourage shared parental responsibility. These, together with maternity leave, gives parents of newborns a total of 30 weeks of paid leave. We are also introducing employment protection for fathers starting from 1 April this year, such that it will be unlawful for employers to dismiss male employees on paternity leave.
At the same time, we understand Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's concern that employers, especially SMEs, may incur additional costs when making covering arrangements for employees on parental leave. To support employers, most of our parental leave provisions are Government-paid. Employers can use the wage savings as they deem fit, including to offset any costs during the transition period between returning employees and covering staff. We encourage parents to discuss their leave plans with their employers as early as possible and work with them on suitable covering arrangements.
We have complemented annual leave provisions with childcare leave to cater for ad hoc situations where time off is needed. We provide more childcare leave to those with younger children, as older children are generally more independent.
Some Members have called for more childcare leave, especially for those with more children, primary school-aged children, or children with disabilities. We can understand why families would like additional childcare leave. At the same time, enhancements to our leave schemes require us to strike a fine balance between the caregiving needs of these parents and other caregivers, as well as the needs of employers. Employers also need time to adjust to the new Shared Parental Leave scheme starting soon, which is more complex to administer.
However, Members can be assured that we will continue to regularly review our leave policies in consultation with parents and the tripartite partners.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests which Minister of State Gan has spoken about will benefit all parents with caregiving responsibilities in a sustainable way. At the same time, I urge employers to ensure their workplaces are FWA friendly. Employers should not think of FWAs as an inconvenient imposition but rather embrace it as an integral part of their HR toolkit to attract and retain talent and redesign the way your company works for greater success.
Mr Louis Chua suggested that we over-emphasised work over family but, on the other hand, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa have reiterated the importance of job security to Singaporeans. This is why we need to strike a balance and ensure that our policies consider the needs of all stakeholders.
So, the Government naturally adopts the position in between, balancing both sides. And if you think about it, what is happening in the US now, the call to everybody to come back in the office and not to be able to work from home is really a response and a reaction to the last few years where there has been much more of working from home and we do not want that kind of backlash here. So, that is why we move, calibrating things carefully, recognising that employers' needs are important, jobs are important, incomes are important but also recognising that parents need time to be with their children. So, that is why we take this calibrated approach.
Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Hazel Poa spoke about fertility and that is an important topic which the topic of parenthood cannot be divorced from the subject of fertility. A key factor affecting fertility is age. With people marrying later or delaying having children, we do need to focus much more on fertility health.
I agree with Ms Nadia that the first step is to raise awareness or factors affecting fertility health.
Second, we need to normalise discussions about fertility health. For those who want to have children but have not been successful, the topic of infertility is often shrouded in stigma and shame and for some, a sense of personal failure. We need to have a broader understanding that infertility can affect anyone, male or female, and should be approached in a similar manner to other health issues.
The Government has stepped up fertility support in this term. Eligible couples can receive subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests. Those undergoing Assisted Conception Procedures in public healthcare institutions can receive up to 75% co-funding. We also introduced elective egg freezing in 2023, to give women who wish to start a family the option to do so if they marry later.
I thank Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Hazel Poa for their suggestions on this front.
Today, women can tap on MediSave for egg freezing done on medical grounds. We are studying if other financing support should also be extended to egg freezing done on medical grounds. For those who wish to use their frozen eggs for assisted conception procedures in future, they can receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments.
I wish to clarify with Mr Desmond Choo that since January 2020, women aged 40 and above can receive co-funding for up to two of the six co-funded ART cycles, as long as they have attempted an ART or intrauterine insemination procedure before age 40.
We have also bolstered mental and emotional support for those undergoing fertility treatment. Assisted Reproduction centres are required to inform patients of available counselling services prior to any assisted conception procedure and refer them for psychosocial counselling if needed.
Non-government groups also have an important role to play. Fertility Support SG is a non-profit organisation started in 2020 by a group of ladies facing infertility. They decided to create a community of support for others with fertility issues. They provide information, create a safe space for discussions and share experiences.
Mr Speaker, much of today's debate has centred on married couples and parents. But singles are also an important group to look out for.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government could run a networking agency or app for singles to meet potential partners. I should say that decisions around dating and romantic relationships are deeply personal. These are certainly not things that the Government can mandate. What we can do, perhaps, is our best to facilitate. Introducing a platform or app with an explicit Government signature may not be the most effective approach. Many youths tell us they prefer to meet and interact with people in natural settings.
Today, we have a vibrant social interaction space with a wide variety of options for singles to meet new people, be it through well-established online apps, or more informal interest groups. We welcome ground-up initiatives by partners who are keen to encourage and strengthen friendships among young people and we will provide our support where appropriate.
Mr Speaker, support for families goes beyond what Government can do. If we are to succeed in having more marriages and babies, we will need a whole of society approach – employers, businesses, community partners and individuals – all have a part to play too, to create a society where family is valued and parenthood is supported.
It is not always the big things. Sometimes, it is the small things. Mr Louis Ng has made repeated calls in this House for more lactation rooms for nursing mothers.
At his invitation, I met with the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group to understand the challenges faced by breastfeeding mothers. They shared stories of how nursing mothers had to express in a dusty storeroom or spaces with little privacy. And recently, a former colleague sent me a picture of what passes for a lactation room in a dispute resolution facility – basically a room with a table and chairs suitable for meetings but not really configured for a nursing mother's needs. We must consider the message that is inadvertently being sent, which is that breastfeeding, which is an integral part of motherhood, is an inconvenience and the provision of facilities for it is more of an afterthought. That is the message that is being sent. So, I am sure there was no ill-intent on the part of building owners and employers. But the message to nursing mothers is discouraging nonetheless and at odds with a society that wants to be supportive of families.
On this, I am pleased to inform Mr Louis Ng and Members that the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has recently released the Draft Code on Accessibility 2025 for public consultation which, among other things, proposes enhanced requirements for lactation rooms in office buildings and business parks. Public feedback has been positive thus far. BCA is refining the proposed revisions. I will share more at MND's Committee of Supply.
This is just a small example. But the broader point is that as a society, we must think more deeply and carefully about how we can be supportive of families in ways big and small, be it from re-imagining how to structure work and adopt good HR policies to help employees manage career and parenthood, to having child-friendly infrastructure and activities for families.
In this, Families For Life and the Made For Families, which Minister of State Sun spoke about, play important roles. Families For Life provides information, programmes and community support on marriage, parenting and grandparenting, which can also be accessed online. I encourage families to avail themselves of these resources. Made For Families rallies organisations to adopt family-friendly practices. To date, more than 280 businesses have pledged their commitment under the Made For Families movement. However, that is still a very small number compared to the number of businesses in operation. I, therefore, encourage more businesses to join us as partners.
Sir, to summarise, this Government is committed to supporting Singaporeans along their marriage and parenthood journey. This includes for buying their first flat; grants up to $120,000 for BTO flats and up to $230,000 for resale flats; not forgetting the market subsidies that we provide to keep BTO flats affordable.
It also includes support for raising children up to $38,000 in Baby Bonus and MGN for each child and over $200,000 in education subsidies per child from preschool to secondary school, and even more for higher education. And also work-life support: 30 weeks of paid parental leave during the child's first year after birth; and various caregiving options and FWAs for ongoing caregiving needs.
For preschools, we have ramped up infant care capacity; and for education, we have also undertaken major reforms. All in all, factoring our investments in the early childhood sector and upcoming parental leave enhancements, we expect marriage and parenthood initiatives to cost the Government close to $7 billion in FY2026, up from over $4 billion in 2020. That is just for the early childhood sector and the upcoming parental leave enhancements. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office, and Second Minister for Finance and National Development\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.] This is over and above our subsidies for general and higher education as well as our housing subsidies.
So, Sir, we will continue to review and update our policies as called for by the original Motion and I want to thank Members for their ideas and suggestions, which we will certainly take into account in reviewing and updating the various policies.
So, Sir, I support the original Motion.
Let me deal with the amendment proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai. The proposed amendment is this. Let me read out the original Motion. Then, I will read out the amendment.
The original Motion is, \"That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations for Singaporeans and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families.\"
Mr Leong's proposed amendment is to delete the words, \"continued review and updating\" and substitute, instead, the word \"re-imagination\". So, if you do that and if you insert his amendment, it will read as follows, \"That this House calls for the re-imagination of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations for Singaporeans and endorses a whole of society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families.\"
Ordinarily, Mr Speaker, I would have no issue with such a proposed amendment, because after all, why would one object to the idea of re-imagining something and making sure that you come up with something new; except that, in this context, there are two reasons why I would not support the amendment.
The first is that, in this context, it is actually not a step forward, it is a step back. And second, it is tied to a policy which is problematic and let me explain why.
So, the first reason. Why do I say that the amendment is actually a step back? Well, it is because, in this debate, I think, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Louis Chua have sought to portray the marriage and parenthood measures that we have at the moment as incremental. So, in other words, not bold enough, not doing enough, therefore, you need to re-imagine something.
But the point is this: in the last few years, we have already started the re-imagination process. It is called Forward SG and if you look at what we did with Forward SG, you will see that when Forward SG was launched, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said at the launch of the Forward Singapore Exercise in June 2022, that the 4G Team was going to embark on an exercise to review and refresh our social compact and chart a roadmap for the next decade and beyond.
And just before he became Prime Minister, he said in an interview with local media, we are prepared to relook everything. It is not so much that we are going to slay a sacred cow for doing so, but we are prepared to re-examine all our assumptions and consider, under different circumstances, different societal expectations and needs. What might we do differently? And we have already started this process because the Forward SG work has already started. So, what are some of the major moves that we have done? We have done quite a few things.
If you think about it, the HDB new Classification Framework. That is a major move. For decades, we have had the mature and non-mature classification, but this came out of Forward SG. We launched it last year and it is a major move that is just starting to take place and we are rolling it out, so it is actually being implemented.
The other major moves would be for preschool. We have enhanced access to affordable quality preschools. We have ramped up the infant care capacity threefold over the last 10 years and by the end of this year, we will achieve our commitment to provide Government-supported places to cater for 80% of preschools. And we have also lowered the \"out-of-pocket\" expenses and we have had subsidy enhancements and fee cap reductions.
And education – we have made big, bold changes in education under the equip pillar of Forward SG. We have removed the PSLE T-score. We have removed mid-year exams. We have now a full implementation of full subject-based banding and we are broadening the post-secondary pathways.
And in addition, we have got Shared Parental Leave. That is another major move. Ten weeks of Government-paid leave, which is going to cost us something to the tune of $400 million per year and this was under the care pillar of Forward SG. And also, FWAs. We have introduced the tripartite guidelines.
All these are major moves with a vision of a \"Singapore Made for Families\".
So, we have already started the re-imagination process. The boat called re-imagination has already left port and is sailing. It is heading out towards open waters. It is chugging along. It is picking up speed and we are implementing, adding on and enhancing as we go. So, to ask us in this amendment to start re-imagination, it is kind of like a step back. It is kind of like going to the port, whereas the ship has already sailed. That is the reason why I would not agree to the amendment. That is the first reason.
But there is a second reason and it is a bit problematic. That is because in his speech on calling for re-imagination, Mr Leong Mun Wai has also said that we need to adopt certain policies and one of the central ones is the Affordable Homes Scheme. I mean, the other ideas and suggestions, certainly, we can think about and explore, but the Affordable Homes Scheme is the one that removes the price of land when pricing flats upfront. And that is problematic.
Because PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme is akin to a pre-paid rental scheme that turns Singaporeans from home owners to tenants and users only have the option to buy the flat at the point when they are actually going to sell it and it is a raid on the Reserves. So, for that reason, because in the context of this amendment, re-imagination entails certain policies put forward by PSP, of which a key one is the Affordable Homes Scheme, which constitutes amongst other things, a raid on the Reserves and I cannot support it.
But, Sir, other than that, I really do thank Members for their support for families, their ideas and suggestions, which we will continue to take on board and I support the original Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap, do you have a clarification?
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Thank you, Sir. I would just like to seek one clarification from the Minister. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there are cases where HDB approved application for rental flat under the public rental scheme by individuals who are still in the midst of divorce proceedings. So, may I know, is there a specific scheme for this or is it across the board or just based on a case-by-case basis?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I will have to confirm whether or not it is a specific scheme, but what I can confirm is what I mentioned earlier, which is that even though you have not finalised the divorce, you can still make the application.
So, as I said earlier, and let me just check what I said there: \"HDB does already allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing even before the interim and final judgments are obtained.\" I think this was dealt with in the reply to a previous Parliamentary Question in November 2020.
So, if the Member's residents are concerned, the Member can give them the assurance that HDB will still look at their applications.
Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.
Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I thank the Minister, for her reply. But based on my personal dealing with the MPS cases, there are many letters, replies from HDB, which mentioned that residents have to go through the proceedings to be able to prove, to submit a divorce certificate. So, basically, my proposal is for HDB to actually implement a scheme for such cases.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I will check. But if there are any specific cases, then, perhaps, Mr Faisal Manap can send them to me and I will see what can be done.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker, for allowing me to seek a clarification from the Minister. I heard the Minister's reply and reference to the Parliamentary reply in 2020. I have pulled it out.
So, I am just following up on what my colleague, Mr Faisal Manap, has said with regard to representations from HDB. Just as an example: 1 May 2024, a letter written by HDB, \"Your request to rent a public rental flat from HDB\", and then HDB lists out the circumstances that are necessary before the rental application can be assessed.
So, this is what the letter from HDB says: \"We have learnt that you are still legally married. Please note that a married couple is considered as a single legal entity and we are not able to allow one party to exclude the other during the application. In addition, HDB would not be able to consider an applicant's application if they have not obtained the deed of separation, or when the divorce is not finalised, as we would need to know the distribution of matrimonial assets, if any. Furthermore, for divorce applicants who wish to apply for a flat with their children below 21 years old, they would need to have custody with care and control, as stated in the order of Court. We are prepared to consider your request after you have obtained the deed of separation or the finalised divorce documents, as we need to know more on the distribution of matrimonial assets, if any, and the custody of the children.\"
So, it would appear not to be consistent with what the Minister is sharing. So, I just thought I would put that out. I am happy to share this letter with the Minister. This letter is dated 1 May 2024.
Ms Indranee Rajah: So, to confirm two things. One is that it is case-by-case, not a specific scheme. I have just confirmed that.
Second, in the letter that Mr Pritam Singh referred to, it also did refer to a deed of separation, right? So, just to check, there is a difference between an application to buy a new flat and application for rental flat.
So, the one that I talked about was in the context of a rental flat, because that was Mr Faisal Manap's original speech. So, for the rental housing, HDB does allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing, even before the interim or final judgments are obtained.
Can I just check for Mr Pritam Singh, was he talking about application to buy or application for rental?
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the title of the letter is, \"Your request to rent a public rental flat from HDB\". So, it would suggest that the reply from HDB ought to have said what the Minister has been sharing, because it is clearly a rental application not an application to buy.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Yes, and I believe that in the reply, Mr Singh did refer to HDB talking about a \"deed of separation\". And a deed of separation is something you can do, even before the interim judgment. So, maybe that might be a way of doing it.
But perhaps, what I can do is, see whether HDB's procedures can be more facilitative, because that will help people who may not be familiar with all the various legal documents.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministers of State for their very comprehensive replies, especially there are many points raised by the Minister. As a result of that, I have many questions to ask.
But first of all, I would like to ask the Minister, today, I think all of us agree that the low TFR and the declining TFR is a very serious problem for our country. So, I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, whether when we are debating the need for more policies, are we treating this as a national emergency or not? Or is it just a business as usual, maybe we need more? But I think the most important thing that we need to agree is that this is a very urgent problem and I would classify it as a national emergency. Would she agree to that first? My first question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I would prefer that if you have clarifications, and you did mention that you have many clarifications, if you have clarifications, kindly raise all of them now. Clarifications and not a speech, please.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes, because the Minister has said a list of things.
Mr Speaker: Sure. So, list all your clarifications so the Minister will respond to your clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, first of all, I want to ascertain whether we are debating this as a national emergency or not.
The next thing is, the Minister mentioned about re-imagining. So, we raised the issue, and my colleagues from Workers' Party also agree to that, that the current policies are obviously inadequate. As a result, we need to have new policies and there is a basis for us to say why the current policies need re-imagining.
So, I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees that when we imagine what I have suggested in my speech, for example, we are actually trying to engage all the stakeholders, a whole-of-society approach. The whole-of-society approach, when hearing from the office bearers, seems to be a shirking of responsibility, saying that, it is not just the responsibility of the Government, the society also has to help.
But to us, the whole-of-society approach is that you must provide more fiscal incentives, to involve more stakeholders. Does the Minister agree, that in our recommendation of the new policies, we actually consider stakeholders like the employers. You ask the employers to have more FWAs, you ought to give them more fiscal incentives. We talk about engaging the community, engaging the extended family, the grandparents who are giving care to the children, they ought to be renumerated.
We are trying to expand the scope of thinking. It is not just what the Government has been doing, just from Government to the parents. Furthermore, we are also expanding into thinking about the mental health of the children, because happy children mean happy life.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, you should be asking clarifications. You should not be making any more speeches, as with any other Members. Just seek clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, I am seeking clarifications —
Mr Speaker: I am not quite sure what your clarification is, but please state —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but does she agree that our re-imagining is actually different, from the kind of re-imagining —
Mr Speaker: Okay, you can go to your next clarification. You have talked about re-imagining.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, when we say re-imagining, we are, of course, confident that there are many gaps in the current policies of the Government.
I thank the Minister for giving a list of policies that the Government has and I shall, one by one, ask her whether these are the gaps in the policies or not.
First of all, under helping married couples with their first home. After all the policies that the Minister has said here, how about the price of the HDB? It is still very high, right? So, you have not solved the problem.
Two, you said you cannot reduce the waiting time to below three years; then, TFR cannot be improved. You have to do something about it. You did not solve the problem, right?
So, our suggestions of Affordable Homes Scheme plus our Millennial Apartments Scheme do provide a feasible solution. This is the third question. Still got gaps, right?
So, secondly, when you want to encourage Singaporeans, especially mothers to have babies, I think we ought to upgrade the kind of help we want to give them. So, while we have done some of these and that, like before birth, you say now the MediSave is 50% increase from today. But this is from 1 April onwards. And that is one problem with saying the Government policies' implementation is that you always put it ahead.
So, many parents will feel short-changed. In fact, I think the policy should be to backdate one year, so as to make the parents feel that, \"Hey, I had better get into the boat as soon as possible.\" Rather than, \"Oh, I will give you the benefit in a few months' time.\" So, that means you cause the parents to say, \"Maybe I should delay a few months and see whether maybe after Budget?\"
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, can you get to your clarifications? You are making a lot of mini speeches here. I implore you.
I have said this many times to everyone. I will say it again.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, that is why, Speaker —
Mr Speaker: I allow you to make clarifications, as many as you want, but please make them and make it succinct.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: You know, some clarifications —
Mr Speaker: You do not have to state all your —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Some clarifications need to have context —
Mr Speaker: Your preambles are super long, are super long. So, just state your clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, so, the fourth point —
Mr Speaker: Many other members have stated their clarification in previous —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, the fourth point is that —
Mr Speaker: Let me finish, Mr Leong, I am speaking.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Sir.
Mr Speaker: I allow Members to seek clarifications, as many as you want, but do not make mini speeches. You are not allowed, as with any other Member who has spoken, you are not allowed to make any more speeches.
Seek clarifications? Yes, I will give you the floor. So please, you stated you have many clarifications. I am giving you the floor to ask all your clarifications. Please ask your clarifications.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, thank you, Sir. So, the fourth clarification is, do you think these policies ought to be implemented backdated rather than forward dated?
The fifth clarification I seek to get is, under supporting child's development and well-being, she mentioned the shift in the education system and all that. But does the Minister think that this is really sufficient? Because I think we still got a lot of feedback from the ground that the PSLE system is still a big burden on the families. So, does she think that our suggestion of having a dual track system can achieve three objectives at the same time: one is better family life; two is better child development; and three, actually allows our children to have more social interaction time. This is the fifth point.
And the sixth point I want to make is that, in terms of helping parents to balance work and all that, does she agree that our suggestion of an enhanced job-sharing scheme has the following benefits and actually it engages the employers better rather than the current job-sharing scheme of just providing $35,000?
And the benefits of a job-sharing scheme – enhanced job-sharing scheme – does she agree that: one, it improves work life balance; two, Singapore workers can continue to be on the job without leaving the job market and that is very important. Today, once a Singaporean leaves the job market, it is very difficult for him or her to come back, and we all know that. And three, actually, it can increase employment because it may allow a few more Singaporeans to have part of a job.
My last question, the seventh question is, does she agree that since we want to build Singapore as a \"Singapore Made for Families\" and we want to involve a whole-of-society effort, the best is actually to engage the extended family and give incentives to the family and that will make our overall plan far more effective. So, that is the seventh question, does she agree that this will be a more effective way of doing it?
So, in conclusion, I think what I am trying to drive at is our re-imagining is not just giving some money from Government to parents. It is actually involving a lot of stakeholders and incentivising them to take action towards the same objective.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me try and answer these clarification/speeches as succinctly as I can.
First, he asked, is it a national emergency? I would rather put it this way. I think it is a very important national issue. \"Emergency\" sort of suggests the idea of all alarm bells ringing, everybody rushing around and so on.
But our approach is when you have a serious national issue, you look at it calmly, coolly, you understand what the issues are and you then take the necessary steps to address them.
And that leads on to his next point about re-imagining, because Mr Leong said that have we engaged the stakeholders? That is exactly what I was explaining just now. That was the whole purpose of the Forward SG exercise and, in fact, before that, we had the Singapore Together conversations.
So, the point I am making about the re-imagination process – leave aside the policies that he has suggested – the amendments made it appear as though we have not even embarked on thinking about re-imagining Singapore and my reply to that was, we have already started the re-imagination process and we have done that under Forward SG and we have done engagements. In fact, if you take into account all the people that we have engaged through the various exercises, it is almost like 200,000 people. And that would include the families, family members, parents and so on.
Then, I think the next point that Mr Leong raised was talking about whether the policies were resulting in a low TFR. I think the point I made in my speech, which I must reiterate here, is that declining TFR is a global trend. It is not just Singapore. So, for example, between 2013 and 2023, I mean, when you look at all of the countries, Malaysia, France, Denmark, Sweden, UK, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, they are all on a downward trend. Perhaps the only one that bucks the trend may be Israel, which was mentioned in one of the speeches.
But in Malaysia, the TFR is 1.73. There has been a drop. Well, it has been dropping and then just had a slight tilt up. In France, it has gone down to 1.68; Denmark is 1.50; Sweden, 1.45; UK, 1.44; Japan, 1.20; Singapore, 0.97; South Korea, 0.72.
So, the point to be made is that it is not just us, which means that there is something happening at a global level and those are the reasons which I mentioned earlier.
What is our approach? Remember, because we embarked on this before. Mr Leong set out a list of his policies and asked whether I could agree with each one of them. But we started this whole process, this re-imagination process before. We talked to people to understand what their concerns were. And their concerns were, as I mentioned in my speech: space or housing, costs for child raising, education or competitive stress and time.
And so, we developed our policies specifically in response to what they told us. And this resulted in the reclassification framework, this resulted in the enhanced Baby Bonus, this resulted in the enhancements to childcare, this resulted in the Shared Parental Leave – all of the things which I outlined.
So, as far as the list that Mr Leong has put out of his proposed policies, those, if he is putting them forward as things which may be helpful, remember, as I mentioned in my closing of the speech, I said we can consider all of those. The main issue I had was with his Affordable Homes Scheme because that constitutes a raid on the Reserves and has all those other downsides. I really felt that I could not support the amendment insofar as it was tied to that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, two questions for the Minister, although she has avoided answering all the questions already. But I will give her two new questions. First of all, when we compare the global trend of TFR, why do not we compare ourselves with France, compare ourselves with those countries – because although the Minister has quoted a downward trend of the TFR as a global phenomenon, but other countries are able to maintain it at above 1.5; but we are 0.97. Does that difference mean that it is a responsibility that the Government has to take? That is the first question.
The second question is actually the debate on the Affordable Homes Scheme is not complete. But I do not want to extend today's debate into the Affordable Homes Scheme. I have stated many times that I disagree that it is raid on the Reserves. And when the Minister says that the Affordable Homes Scheme is actually a prepaid rental scheme, is the current system not the same thing, with the 99-year lease? Is the 99-year lease not a prepaid rental scheme as well, for 99 years?
So, please, do not use Affordable Homes Scheme to negate all the debate I am trying to put up today. Do you agree?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not sure I quite understood Mr Leong's point about the global trends because he referred to France, and which I had also referred to. France is also on a global decline as far as TFR is concerned.
So, I am not quite sure, but the suggestion seems to be that Government is responsible for 0.97 TFR. I think that that is not the case. It is a global trend. There are many factors which are affecting TFR and I have listed them. No need to go through them again.
But what can the Government do? The Government can do its very best to facilitate and try to make sure that we have an ecosystem and an environment that is as supportive of parents and couples, and of marriage and parenthood as possible, which is exactly what we are trying to do.
Then, on the second point of Affordable Homes Scheme, I think we must certainly agree to disagree, because Mr Leong may have his view on Affordable Homes Scheme but I have mine.
And I have to explain to the Chamber why I disagree with his proposed amendment. And his amendment, one of the key things, is the Affordable Homes Scheme and that is the part I disagree with. Remember, I said that the other things we can discuss. So, this was the one that caused me a difficulty and that is why I am sharing it to everybody why I think that I cannot support the amendment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, I do not wish to go into Affordable Homes Scheme during this debate. But on the first question that I have asked just now, what I mean is that any phenomena that we observe, there is always a systemic factor and there is a specific factor. Other countries have also experienced a general decline in the TFR. But if other countries are still maintaining at 1.5 and our TFR has gone right below 1.0, that is the difference. You are 0.5 below some countries that we can benchmark against.
So, of course, you can choose South Korea. But South Korea is like ourselves – the whole social economy model, there are issues to it. That is why we are saying that there is one systemic factor here and there is a specific factor.
So, I am of the view that our policies have not addressed the specific factors.
If we can say today that, yes, we put up a national plan. But Singaporeans, I do not think we can move back up to 1.8 or 2 TFR, but let us fix a target of 1.4 within the next decade. Ah! Then, we are talking. The Government is making an effort and a commitment that we must reach there.
You cannot just say that, \"Oh, everything is dropping, we can't help it\". More or less, you are saying that we cannot help it. That cannot be the case, because then, we will be really running towards an extinction. Do you agree to that? There is a specific factor.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, I am not sure how useful it is to prolong this debate. But Mr Leong says the Government says, \"Can't help it\". We never said, \"Can't help it\". As far as this Government is concerned, we want to make a Singapore that is Made for Families and we are encouraging marriage and parenthood. So, it is very odd because Mr Leong says the Government says something when the Government has not said any such thing.
Are policies working? We have policies in the past which took us up to a certain point. But remember, we recognise that changes need to be made and things need to be looked at afresh – and that is exactly why we implemented Forward SG and that is why we embarked on the process of looking at what new policies we can introduce.
So, insofar as he says, set a target. You cannot just set a target for women to have children just like that. I do not think that families or mothers will just produce babies just because you set them a target. Having children is a personal decision and it is really up to parents to decide if they want to have children. What we can and are doing is trying to make it as facilitative and as comfortable as possible for them to do so.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.
Ms Sun Xueling: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just wanted to highlight another dimension to marriage and parenthood. And I would like to cite a survey that was conducted by the National Youth Council together with the IPS, which was published in August 2024, where 3,000 young people had been surveyed. They were aged between 17 and 24 years old. And in their list of priorities, I am reading from the survey here, they had prioritised their top life goals for the next five years: the first was being in good health; the second was having a good career; the third is having lots of money; the fourth is having financial security; only at number six is getting married; and having children is actually further down the list.
I am sharing this survey because it is published data. It is factual data. It is from a survey of young persons and it is just to reinforce the point that Minister Indranee made, which is that when it comes to matters as personal as getting married and having children, it is not just like we snap our fingers and we say, \"We want TFR to be this\", that we can somehow command young people to go forth, get married and have children. We have to recognise that they have their own aspirations.
I think the survey results that we have shown here is not unique to Singapore. All across the world, when you look at published data, when you look at interviews with young people, the aspirations of young people have changed. I think we have to recognise that.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you have new clarifications, I will allow it. But there is no need to make the same point again.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, my last question, Speaker, Sir. Does the Minister agree that when I say we set a target, we are not actually trying to force Singaporeans to have babies. We are saying that as a policy objective, when we implement policies, we need an objective. So, like when you build infrastructure, there is a population target that you are looking at.
So, here, it is the same. Does the Minister agree that we cannot be just implementing policies without thinking about whether those policies will yield a certain amount of results or not, and what that certain amount of results is, is equivalent to a target, whether it is a soft target or a hard target? That is all I want to say. I think I have made my point already.
Mr Speaker: I think you made the same point twice. Minister, do you want to respond?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, I think there is a difference. I mean, there are certain things where you can set targets and there are certain things where you can be as encouraging and as facilitative as possible, but I do not think that you can put a finite measure on it.
So, we can say we want to build X kilometres of roads. We can have Y number of bridges. We can have Z number of buildings. But I think it would be very difficult to say to Singaporeans, \"You must produce X number of babies\".
I think what Mr Leong should appreciate is that, for infrastructure maybe, for certain things, economic things, you can set certain specific targets. But when it comes to emotions, when it comes to things like fertility, when it comes to personal decisions, those are very hard to quantify.
So, the approach that we have taken is to try and create a country, a society, an environment that is as encouraging and supportive as possible. And we hope that Singaporeans will be able to respond to that because the policies that we are putting in place have been based on the feedback that they have given us.
Mr Speaker: Can I invite Ms Hany Soh to do your wrap-up?
Ms Hany Soh: Mr Speaker, let me begin my closing speech by expressing my deepest appreciation to all my Parliamentary colleagues who took part in this debate, including Minister Indranee, Minister of State Sun Xueling and Minister of State Gan Siow Huang, who responded to the various points raised in the course of today's debate. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our Ministry staff and Parliamentary Secretariat staff, officers and librarians for all of their support rendered to us.
Given that the Chinese New Year holiday was just last week, all of us would have spent our Chinese New Year break preparing for today's debate amidst our family commitments, attending to your parental and caregiving duties and constituent works. As I was performing research and drafting my speeches at home, and during the pockets of time I had during visiting, the moments at which I was momentarily distracted by my two young kids calling out to me, serve as reminders of the impetus for filing today's Motion. All of us should experience the greatest joy and bliss that comes from starting and building a family.
No doubt it will present challenges unique to each family unit as Members would have understood through our engagements with Singaporeans, and this House has heard, in the course of today's debate. However, as it is the case that families are the building blocks of society in Singapore, the whole-of-society is here to support all of us in reciprocity.
From the responses provided by Minister of State Sun, Minister of State Gan and Minister Indranee, particularly in relation to what she has shared on BCA's Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment 2025, I feel assured to reiterate my message to fellow Singaporeans that none of you would ever be alone or should feel alone in this rewarding and fulfilling journey. And this House commits to unceasingly provide its utmost support to Singaporean families.
Mr Speaker, I had initially filed this Motion, assuming that it would likely to be debated on the seventh day of Chinese New Year. By tradition, the seventh day of Chinese New Year is known as 人日, the day on which humans were created, which would make it a rather more apt occasion for us to discuss topics relating to family formation.
Since, it is instead done today, on the eighth day of Chinese New Year with \"eight\" being associated with wealth, prosperity and success, I hope that it is an auspicious sign that the wish list that my Parliamentary colleagues and I have drawn up in our speeches for more financial support and \"ang pows\" for Singaporeans will materialise, perhaps even as soon as at the upcoming Budget 2025.
Per Ms Nadia Samdin's characterisation, it indeed takes a village to raise a child. This village, according to Assoc Prof Razwana Begum's speech earlier, hit the nail on the head of this Motion – the Government, community and private sectors need to come together to adapt, develop and maintain policies and programmes that are contemporary evidence-based and responsive to the diverse needs and circumstances of all families, including those considering starting a family.
It requires as much as and no less than a whole-of-society's resolve and effort. In reviewing and updating policies and programmes, it is important that agencies seek the views and wishes of families and potential families of all descriptions and that these views and wishes are respectfully considered and acted upon where feasible.
I wish to illustrate the notion of this village further, inspired by my Parliamentary colleagues' speeches today. In this village, the children include those from single-parent families, blended or step-families, as shared by Dr Syed Harun. In the current and future Singapore context, this village must comprise the following infrastructures.
Firstly, public housing that is affordable and attainable easily, as pointed out by several of us in this Chambers, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Faisal Manap, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Nadia Samdin, and as assured by Minister Indranee.
Secondly, accessible and affordable preschools and student care, a point that is shared by several of us, including Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr Louis Chua, and assured by Minister of State Sun.
Apart from the hardware, we would also need the heartware to make this village a conducive and enjoyable place to raise our children. To make this possible, we would also need the village to be packed with social and physical activities, such as bringing youths together to better understand each other and bond – having heard Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Ng Ling Ling and what I have shared in my opening speech.
We also need to create all-inclusive opportunities to encourage families comprising the young old, the differently abled to bond, intra-family as described by Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Yip Hon Weng, and even further, inter-family, as shared by Dr Syed Harun.
Our environment ought to also encourage the creation and development of self-help support groups in order to evolve organically. We will do well at the family unit level and societal level in sharing personal past experiences of first-timer parents or caregivers overcoming the challenges they encountered. On this, I wholeheartedly agree with Ms Nadia Samdin.
The villagers also need to be equipped with fertility, health education and fertility support benefits, a key point made by Ms Nadia Samdin, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Desmond Choo.
An essential element to this Motion vision is maintaining a strong social compact in the village, in which breadwinners are confident enough to balance the economics and emotions of working and caregiving. Ms Jean See, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Faisal Manap accurately described the importance on this.
Of course, as with everything, striking the right balance is critical. We cannot neglect understanding employers in the village who encourage their employees to adopt family-friendly practices while sustaining productivity, certainly with the help of the Government. Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Louis Chua and Mr Mark Lee rightly reminded us of this.
We cannot overstate the value of parents being present and hands-on in our children's growing phase. The importance of the father's role has been a theme that we have been exploring and that the one that should ideally in fact and be seen to be equal to that of a mother's. However, each family is unique and so are its circumstances. Every parent has autonomy to calibrate his or her parenting and caregiving part with support on the ready to be given by the Government.
Notwithstanding, no parent, mother or father should ever feel the pressure to return to work due to them having insufficient childcare leave and/or because their employer refuses to implement FWAs where feasible.
I was immensely moved by Mr Zhulkarnain's anecdote on his daughter asking him to help her. Many of us, including Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Louis Chua and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, have also underscored the importance of ensuring parents have sufficient time to dedicate to their children. This was also endorsed and concurred by Minister of State Gan.
Finally, Mr Speaker, having a support network from our own family members, such as our parents or our children's grandparents, is more valuable than any help that can be bought. Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Nadia Samad and Dr Syed Harun also stand behind this point.
The union, as highlighted by Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Ms Jean See, also play a crucial role. Mothers need to feel at ease and assured to remain in the workforce and pursue their career aspirations. As for those who have taken or would need to take some time off to be a stay-home mom, they need to be confident that they can always return to the workforce when they feel ready to do so and feel welcomed. Having had myself to step away from work and return twice, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Yeo Wan Ling for looking out for all mothers in this regard.
I could not agree more with Assoc Prof Razwana Begum that successful implementation of any initiatives will require cooperative partnerships between the Government, community and private sectors. We cannot simply fall back on the assumption that this is all the Government's responsibility, and we all have a role to play in supporting families.
Mr Speaker, I call this village SG Made for Families. I thank all Members for sharing their sincere and thoroughly considered views in today's debate. Much has been said and I have every confidence that even more will be done to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families.
If I may conclude with a message to my fellow Singaporeans: please trust that this House will be with you along every step of your journey to starting and raising your family.
Mr Speaker, I urge Members of this House to support the Motion as originally worded.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Ms Hany Soh? No.
We have now come to the conclusion of the debate which has taken us more than seven hours.
I shall put the question on the amendment to the House for a decision. We have one amendment proposed by Mr Leong Man Wai. We will deal with the amendment first.
The amendment is, \"In Line 2, to delete the words \"continued review and updating\" and insert \"re-imagination\"\".
[(proc text) Question put, and amendment negatived. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendment is not carried. The original Motion is now before the House.
The Question is, \"That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families.\"
Those who agree, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members said \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Those who disagree, say \"No\".
[(proc text) Some hon Members said \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I think the \"Ayes\" have it.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, we wish to record our dissent.
Mr Speaker: I will do that. I will record your dissent. For you and Ms Poa? Okay. Anyone else? No.
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa indicated for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 18 February 2025.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I am ashamed that for so many years, decades actually, I have lived in ignorance. Ignorant that there was a refugee crisis right here in Asia and that so many people were suffering and needed help.
Singaporeans alerted me to this crisis and many of them are sitting in the gallery here in Parliament with us this evening. It was Chiew Tong, a student who was doing a documentary about the Rohingya refugees who first shared with me about the plight of refugees. This was more than nine years ago and I remember listening vividly to her as she spoke passionately about her school documentary project together with two other students Jade and Clarissa.
I visited them in Aceh while they were filming, and met the refugees and listened to their painful stories first-hand. But, Sir, painful does not actually sufficiently describe the stories I have heard. A huge part of me just cannot imagine the amount of pain the refugees must feel and the amount of suffering they have gone through.
In the refugee camp, I met Ayas. A little boy I will never forget. He is Rohingya and used to live in Myanmar. He was only eight years old when he, his 10-year-old brother and mother fled on a boat in 2015. The conditions of these boats were appalling. Sir, my daughter is 11 years old this year and I cannot imagine having to put her on a boat and flee like that.
Ayas' father had left on another boat and landed in another country earlier. They have since lost contact and he will probably never see his father again. As a father and a son, I cannot imagine how painful it must be, to be in this situation.
Ayas' mother was worried that they would die if they stayed in Myanmar any longer. And so, they too left and they spent at least three months on an overcrowded boat in the open ocean. Many lost their lives trying to flee on these boats. According to media reports in 2015, \"People were thrown overboard as the refugees fought for their survival, according to accounts of one of the grimmest episodes to emerge in a spiralling humanitarian disaster in south-east Asian waters.\"
No one would put their children in a boat unless water was safer than land. Despite all the dangers, it did seem for the refugees that water was ultimately safer than land.
Ayas, his brother and mother finally arrived at a refugee camp in Aceh, and this is where I met him. I met this little boy who had his childhood ripped from him, who lost his father, lost his home, who survived an arduous journey where he almost died and probably saw other people die. But I also met a little boy who was so eager to learn, who had learnt English and wanted to practise it with me, a little boy who wanted a place he can call home. I was humbled by Ayas.
Ayas is one out of hundreds of thousands of refugees all trying to find some semblance of peace.
I met many more refugees, but nothing could really prepare me for what I saw, heard and felt in the refugee camps in Bangladesh. It is suffering on a scale and to a degree that I never could have imagined. The Bangladesh government is doing their absolute best in absolutely difficult circumstances, and they too need help.
In the Cox's Bazar region of Bangladesh, 656,000 Rohingyas, including 355,300 children, sought sanctuary in the past few months before my visit back in 2018. The numbers today are considerably larger.
During my visit, I also met some of the 36,373 children who lost at least one parent. A staggering 7,771 innocent little ones lost both mommy and daddy.
The numbers are staggering. But even more than the numbers, it is the individual stories I heard that broke my heart. I asked about the scar on the arm of a little five-year-old girl. Shockingly, it was a bullet wound. A child of five should not even know what a gun is, let alone being shot and hurt by one.
I saw a father weep as he spoke of watching his nine-month-old baby being stabbed to death. I sat down to listen to a group of women who were in tears as they told me how they were raped and how they watch their husbands and babies get killed.
I met a mother and her young children. They arrived at the refugee camp the same time that I arrived. I arrived on a mini-bus, but they had walked for weeks to reach the camp. Her husband was killed, and they hid in the forest in fear for days before walking for weeks to cross the border and find refuge in another country. There was just emptiness in her eyes. I just cannot imagine how she would explain to the little child she was carrying and an older child she was holding hands with, about what is happening. Where is daddy and why did they have to leave their home.
And I met a young man in the prime of his life at 22 years old who is facing up to a future without his entire family: all seven were killed. He was in tears as he showed me the video of the dead bodies. A video I wished I never watched and a video I will never forget.
We cannot erase the horrors these people have faced. But we can all do something to help to prevent their further suffering. Sir, this speech is not just about the refugees but equally importantly about Singaporeans like Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa who have devoted their time and energy towards this very worthy cause. Singaporeans who have responded to the call for help from the refugees. Over the past decade, I have had the privilege of working with many Singaporeans who are trying so hard to help the refugees. This speech is dedicated to all of them.
In 2016, I met Matilda, a young Singaporean who has spent the past decade speaking up, mobilising people and giving the refugees a voice here in Singapore. She mobilised a group of Singaporeans to go to Aceh to help the refugees and I joined that trip. I saw first-hand her passion, commitment and devotion towards this cause. I know it is not an easy cause to speak up for. It is an uphill battle, but Matilda has never given up.
She set up Advocates for Refugees (AFR) in 2015 and has gathered a strong group of individuals, all wanting to do more. She said, \"AFR exists in Singapore because I believe that collectively we can do more from Singapore to rally support from within, to uplift communities in our neighbouring countries.\" She wanted to officially register a charity, but it is close to impossible to get charity status for an non-governmental organisation (NGO) working on a foreign cause.
Why should it be this way? Why make it so difficult for the younger generation to set up a cause here in Singapore and fight for what they believe in? To register as a charity, your organisation will need to meet the conditions set out in the Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations: \"Purposes of your organisation must be beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore.\"
I understand that we want the focus on Singapore but in the current charities landscape, we have plenty of charities focusing on the community in Singapore and I have no doubt they are here to stay. It is not a zero-sum game and we can and should have charities focusing on the communities in Singapore but also have some focusing on communities outside of Singapore.
My first recommendation for this Motion is that we amend our Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations to allow the registration of charities whose purpose is not beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore.
It is AFR's 10th year anniversary this year – 10 years on, Matilda and AFR are still going strong. Imagine what more they can achieve with charity status.
Sir, I also met Yuan Siang, another young Singaporean who wrote to me in 2020. He was a final year law student and was trying to set up a scholarship programme for refugees. He co-founded a society named Monolith with his friends, Brandon, Xiaodan, Mark, Adriel, Chong Wei and Cheryl. They wanted to start a scholarship, which will cover the costs of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) examinations, similar to our \"O\" levels, for about 80 to 90 refugee students.
Unfortunately, they ran into problems in getting the necessary permits. He submitted the application for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes (FRFCP) permit in mid-August 2020 and after 2.5 months, the application was still being processed. The typical time needed to process an FRFCP is 30 days. Yuan Siang shared with me that he understood the need for due diligence and did his best to keep in touch with the person-in-charge.
He shared that, \"We typically get a question every two to three weeks, to which we reply as quickly as we can, only to get another question two to three weeks later.\" He further shared, \"it is hard not to get the impression that our application might be experiencing all this delay and scrutiny because we are trying to help refugees. With each day that passes, we get more worried that rejection is inevitable.\"
Sir, I too understand the need for due diligence but we should streamline the processes. Helping refugees, again, is incredibly difficult work, so why should we make it any harder?
I am sure the Government agrees. In an effort to keep the regulatory burden to a minimum and ensure a business-friendly environment in Singapore, Deputy Prime Minister Gan is already overseeing a \"thorough and proactive review of our rules and processes, and prune them back where possible\".
My second recommendation is that we streamline the process of applying for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes permit and make it much easier to get.
My third and final recommendation is that we waive the 80:20 rule for all humanitarian causes and not just on a case-by-case basis. This is where 80% of the funds raised through a public appeal have to be applied for charitable purposes within Singapore. The remaining 20% of funds may be for overseas charitable purposes. In Yuan Siang's case, if he did a public appeal for a scholarship for refugees, it would not make sense to use only 20% of the funds raised towards the scholarship.
Why restrict our NGOs? The Government is providing funds to help firms internationalise and build capabilities to operate overseas. We should provide the same kind of support to organisations wanting to help other countries, to do good there. We should support our local non-profit organisations who internationalise, who fly the Singapore flag proudly overseas and who lend a helping hand to our neighbours. Let us be seen to not just venture into other countries to compete, to take, but also to give and to help.
Also, if members of the public want to donate to a foreign charitable cause, why should the Government make it difficult to do so? We should let the public, rather than the Government, decide on what and who people want to donate to. The Government should of course ensure there is due diligence and that funds collected are properly accounted for and audited. However, we should not stop or restrict Singaporeans from raising funds to help others in other countries.
Sir, in Yuan Siang's case, I spoke to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), and I am glad they eventually approved his permits but with many conditions. Despite the difficulties, he was amazing and shared with me the impact of their efforts. Singaporeans supported him and he managed to raise $59,500 and awarded 48 scholarships to mainly refugees; 65% of the students managed to score four or more As in their IGCSEs.
One student shared, \"Because of your generosity, I was able to fully concentrate on my studies. This scholarship instilled a sense of responsibility in me to perform better, to gain better outcomes and to ensure that the money put forward by the organisation and the donors do not go in vain. Besides that, this scholarship has boosted my self-esteem which will benefit me immensely in the future when I am continuing my further studies.\"
Yuan Siang hopes to continue his efforts, but he needs the support not just from fellow Singaporeans but also from the Government.
Before I end, I should stress that the Government does care about this issue and we have made progress, but as always, this housefly hopes that more can be done. I thank Minister of State Alvin Tan for meeting with the NGOs who are working hard to help refugees. In fact, he just met them about an hour ago. Again, I thank him for listening to their concerns first-hand and seeing how we can help.
I am also thankful that in Budget 2024, we announced that Singaporeans will be able to claim 100% tax deduction for donations to overseas humanitarian relief efforts, under a new scheme launched in recognition of people's desire to do good beyond Singapore's shores. The Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) will run for four years as a pilot, from 1 January 2025. But the issue is that the scheme is scoped so narrowly. To be eligible for tax deductions under OHAS, donations must be made through designated charities. These are the larger charities. We should not forget the smaller groups who do good work too.
Charities must also have emergency humanitarian assistance as part of their objectives to qualify. It is likely that the refugee cause that Matilda and Yuan Siang have been fighting so hard for will not be included in this scheme.
In conclusion, Sir, I hope that MCCY will one, amend our Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations to allow the registration of charities whose purpose is not beneficial wholly or substantially to the communities in Singapore; two, streamline the process of applying for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes permit; and three, waive the 80:20 Fund-Raising rule for all humanitarian causes and not just on a case-by-case basis.
Sir, in his email to me back in 2020, Yuan Siang shared with me that, \"I have read on the news that you have been involved with and have given support for refugees. The fact that you have been able to speak in Parliament about refugees is something that has empowered ordinary people like us to believe that helping refugees is something we will find support for.\"
I should stress that there is nothing ordinary about Yuan Siang, Brandon, Xiaodan, Mark, Adriel, Chong Wei, Cheryl, Matilda, Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa. Many more NGOs like Jesuit Refugee Service Singapore, Relief SG, Singapore Red Cross and many more individuals, many of whom are sitting in the gallery, that also dedicate their lives towards this important cause. They are extraordinary Singaporeans who have chosen a difficult cause to fight for because they believe that everyone deserves a voice.
Sir, the refugees need their voices heard. This speech is unfortunately not one filled with happy stories. And the story of Ayas, the little boy I met at the refugee camp in Aceh, is unfortunately not a happy one as well and probably remains so. The last I heard, he is still in a refugee camp. He is now 18 years old and still does not have a place he can call home. Ayas, if you somehow watch this speech, know that many people continue to speak up for you here in Singapore and continue to do their best to help you.
Ayas does not have a say in his future but we do. And I sincerely hope we will support the efforts of fellow Singaporeans who are fighting so hard to help to rebuild the lives of refugees and help ensure that they too have a place they can call home and children can have a childhood that is not stolen from them.
I sincerely hope that we all remember that there is no us or them. Only us – one human family, connected in ways we sometimes forget. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng for his passionate speech about the admirable efforts of fellow Singaporeans who have stepped up to help those in need overseas. His suggestions on how to encourage and facilitate their work reflect our underlying shared vision of a united people where we look out for one another and support those in need, at home or abroad.
I would like to address Mr Ng's suggestions by sharing our policy approach in balancing the needs and concerns of people in Singapore versus people outside of Singapore. Mr Ng spoke about the difficulties faced by non-profit organisations (NPOs) serving foreign charitable purposes in obtaining registered charity status in Singapore.
As Mr Ng rightly pointed out, one of the conditions for charity registration is that the purposes of the organisation must be beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore. Registered charities enjoy benefits such as income and property tax exemption and therefore, there is an expectation that the resources of charities should generally be channelled back towards helping the local community.
However, our regulatory framework is not so rigid that we are unable to work towards being a philanthropic hub and to recognise the benefits of our local charities in doing overseas charitable work. In line with Mr Ng's recommendation, the Minister today already has the discretion under the existing regulations to waive this condition on a case-by-case basis and has done so in the past.
In response to the Member's Parliamentary Question on a related topic last year, we shared that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has granted charity status to organisations who obtained a waiver of this charity registration condition. Most of these charities are Qualifying Grantmakers who applied for charity status under the Grantmaker Scheme administered by MCCY.
Unlike typical charities, Qualifying Grantmakers are solely funded by an individual, family or institution and do not solicit for donations from the public. Given that these Qualifying Grantmakers are privately funded, they are regulated under a lighter-touch regime, with certain regulatory requirements, such as the requirement to substantially benefit the local community, waived. That said, Qualifying Grantmakers are still encouraged to apply some of their funds in Singapore.
The key then, is in striking a balance: a balance between allowing selected charities more flexibility to do overseas work and yet ensuring that the vast majority of our charities which are funded by donations from the public retain the focus on meeting local needs.
Mr Ng also spoke about the difficulties faced by NPOs in obtaining a permit to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes, such as the long processing time. We appreciate the understanding shared by Mr Ng on the need for due diligence on such fundraising appeals. The permit system and checks in place today serve to maintain public trust and confidence in fundraising appeals and protect donor interests. The COC's Office assesses the information provided by permit applicants to ensure that funds raised are used to support legitimate causes.
In the past three years, we have been able to process most applications within 30 days. However, some applications may need longer to process as they are more complex and involve higher risks. Relevant considerations include the target amount of donations, mode of fundraising appeals, location and background of the beneficiaries, track record of the fundraisers and compliance with the past appeals, just to name a few.
Nevertheless, we understand the pressing nature of permit applications for certain types of fundraising appeals, such as for those in support of disasters or other emergencies. Hence, the COC's Office takes a risk-based approach in assessing such applications and has been expediting most of these applications.
To streamline the process of applying for foreign fundraising permits, we encourage NPOs to engage and alert us on their fundraising plans early and submit permit applications with full disclosure and complete information to facilitate each review. Alternatively, NPOs may also choose to work with other charities or organisations that already have valid permits to support the relevant causes. NPOs will not need to apply for a separate permit if they do so.
We are always looking for ways to assist legitimate fundraisers in their charitable activities and welcome suggestions to improve our service delivery.
Mr Ng also suggested that we waive the 80:20 rule for all humanitarian causes. Mr Speaker, the intent of the 80:20 fundraising rule under the Charities Act is to ensure that donations from our Singapore public are used primarily to benefit locals and to address locals' needs.
The intent of this 80:20 rule remains relevant today. Recently, we received feedback suggesting to prohibit all local charities from conducting fundraising appeals for foreign charitable causes to focus our resources for the vulnerable in our society. This is but one example of appeals that we receive to manage the outflow of funds raised in Singapore.
However, the COC can and does, on a case-by-case basis, waive this rule, such as for appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster relief and for private donations raised for foreign charitable causes. I want to assure the Member that we do allow and support our charities and our organisations to raise funds for foreign charitable causes, but we are doing so in a measured manner.
In 2014, the COC granted a total of 71 permits for organisations to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.] Of these, a large majority of fundraising permits had been granted the 80:20 fundraising rule waiver and this included private appeals and appeals for disaster relief efforts, such as for those affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict and other disasters.
The Member also expressed his hope for scope of the OHAS to be expanded. The OHAS is a four-year pilot recently launched only in January this year. In our previous replies to Mr Ng's past Parliamentary Questions on the OHAS, we explained the reasons for the current scope. The pilot was purposefully scoped to overseas emergency humanitarian assistance to strike a balance between encouraging overseas giving while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support. This scheme is also administered through designated charities, which are: Mercy Relief Limited, Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation and the Singapore Red Cross Society, to ensure that the necessary governance and controls are in place so that donated funds go to verifiable and legitimate causes.
We are glad there is strong interest in this scheme and we are confident that it would encourage more Singaporeans to help those in need overseas.
Mr Speaker, we appreciate the Member's close engagement with NPOs on the ground to understand their evolving needs and challenges. Dialogue and feedback inform policy formulation and reviews, and we are committed to ensure that our legislation and processes remain relevant to the changing landscape of the charity sector in Singapore and the needs of our society.
Finally, we commend the dedication shown by these extraordinary Singaporeans highlighted in the hon Member's anecdotes: Yuan Siang and the Monolith team's work in providing scholarships; Matilda's work, both in Singapore and Aceh; and Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa's endeavour to shine the spotlight on lives that are silently crying out for help. Their efforts to help those in need overseas exemplify the values of compassion and generosity that our society holds dear. This Government shares this same goal, and that is to build a more caring and inclusive society and world.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask very specific questions? One, whether groups that are helping refugees will be able to get charity status? And two, I think he mentioned that when people are applying for the fundraising for foreign charitable purposes permit, some are considered as higher risk. Could he just confirm that helping refugees is considered a higher risk?
Mr Eric Chua: Mr Speaker, I mentioned that the Minister, today, already has the discretion to waive the condition and has done so in the past. Many actually are qualifying as grantmakers, and they have applied for and have been successfully approved for charity status under the Grantmaker Scheme.
Under this lighter touch regime, the key is that most, if not all, of the funds that are actually rallied or that are mobilised are private funds. So, in that sense, if you are going out to the public for appeals, you are going out to canvass on social media in the open for funds coming into a specific cause, then you do not qualify to be a part of this scheme. But I think, the short answer to Mr Louis Ng's question is that, yes, if you are canvassing for refugees overseas, you are not excluded from this exclusion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng, we have just about three minutes before time is up.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: I will use the three minutes, Speaker. Again, I just wanted to clarify. The groups that are helping the refugees do want to raise funds publicly. That is part of their activism. It is not just getting the money, but empowering people with the knowledge about the refugee crisis. So, they are not going to qualify for the scheme that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. They are hoping to get charity status, just like any other organisation and continue and be able to raise funds overseas.
There is a second part of the question, which is the application for the fundraising for foreign charitable permit. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned that for higher-risk causes, they will take longer time to evaluate the application. So, could I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether helping refugees is considered as one of those higher-risk causes?
Mr Eric Chua: I think to clarify what I have just said, Mr Speaker, I think that what I have mentioned in my speech earlier was that specific instances, especially in the case that the Member has mentioned in his speech, that of Yuan Siang and the Monolith's application, it was the first time that the team has actually put in an application and the Charities Unit team had to go through back and forth, with some hand-holding guidance, especially with regard to checks, background checks, that had to be made to maintain public trust and confidence in the entire fundraising process, to make sure that donors' interests are protected and to make sure that donors are confident that this is a legitimate cause that they are donating towards.
So, I think that is the angle for which I was coming from when I said that there were certain cases for which the process might be longer, not necessarily only higher risk cases.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.39 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Bus Connectivity within Industrial Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Transport whether the Government can strengthen bus connectivity within industrial estates or partially subsidise local business associations to offer loop services in industrial estates during peak periods.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Currently, 30 public bus services provide first- and last-mile connectivity between industrial estates and major transport nodes. This is around 10% of our bus services. As industrial areas are generally less dense and travel demand to these locations tend to be very low outside of a few peak periods, these services often require high government subsidies.
When companies have specific transport needs or are located in areas that cannot be viably served by public bus services, the Land Transport Authority encourages companies to provide alternative transport modes that suit their workplace, work shifts and the travel pattern of their employees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Regulations to Include Review of Social Media Companies' Behind-the-scenes Algorithms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether current regulation of social media companies includes an ability to review the behind-the-scenes algorithms that such companies employ to push content to users; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider that in the next round of strengthening regulations to mitigate the risks of harmful social media content to Singapore users.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore's approach to online content regulations is outcome-based. We focus on ways to minimise exposure of harmful online content to Singapore users, regardless of how the content is generated or how the exposure comes about. We continue to monitor regulations elsewhere, including Europe and the United States, that seek to mandate transparency over the algorithms used by social media platforms. We note that these regulatory approaches are still in the early stages of development and there is no consensus on their effectiveness in ensuring online safety.
Under the Code of Practice for Online Safety for social media services, designated social media services have to ensure that their users have access to tools on their platforms to manage their own safety, such as tools to restrict visibility of harmful content and unwanted interactions. The Code also requires platforms to ensure that children must not be targeted to receive content that is detrimental to their physical and mental well-being, and put in place more restrictive account settings. The Code does not prescribe how the designated social media services are to implement these measures.
To enhance online safety, the Code also mandates that designated social media services submit annual accountability reports to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). These reports must contain information about measures that they have put in place to combat harmful content and improve users' safety. IMDA is currently reviewing the first annual online safety reports and will subsequently publish the findings.
We will continue to study the evolving online landscape and review if additional regulations for social media services are needed as part of our ongoing efforts to enhance online safety in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Requirements and Exemptions from Requirements for Home-schooling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) when were requirements for home-schooling in Singapore last reviewed; and (b) whether exemptions from requirements for home-schooling in Singapore can be granted for parents of children with mild developmental disabilities and are not able to fit into a mainstream school, but with a condition that does not qualify them to be enrolled into either NorthLight School or Assumption Pathway School.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The core objectives of Compulsory Education (CE) are to give our children (a) a common core of knowledge which will provide a strong foundation for further education and training; and (b) a common educational experience which will help to build national identity and cohesion.
Under the CE Act, Singaporean children of compulsory school age, that is, above six years and under 15 years, are required to be enrolled in national primary schools. Children with moderate to severe Special Educational Needs (SEN) that cannot be supported in mainstream schools, can enrol in Government-funded Special Education schools to meet the CE requirement.
Parents may apply for their children to be exempted from CE, to be home-schooled. Children with SEN who are home-schooled may follow either the mainstream or special education curriculum, depending on their specific needs. Regardless of the curriculum, parents who apply for home-schooling would need to have the capability to teach their children effectively and provide a holistic learning environment.
The Ministry of Education reviews the home-schooling criteria annually to ensure they are relevant and up to date.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reference from Other Countries' Decisions to Criminalise Creation or Possession of Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images and Videos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Singapore is studying South Korea and Britain's decisions to criminalise the creation or possession of sexually explicit deepfake images and videos and consider these as a way to strengthen our legal regime against such forms of sexual harassment.
Mr K Shanmugam: Singapore's laws on sexually explicit deepfake images and videos generally cover the same areas as those being introduced or considered in South Korea and the United Kingdom.
Sexually explicit deepfakes generally involve images or recordings that have been altered to depict a victim. Possession of or gaining access to such material, including in the course of producing such material, is already an offence under the Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to two years or a fine, or both.
Where the production or possession of sexually explicit deepfakes depicts minors, the Penal Code provides for penalties of up to 10 years' and five years' imprisonment respectively, with the possibility of an additional fine or caning.
We will be introducing amendments to the Penal Code this year to make clear that our offences apply to sexually explicit deepfakes produced through the use of artificial intelligence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Interim Housing from Elderly Residents or Couples without Children awaiting HDB BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year of the past three years, how many applications for interim housing have been received from elderly residents or couples without children awaiting HDB BTO flats; (b) what percentage of such applications are approved; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to introduce more subsidised rental options to support groups who do not qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme or the Public Rental Scheme.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) is the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) primary scheme for providing subsidised rental housing to families awaiting the completion of their HDB flats. PPHS is targeted at families with less income at their disposal to rent on the open market. Elderly families who fulfil the PPHS eligibility criteria may also benefit from the scheme.
HDB has increased the supply of PPHS flats from 800 in 2021 to over 2,000 currently. As a result, all first-timer married couples with children have been successful in the PPHS ballot since June 2023. In addition, about 30% of couples without children, or 370 households, were successful in 2024. This is a significant improvement from about 10%, or 90 households, in 2022. HDB will further increase the PPHS supply to 4,000 units this year. Before this additional supply comes on stream, we have introduced the PPHS (Open Market) voucher as a temporary measure to support households renting an HDB flat or bedroom on the open market.
On a case-by-case basis, HDB may also offer interim rental housing to lower-income households who have no other temporary housing options. This includes households that are ineligible for a PPHS flat. As interim rental housing is not open for public application, HDB does not track the number of requests made. In the past three years, HDB assisted 59 couples without children and 107 elderly households with interim rental housing.
Given the limited supply of subsidised rental flats, we seek Singaporeans' understanding that we are unable to allocate one to every household awaiting the completion of their HDB flat. Instead, HDB has substantially increased its offering of Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) flats with waiting times of less than three years, so that more home buyers can move into their new flats sooner. Of the 19,600 Build-to-Order flats slated for launch in 2025, almost one-fifth will be SWT flats. HDB will continue to roll out more SWT flats where possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Providing Alternative Support to Kindergarten Children with Developmental Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry provide alternative support to kindergarten children with developmental needs when their parents decline the support from programmes such as the Development Support and Learning Support Programme.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Children with developmental needs are assessed by a paediatrician to determine the level of Early Intervention (EI) support they require. Where needed, children will be referred to suitable programmes either at hospitals, EI centres or preschools, according to the level of EI support required. We strongly encourage parents to enrol their child in the recommended EI programmes, as these are designed to provide the necessary support for both the child and the family.
To encourage enrolment, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has made efforts to improve the accessibility and affordability of EI programmes. For example, the Development Support-Learning Support Programme (DS-LS) serves children directly in their preschools, including in all Anchor Operator preschools. DS-LS fees are also subsidised, with parents paying between $5 and $290 for the programme depending on their household income. We have also increased the number of Government-funded Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC) and EIPIC-P places by almost 80% from 4,100 in 2020 to 7,300 in 2024 through building six more EIPIC centres and appointing 19 more EIPIC-P centres. This has allowed us to better serve children requiring medium to high levels of EI support.
Nevertheless, the decision to enrol a child in EI programmes ultimately rests with the parent. Parents who decline support from EI programmes can explore other avenues to support their child. Similar to Government-funded EI programmes, parents may tap on the Child Development Account to pay for non-Government funded EI programmes that are registered with ECDA. They may also consider attending SG Enable's Step One programme to better equip themselves as caregivers. Parents can refer to the ECDA's Parents' Guide and the SG Enable website to understand more about developmental needs, how to choose appropriate EI services as well as caregiver training and resources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simplifying Process for Corppass Account Registration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the process of registering for a Corppass account can be simplified or streamlined to ease the claims process for those who utilise their employers' SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit (SFEC) rides on various base enterprise support schemes, some of which require Corppass to apply.
The approval process for a Corppass account requires minimal additional information and applicants can expect an approval within five working days once the necessary information has been provided. After the company has successfully applied for the base scheme, they do not need to separately apply for SFEC. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore will automatically reimburse eligible companies and Corppass is not required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Investor Definitions under Section 4A of Securities and Futures Act 2001","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) when were the definitions of specific classes of investors as specified under section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act 2001 last reviewed; and (b) in the past three years, whether MAS has received feedback that an individual's eligibility as an accredited investor should be premised on relevant knowledge, in addition to the individual's net worth.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act 2001 sets out the asset and income thresholds for an individual to become eligible for accredited investor status. The accredited investor eligibility criteria were last updated in 2018 to introduce a $1 million cap on the value of an individual's primary residence that could be used in the net personal asset assessment. It also requires investors who meet the eligibility criteria to expressly opt in before they can be treated as an \taccredited investor by a financial institution.
Regardless of an individual's net worth, financial institutions must, in the first instance, treat all customers as retail investors and accord them the full range of safeguards. This means that financial institutions must comply with prescribed product disclosure requirements and assess the investor’s investment knowledge and experience before recommending products that may be more complex in nature.
Beyond this, investors who meet the accredited investor eligibility criteria may be offered the option to become accredited investors, which will avail them to a larger suite of products and services but will not avail them to the same level of regulatory safeguards as retail investors. These investors must choose to become accredited investors and financial institutions are required by regulation to explain clearly to them the safeguards they will forgo when opting to be an accredited investor.
Under the Fair Dealing Guidelines that the Monetary Authority of Singapore recently updated in May 2024, financial institutions are also expected to consider a customer's profile, risk tolerance and financial knowledge, regardless of his or her accredited investor status, to assess whether a product is suitable for the customer before making a recommendation. Nonetheless, regulatory safeguards are not a substitute for investor responsibility. All investments carry risks and investors are advised to engage only with products they fully understand and that align with their risk tolerance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Restricting ITE Progression Award to Graduates Pursuing Eligible Diplomas from 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for restricting the ITE Progression Award (IPA) to ITE graduates pursuing eligible diplomas from 2024 onwards; (b) how this aligns with the Government's emphasis on lifelong learning and workforce development; (c) whether the Ministry has assessed the equity of excluding pre-2024 diploma graduates and plans to review their inclusion; and (d) what steps are being taken to ensure consistent financial support for ITE graduates pursuing further education across all time periods.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Institute of Technical Education (ITE) Progression Award (IPA) was introduced in 2024 to address the growing wage gap between ITE's Nitec and Higher Nitec graduates and diploma- or degree-holders. It provides financial support to help ITE graduates upskill to a diploma earlier in their careers and boost their savings for longer-term goals, such as home ownership or retirement.
The two-step award supports ITE graduates to enrol in a diploma by providing a top-up of $5,000 to their Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) at the start of diploma studies and encourages them to complete their diploma with another top-up of $10,000 to the Central Provident Fund Ordinary Account (CPF OA) when they do so.
Eligible ITE graduates who were already enrolled in diplomas at Ministry of Education-funded institutions as of 1 March 2024 will still receive the $10,000 OA top-up under IPA after they complete their diplomas.
The IPA is part of the Government's broader suite of schemes that provide support for lifelong learning across various life stages. ITE graduates who had upgraded to diplomas before 2024 should already start to enjoy better employability and higher wages and are, therefore, not part of the target group for IPA. To support them to upskill further, there are other schemes, such as the Workfare Skills Support Scheme and the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which provide financial support like training allowance during their course. Course fees are also heavily subsidised for Singaporeans at the Institutes of Higher Learning and for courses supported by SkillsFuture Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Medical Panels for Healthcare Groups Operating Restructured Hospitals to Provide Holistic View on Patients' Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry can set up a medical panel at each of the three medical healthcare groups, staffed with senior or retired doctors who can provide a holistic view on patients' treatment plans, drug subsidies, and appeals for use of MediSave or MediFund funding for a select group of patients, especially those with chronic conditions, who are facing differing assessments from different healthcare institutions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Member is calling for more centralisation of decision-making for certain patients, with regard to their treatment plans and financial support. This will however not be optimal. Indeed, doctors have different opinions when it comes to diagnosis and treatment. However, it is generally in the interest of the patient for such decisions to made as close to the bedside as possible, instead of relying on a panel or body of experts residing at the hospital or cluster level.
As for financial support, policies relating to subsidies, MediSave and MediShield Life are determined centrally by the Ministry of Health. However, when it comes to additional financial support to individual patients, such as MediFund, these will be assessed on a case-by-case basis at the level of the healthcare institution, taking into consideration factors, such as the nature and duration of the treatment, the cost and the family's financial situation. Each public healthcare institution has a MediFund Committee, with full discretion to assess and approve applications. This decentralised approach enables the Committees to exercise flexibility and be quick and responsive to those who need the help the most.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations in Repurposing Use of HDB Blocks' Void Deck Space","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in view of the changing void deck and common space use in HDB residential estates (a) whether HDB is actively reviewing the repurposing of such spaces for different uses, such as eateries; (b) what considerations will be taken into account when making such reviews; and (c) whether there are differences in approach between mature and non-mature estates.
Mr Desmond Lee: The community deck and common spaces in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates are designed to facilitate social interactions and community bonding. Social and community facilities, such as childcare and eldercare centres, are also located at community decks to meet the daily needs of residents.
As community needs evolve over time, HDB does review the use of these common spaces from time to time in partnership with the local community.
On repurposing community deck and common spaces into commercial uses, such as eateries, HDB evaluates such proposals to balance between the need for such amenities in addition to other provisions nearby, potential dis-amenities to residents, the sufficiency of remaining common spaces to facilitate community bonding and relevant regulatory requirements. For instance, it may not be technically feasible to retrofit kitchen exhaust outlets at such spaces given the close proximity of residential units above. The evaluation process is common across both mature and non-mature estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Investigations into Disruptions to Mobile, Broadband and Subscription Television Services in 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has concluded its investigations into the disruptions to mobile, broadband and subscription television services in 2024; (b) if not, when does the IMDA expect to conclude such investigations and whether the findings will be made public; and (c) what actions have been taken against the service operators thus far, in respect of such disruptions.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) investigations into the disruptions which occurred in late-2024 are ongoing. Once investigations are complete, IMDA will publish on its website the findings of key incidents, including lessons that can be learnt to prevent recurrence. IMDA will also take firm enforcement action should the investigations reveal lapses on the part of the service providers. This can include the imposition of financial penalties and directions to remedy gaps.
For more information on IMDA's preliminary findings and treatment of the late-2024 disruptions, Members may refer to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information's responses to similar Parliamentary Questions at the 11 and 12 November 2024 Parliament Sittings. [Please refer to \"Root Causes for Singtel's Recent Outage, Impact of Disruption to Essential Services and Measures to Ensure Telecom Operational Continuity and Resilience\", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Penalties for Service Outages that Affected Mobile Network, Broadband Internet and Subscription Television Services in 2024\", Official Report, 12 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 146, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Barriers Preventing Singaporeans from Signing Advance Medical Directives and Measures to Counter These","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government has identified key barriers preventing Singaporeans from signing advance medical directives; (b) what specific strategies are being implemented to increase participation rates beyond existing public education campaigns; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering simplifying the certification process to encourage uptake.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The process to make an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) can be a barrier. This is because an AMD is a legal document for a patient to inform the doctor that he does not want to use any life-sustaining treatment to prolong his life in the event that he is terminally ill, unconscious or requires life-sustaining treatment. It must, therefore, be taken very seriously. Hence, individuals need to complete a form in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom must be a doctor. These are necessary safeguards that may have contributed to the complexity of the AMD process but are designed to protect the interests of individuals who make an AMD.
In the absence of AMD, doctors may also recommend the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to family members if this is deemed to be in the patient's best interest. In arriving at this recommendation, the doctor would have taken into account the patient's clinical conditions, possible care pathways and healthcare preferences, if any. The family's decision to accept or reject the doctor's recommendation will be greatly facilitated if the patient has made an Advance Care Plan (ACP) and/or has appointed a donee to make medical care decisions under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Both ACP and LPA are much easier to set up than an AMD.
With growing public awareness and discourse on end-of-life planning, the annual uptake of AMD has increased, from 3,000 in 2015 to over 8,000 in 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Role in Efforts to Sustain Recently Brokered Ceasefire between Israel and Hamas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what role can Singapore play in contributing to sustaining the recently brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and increasing the likelihood of it leading to a longer-term resolution; (b) whether the ongoing tensions in the region pose any immediate or foreseeable implications for Singapore’s diplomatic interests and regional stability; and (c) how is the Ministry working with international partners or organisations to support peace and humanitarian efforts in the affected areas.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: This question has been addressed in the reply to Member of Parliament Ang Wei Neng on 4 February 2025. [Please refer to \"Facilitating Humanitarian Aid and Fundraising Efforts following Ceasefire in Israel and Hamas Conflict\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
35 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in the event of a change in land use and consequent change in land ownership across Ministries and Statutory Boards (a) whether the transfer price is conducted at fair market value based on the intended land use and intensification; and (b) whether the land cost is accounted for as an income and development expenditure of the relevant Ministries respectively.
Mr Lawrence Wong: State land is a physical asset that forms part of our reserves. Whether it is rented out for a short tenure or sold for longer-term development, the principle is to transact at fair market value (FMV). FMV is determined via tender or through valuation by the Chief Valuer or other professional valuers.
No change in land ownership takes place when state land is allocated to a Government Ministry for public infrastructure purposes, such as for Government schools and bus interchanges. The land remains in the state's possession. Likewise, there is no disposal and no payment arises when there is a change in land allocation from one Ministry to another.
State land may also be alienated to Statutory Boards to enable them to discharge their statutory functions. When state land is alienated to a Statutory Board, it is disposed of at FMV, determined based on the approved land use and intensification. The proceeds of the disposal are collected and accounted for as land sales proceeds. The transaction is reflected in the Statutory Board's accounts as an expenditure.
After the land has been alienated to a Statutory Board, any changes in land use leading to a change in land ownership will typically involve a transfer of the land to the state before it is alienated or allocated for its new, intended use. When land is transferred, the cost incurred for buying the land is accounted for as Development Expenditure. The Statutory Board giving up the land, correspondingly, records the transaction as cash proceeds from disposal of fixed assets and a reduction in land assets.
When the Singapore Land Authority alienates the state land for its new, intended use, the state land is disposed of at FMV, determined based on the approved land use and intensification, no different from the alienation of any other form of state land.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Average Land Price for State Land Sold to HDB for Construction of Public Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each year over the last five years, what is the average land price for state land sold to HDB for the construction of public housing, as broken down by district; and (b) what is the cumulative and percentage change in public housing land value in the last five years.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) pays fair market value for state land that is purchased to develop HDB flats, which is determined independently by the Chief Valuer.
For non-mature estates, the total land costs that HDB paid to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for public housing land from financial years (FYs) 2019 to 2023 ranged from $907 million to $2.6 billion per year. For mature estates, the total land costs within the same period ranged from $1.3 billion to $5 billion per year. HDB does not use district boundaries to classify flats.
Total land costs vary from year to year due to prevailing market conditions and the specific attributes of the land parcels purchased for public housing, including location and parcel size.
Apart from the land costs that HDB pays to SLA at the point of purchase, HDB does not track the fluctuations in public housing land value from year to year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Dual-income Married Couples in Resident Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the percentage of married couples in resident households where both husband and wife are employed has increased since 2020; and (b) if so, what is the overall current percentage and the percentage for each age group.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on data from the 2020 Census of Population, which is the latest available, the percentage of married couples in resident households where both spouses were employed was around 53%. This was higher than the 47% in 2010. Details on the percentages of such married couples by age groups can be found in the Census of Population published on the Department of Statistics' website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efforts to Further Prevent Arms Exports to Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in light of the reduction of arms exports from Singapore to Myanmar between April 2023 and March 2024 as reported by the UN special rapporteur in June 2024 (a) what are Singapore’s continuing efforts to further reduce and prevent arms exports to Myanmar since the second half of 2024; and (b) what are the challenges faced in our efforts to reduce or prevent such exports.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I note Mr Dennis Tan's continued interest on allegations of arms exports from Singapore to Myanmar. As I had explained in this House in February and July 2023, also in response to Mr Tan's questions on both occasions, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Myanmar Thomas Andrews reaffirmed in his report that \"there are no indications that the Government of Singapore has approved, or is involved in, the shipment of arms and associated materials to the Myanmar military.\" [Please refer to \"Checks on Singapore Companies to Prohibit Transfer to Myanmar of Items with Potential Military Application\", Official Report, 14 February 2023, Vol 95, Issue 83, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Review following UN Special Rapporteur's Report of Singapore-based Entities Providing Supplies to Myanmar Military\", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
40 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of human metapneumovirus (HMPV) have been detected to date; (b) which are the age groups most severely affected by HMPV; (c) whether there are any fatalities due to HMPV; and (d) what measures have been implemented to reduce the number of infections in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in the oral reply to Question No 9 in today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Preventing Cross-border Transmission of HMPV from Becoming Public Health Concern in Singapore\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prioritising Installation of Speed Limiters for Lighter Lorries and Lorries Used for Transporting Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider (i) bringing forward the deadline for lighter lorries to be required to have speed limiters and (ii) prioritising lorries used to transport workers when it comes to the installation of speed limiters.
Mr K Shanmugam: Regarding the first question, the Member may refer to the Parliamentary Question for written reply which was addressed at the 5 February 2024 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Bringing Forward Deadline for Installing Speed Limiters in Lorries\", Official Report, 5 February 2024, Vol 95, Issue 120, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Traffic Police and Land Transport Authority do not track which lorries are used for transporting workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcomes of Work Pass Holders Retention Schemes for Construction, Marine Shipyard and Process Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the outcomes of the retention schemes in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors to facilitate the retention of Work Permit Holders in these sectors; (b) whether any of these retention schemes or measures are still in place; and (c) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: The retention scheme was introduced in September 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic to relieve labour shortages and enable Work Permit holders to continue working in Singapore if their employment was terminated. Under this scheme, trade associations in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors would take over the upkeep of the workers and match them to employers that wished to hire foreign workers. The scheme helped 842 workers find new employers. It was discontinued in June 2022 after the pandemic and lifting of travel restrictions.
The scheme was not continued because there are sufficient measures in place to facilitate the retention of experienced Work Permit holders in Singapore. Workers can transfer to a new employer at the end of their contract, without the need for the current employer's consent. They can also transfer to a new employer anytime, with consent of the current employer or if there is a valid claim against the current employer.
To further support businesses in retaining higher-skilled Work Permit holders, the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness has also recommended for the Government to review relevant policies on maximum period of employment and maximum age for Work Permit holders. We are studying this recommendation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction of Slip Road from Tampines Expressway into Rivervale Shores","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the pre-requisites before construction can commence on an already-identified future slip road from the Tampines Expressway into the Rivervale Shores; (b) what is the intended start date of this project; and (c) whether this project can commence given the recent completion of the HDB estate in 2024.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Based on a Transport Impact Assessment study, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) had worked with the Housing and Development Board to carry out road improvement works, such as creating additional road lanes at Sengkang East Drive and Sengkang East Way, to support the expected increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the new Rivervale Shore Build-To-Order development. With these improvements implemented, traffic in the vicinity has been observed to be manageable.
The slip road in question is intended for implementation in the future when there are further new developments in the North-East Region. The date for implementation has not been finalised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of US' New Tariffs on Singapore's Export-dependent Economy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Alex Yam Ziming asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of recent indications that the United States may impose additional tariffs on certain imports (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential impact that such tariffs will have on Singapore’s export-dependent economy; and (b) what are the measures that the Government will undertake to mitigate any adverse effects on local businesses and workers, particularly in sectors most exposed to US trade policy changes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: On 1 February 2025, the United States (US) announced that it would impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico, and additional 10% tariffs on imports from China. The US has since put its implementation of tariffs on Canada and Mexico on hold for at least 30 days. However, the US' additional tariff of 10% on Chinese imports has since come into effect and in response, China has announced that it will implement countermeasures starting from 10 February 2025.
While Singapore is not directly affected by the US' imposition of additional tariffs on China or China's response, the tariffs have implications for global trade and economic growth. They will introduce more friction to trade, which will affect Singapore as an open economy where trade is three times our gross domestic product. The countries affected could change where companies produce their goods, resulting in the re-organisation of supply chains and higher prices and requiring businesses to adapt to shifts in supply and demand. We are currently assessing the indirect impact on Singapore companies and engaging those which may be affected. We are also monitoring any additional tariffs.
The Government has existing support measures to help our businesses navigate global uncertainties and diversify their supply chains and markets. Enterprise Singapore supports our companies by providing market intelligence and advice on changing regulatory landscapes so they can adapt and respond effectively. They also help companies access new markets and partners to enhance their supply chains. Singapore businesses need to stay agile during uncertainty and disruption. We are confident that our private sector and entrepreneurs will find innovative ways to do so and the Government will continue to support and work closely with them in this effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of AI Analytics in Detection of Near-miss Accidents at Traffic Junctions to Guide Road Design Improvements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has studied or plans to study the use of artificial intelligence analytics to enhance detection and audit of accident near-misses at traffic junctions to guide future road design improvements; and (b) if so, whether the junction of Jalan Lempeng and Faber Drive can be considered for study.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority uses data analytics and artificial intelligence to enhance road safety, including for the junction of Jalan Lempeng and Faber Drive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up Actions Conducted under Co-operative Societies Act after Allianz's Withdrawal of Bid for Stake in Income Insurance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has initiated any further actions within the purview of the Co-operative Societies Act since Allianz Europe BV's (Allianz) withdrawal of its offer to acquire a 51 percent stake of Income Insurance Limited (Income) on 16 December 2024; and (b) what are the lessons learnt by the Government from the proposed sale of a controlling stake in Income to Allianz and the decision by Allianz to withdraw its offer.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: At the Parliamentary Sittings on 14 and 16 October 2024, the Government had explained why it would not be in the public interest for the proposed sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance Limited (Income) to Allianz Europe B.V. (Allianz) to proceed and why the Government had decided to amend the Insurance Act to stop the deal. Minister Chee Hong Tat and I also addressed a wide range of questions from Members during those Sittings. [Please refer to \"Pre-conditional Voluntary General Offer by Allianz for Income Insurance\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Ministerial Statements section; and \"Insurance (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Second Reading Bills section.]
Allianz and Income are both corporate entities and not subject to the Co‑operative Societies Act. This was why the Government intervened to stop the deal by way of amendments to the Insurance Act, and no further action within the purview of the Co-operative Societies Act is required.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) is considering future amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act to enable the Government to have stronger levers over co-operative societies that may wish to be corporatised. When ready, MCCY will table the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act in Parliament for discussion and approval.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of MediSave for Full or Part Payment of Shingles Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will consider allowing Singaporeans to use their MediSave to make payment or part payment for their shingles vaccination in view of the high cost of vaccination.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in the oral reply to Question No 72 at the 4 February 2025 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Use of MediSave for Shingles Vaccination\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidents Where Airline Passengers Are Left on Aerobridges or Locked Out of Arrival Gates at Changi Airport","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many incidents of passengers being left on aerobridges or locked out of arrival gates at Changi Airport have occurred in the past five years; (b) whether ground handling agents are required to report such incidents and what penalties apply for lapses; (c) how does the Ministry regulate adherence to protocols to assist vulnerable passengers during disembarkation; and (d) whether the Ministry requires measures to be implemented to ensure seamless coordination and prevent similar oversights in the future.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Based on past records, the recent incident on 29 December 2024 is the first at Changi Airport where arriving passengers were left on an aerobridge upon disembarkation and the arrival gate was locked before they left the aerobridge.
In line with international industry practices, it is the responsibility of airlines, assisted by their appointed ground handling agents (GHAs), to ensure that all passengers safely disembark from the aircraft and exit the aerobridge, before the aerobridge door leading to the terminal is locked.
In the 29 December 2024 incident, the airline's crew did not see the three affected passengers when they were waiting at the aerobridge after disembarkation and had mistakenly indicated to the GHA that the aerobridge was clear of passengers. The GHA staff did not conduct a thorough check along the entire section of the aerobridge before locking the door, which should have been done as part of the standard operating procedure.
A staff from the GHA's service provider for persons with reduced mobility had accompanied the affected passengers, as one of them required wheelchair assistance. She made phone calls to various parties to unlock the aerobridge door, but she did not call Changi Airport Group's (CAG's) emergency hotline, which is the right number to call in such situations. There was, therefore, a delay in unlocking the door and the affected passengers remained at the aerobridge for around 16 minutes before CAG was alerted and the door was unlocked.
The airline has apologised to the affected passengers and provided them with compensation for the incident. The airline has also worked with its GHA to remind the airline's crew and ground staff to improve on their coordination. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and CAG have shared the learning points from this incident with other airlines and GHA staff to avoid future recurrence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Demerit Points Status in Singpass App and Traffic Police Online Platforms for Driving Licence Holders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what channels exist for driving licence holders to clarify their demerit points status in situations where the Singpass app and Traffic Police online platforms provide different information to the user; and (b) how often is such information updated across Government e-services systems.
Mr K Shanmugam: After the Traffic Police (TP) verifies the identity of the motorist involved in an offence, TP will send him a notification letter on his demerit points status and update this on the online Electronic Driver Data Information and Enquiry System. Licence holders can visit the Singapore Police Force's (SPF's) e-Services portal, under \"Traffic Matters\", to check the status of their demerit points, which is updated daily.
Driving licence information, which includes demerit points status, is also sent daily to MyInfo, the Government's digital personal data platform. The Singpass application draws personal data from the MyInfo database on a monthly basis. However, Singpass users can also tap the refresh button in the Singpass application at any point in time to retrieve the most up-to-date personal data.
Based on public feedback, TP found an error with the demerit points information displayed on the Singpass application, for motorists who accumulate 24 or more demerit points. In such cases, the Singpass application would incorrectly reflect their total demerit points as \"zero\". TP has been working with its vendor since December 2024 to rectify the issue and expects to resolve it by early February 2025.
In the meantime, members of the public should treat the SPF e-Services portal as the authoritative source of information on demerit points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Quantum Office's Technology Breakthrough Targets and Strategies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the National Quantum Office (NQO) has identified specific quantum technologies breakthroughs which Singapore aims to achieve; (b) whether building infrastructure without defining target breakthroughs is NQO's strategy; and (c) what historical precedents support this approach's effectiveness.
Mr Heng Swee Keat (for the Prime Minister): The National Quantum Office has identified specific goals under the National Quantum Strategy (NQS), with resources and efforts directed towards specific quantum areas and technologies accordingly. The National Quantum Processor Initiative, for example, funds projects to develop quantum processor prototypes using promising approaches, such as trapped ions and neutral atom arrays. Another example is the National Quantum Sensor Programme, which funds efforts to develop quantum sensor solutions in remote sensing, biomedical sensing and imaging, and Position, Navigation and Timing.
To complement these directed efforts, the NQS also supports ground-up investigator-led research, capability development through various schemes, such as scholarships for quantum PhD and Master's students, and industry collaborations. The different prongs are part of a broader coordinated approach to build up talent, knowledge and capabilities and position Singapore strategically in this nascent and evolving field.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Jobs Created for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, and Tax Contributions by Family Offices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in view of the four-fold increase in the number of family offices between 2020 and 2024 (a) how many jobs have they created in total; (b) how many more jobs are they expected to create, as a whole, over the next five years; (c) how many jobs are filled by Singapore citizens and permanent residents, as opposed to foreigners; and (d) what is the total tax revenue that these family offices are expected to contribute in the current fiscal year.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): We will focus on Single Family Offices (SFOs) that have been awarded the Monetary Authority of Singapore tax incentives. They have to meet annual requirements on assets under management, headcount, business spending and deployment of funds to specific assets. SFOs contribute to the growth of the asset management industry and increase demand for ancillary services, such as in private banking, legal and tax advisory, accounting and fund administration. SFOs receiving tax incentives currently employ about 2,200 locals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Single Family Offices Awarded Tax Incentives and Plans for Licensing of These Offices under Securities and Futures Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) over the past four years, how many singe family offices (SFOs) that have been set up have been awarded tax incentives; (b) whether MAS has any plans to seek SFO licensing and regulation under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), similar to multifamily offices; and (c) if not, what considerations may lead MAS to decide to do so.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The number of Single Family Offices (SFOs) awarded tax incentives grew from 400 as at end 2020 to over 2,000 as at end 2024.
SFOs manage only the monies of the family and do not serve third-party clients and, thus, are not subject to licensing under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). This is similar to the approach taken by other major jurisdictions. Notwithstanding, as set out in the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') response to the consultation paper on \"Proposed Framework for Single Family Offices\", MAS will be introducing a licensing class exemption framework for SFOs which will require them to notify MAS of their presence and comply with specific requirements to ensure that all SFOs are subject to anti-money laundering controls.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policies to Incentivise Private Households' Solar Power Generation and Contribution towards Renewable Energy Goals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view that households which sell electricity to the grid are paid significantly lower than the purchase price of electricity (a) whether the Ministry will conduct a review of its policies in order to create a more incentivising framework for private household solar power generation; and (b) what further steps will be taken to maximise the potential contribution of private homeowners towards Singapore's renewable energy goals.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In recent years, the Government has simplified and facilitated the installation of solar panels in private residential properties. With the declining cost of solar panels, the current payback period for a residential solar power system can be as short as five years. Installed private residential solar capacity has thus increased from around 11 megawatt-peak in June 2019, to around 59 megawatt-peak in June 2024. This is about 5% of total installed solar capacity in Singapore currently and in line with the estimated contribution of the private residential sector to Singapore's overall solar potential. We have no current plans to introduce further incentives for solar deployments.
As for the rate that homeowners receive for selling electricity, it depends on who they sell electricity to. If they sell electricity to SP Group, the rate is the regulated tariff net of the grid charge. The grid charge is collected by SP Group to recover grid maintenance costs. If they sell electricity to other retailers, the rate is based on the prevailing half-hourly wholesale electricity price, which varies depending on demand and supply conditions and does not include the grid charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Singaporeans' Reduced Mother Tongue Language Fluency on Career Opportunities with Foreign Firms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the reduced fluency in mother tongue languages amongst Singaporeans have impacted the opportunities for the hiring and promotion of Singaporeans by overseas firms with offices in Singapore; (b) if so, what is the extent of such opportunity loss; and (c) how does the Ministry plan to strengthen the ability of Singaporean workers to capture such opportunity.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We do not have data on how fluency of mother tongue languages (MTL) impact Singaporeans' hiring and promotion opportunities.
Hiring and promotion decisions are based on multiple factors, including the employees' skills relevant to the company's needs. The Ministry of Trade and Industry works closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Ministry of Manpower to ensure that our education and training programmes equip Singaporeans with industry-relevant and market-ready skills so that Singaporeans remain globally competitive and ready to seize good job opportunities.
On language skills, MOE supports every student to learn their MTL to as high a level as possible by providing a differentiated curriculum to cater to a wide range of abilities. In addition, SkillsFuture Singapore has worked with key partners to provide a range of language training programmes, including curated business language training programmes, for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Ownership and Operating Leases of Local Minimarts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many local minimarts are currently (i) chain-operated and (ii) operated by sole proprietors; and (b) how many of these minimarts are currently (i) operating under leases with private landlords and (ii) leasing directly from HDB.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: There are 2,947 local minimarts1 in Singapore. Of these, 1,172 are chain-operated and 1,338 are run by sole proprietors2. As of 1 January 2025, 712 minimarts lease their premises directly from the Housing and Development Board3. The Government does not track the number of minimarts operating under leases from private landlords.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Latest figures available as of 2023. Local minimarts refers to all minimarts registered under the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, regardless of equity source. Source: Department of Statistics","2 : Latest figures available as of 2023. A sole proprietor may run more than one minimart, and such minimarts would be simultaneously classed as chain-operated minimarts. Source: Department of Statistics","3 : Source: Housing and Development Board"],"footNoteQuestions":["6"],"questionNo":"6"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support, Rehabilitation and Counselling for Adolescents Found Using Drug-laced E-vaporisers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what support systems are available for adolescents found using drug-laced e-vaporisers; and (b) how is the Ministry working with social service agencies to provide rehabilitation and counselling services to these adolescents.
Mr K Shanmugam: There are differentiated pathways for the drug rehabilitation and treatment of persons aged under 21, depending on their age and risk assessment levels.
Youth abusers aged below 16, or older youths who are caught for drug consumption for the first time and assessed to be of a low risk of reoffending, may be placed on the Youth Enhanced Supervision (YES) Scheme, which is managed by Social Service Agencies (SSAs) appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development. This scheme teaches youth abusers relapse prevention skills to help them desist from drug abuse. At the same time, they are required to undergo regular urine or hair tests conducted by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). YES Scheme caseworkers also work closely with the youths’ families and key stakeholders, such as schools and community agencies, to create a supportive environment that sustains the youths' progress and rehabilitation.
Youth abusers between the ages of 16 to below 21 who are assessed to have a moderate risk of reoffending will be placed in the Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC). The CRC provides a structured living environment for them, allowing them to continue with their studies or work while undergoing rehabilitation in the community. In the CRC, youths are provided drug intervention programmes, casework and counselling services to build resilience against drug addiction and strengthen family ties. They will also undergo career counselling, life skills programmes, participate in sports activities and receive mentoring. This is to build up their social capital and support their re-integration back to the community. The CRC works with partners, like the Community Development Councils, Family Service Centres, religious organisations and other SSAs.
Youth abusers between the ages of 16 and below 21 who are assessed to have a high risk of reoffending or are repeat abusers, will undergo treatment and rehabilitation at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC). The DRC provides intensive rehabilitation tailored to the individual's rehabilitation needs. This includes psychological-based interventions targeting drug use habits, family programmes that equip them with relationship skills and vocational training to enhance employability.
As part of the DRC regime, the youths may be emplaced on community-based programmes to facilitate their re-integration into the community. Depending on their risk and reintegration needs, the youths may reside at home, a day-release camp or at a halfway house. During this phase, they will be subject to supervision conditions, such as electronic monitoring, mandatory reporting, regular urine testing and counselling. Singapore Prison Service's Re-integration Officers also work closely with case managers to support the youths' re-integration needs.
After their release from the DRC or CRC, the youths will be emplaced on a supervision order under CNB and will undergo regular urine or hair tests to detect and deter relapse.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Accidents Involving Lorries Ferrying Passengers, and Casualties and Deaths Resulting from These Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Home Affairs from July 2023 to January 2024 (a) what is the number of accidents involving lorries that are ferrying passengers; and (b) what are the numbers of casualties and deaths from these accidents, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam: There were 49 accidents involving lorries ferrying passengers in the rear deck from July 2023 to January 2024, which resulted in 168 casualties with injuries, from all parties involved in the accident, and no deaths.
Out of the 168 casualties, 127 were passengers in the rear deck. None was seriously injured.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delayed Announcement of Arrests and Detention of Three Persons under Internal Security Act in November 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the arrests and detention of three men under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in November 2024 (a) why are these actions not made public immediately; and (b) whether future detentions under the ISA will be made public immediately and, if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Internal Security Department publicises all cases dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA) as soon as practicable. They are publicised after investigations have concluded and it is operationally appropriate to do so. Prematurely publicising such cases runs the risk of jeopardising ongoing investigations and operations. For example, individuals dealt with under the ISA for terrorism-related involvement, may be part of broader terrorist networks or cells or have terror-linked associates, who could bring forward attack plans or conceal their tracks if alerted to security actions. As part of investigations, there may also be a need to work with foreign intelligence and security counterparts to coordinate investigations and security actions against the foreign contacts linked to the individual.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Elder and Child Abuse Cases from 2015 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in each year from 2015 to 2024, how many cases of (i) elder abuse and (ii) child abuse by domestic helpers have taken place; (b) what are the penalties for such abuse cases; and (c) what is being done to reduce such abuse cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police does not actively track the data that the Member asked for, so the data between 2015 and 2021 is not readily available. From 2022 to 2024, there were about 45 reported cases each year involving migrant domestic workers (MDWs) suspected of abusing their charges; of which about 30 cases involved a child and 10 cases involved an elderly person whom they were caring for.
An MDW who abuses an elderly person or a child can be liable for an offence under the Penal Code or the Children and Young Persons Act. The maximum penalties for these offences range from two years' imprisonment to life imprisonment. In addition, the Penal Code provides for enhanced punishments for certain offences committed against victims who are substantially unable to protect themselves from abuse due to mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity; and minors below 14 years old.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has measures in place to notify MDWs about Singapore's laws. First-time MDWs and employers are guided on fostering relationships with each other through the Settling-In-Programme (SIP) and the Employers' Orientation Programme respectively. At SIP, MDWs are educated about their responsibilities and the legal consequences for committing criminal offences, including those related to causing hurt to others. MOM also engages MDWs and their employers through social media and other outreach channels to provide resources aimed at helping MDWs better manage stress, communicate well with their employers and seek help if they are not coping well.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Speeding Violations Caught by Red-light Cameras since 1 April 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of speeding violations caught by red-light cameras to date since the speed enforcement function in red-light cameras was activated on 1 April 2024.
Mr K Shanmugam: Between 1 April 2024 and 31 December 2024, 20,919 speeding violations were detected by red-light cameras with the speeding enforcement function activated.
12 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is being done to ensure that illegal and unregistered weapons are not produced within Singapore through the use of 3D printing techniques that produce 3D objects from digital models.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Arms and Explosives Act, it is an offence to manufacture a weapon without a licence, including through three-dimensional (3D) printing. There are severe penalties under the Arms and Explosives Act, including imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to $10,000. Furthermore, any person who assists with producing 3D-printed weapons may also be prosecuted for abetment of offences under the Arms and Explosives Act or the Arms Offences Act.
In the first half of 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs will operationalise the Guns, Explosive and Weapons Control Act (GEWCA), which will further strengthen controls over the manufacture of weapons. Among others, GEWCA will introduce a new offence for the unauthorised possession of digital blueprints of guns or major parts of guns for 3D printing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference between Median Monthly Rent for Hawker Stalls in 2023 and Those Tendered Out before 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the difference between the median monthly rent for hawker stalls in 2023 and the median monthly rent for hawker stalls tendered out (i) up to three years ago (ii) between three to six years ago and (iii) more than nine years ago, with a breakdown by those managed by NEA and those at the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) puts vacant cooked food stalls at its hawker centres up for tender every month to ensure that stalls are allocated in a fair and transparent manner. The median rent for successful tenders was around $1,800 in 2023. Under NEA's policy, the rental of successfully tendered stalls are adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rent at the end of their initial three-year tenancy term. As a result, the median monthly rent for all non-subsidised cooked food stalls in hawker centres managed by NEA has remained relatively stable at around $1,250 between 2015 and 2023.
At Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs), stall rentals are proposed upfront by SEHC operators in their tender bids to NEA. The operators are not allowed to vary hawkers' rent over their tenancy term or subject the stall rentals to bidding. As of 2023, there were 12 SEHCs in operation and the median stall rent is $1,700.
There are many factors, such as location, stall sizes, food types and competition from other food and beverage outlets in the vicinity, that attribute to the varying rentals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase Capacity of Rubbish and Recycling Bins in Publicly Accessible Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether there are plans to work together with waste collection and recycling companies to increase the capacity of rubbish bins and recycling bins in spaces accessible to the members of the public including HDB estates, to encourage and ensure timely and proper handling of recyclables as well as general waste.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors the waste disposal trends across housing estates in Singapore and works closely with appointed Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) to ensure the timely collection of refuse and recyclables. This helps to maintain estate cleanliness and safeguard public health. Under the public waste collection contracts, NEA can direct PWCs to increase the frequency of refuse and recyclables collection when necessary. NEA has exercised this provision when needed, for example, during festive seasons where waste generation tends to increase. There are, therefore, no plans to increase the capacity of refuse and recycling bins.
We encourage members of the public to practise proper etiquette, such as by flattening cardboard boxes, when using refuse and recycling bins to help maximise their capacity and contribute to keeping our environment clean.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Educating Students and Parents on Dangers of Using E-vaporisers Laced with Controlled Substances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what initiatives are in place to educate students and parents about the dangers of using e-vaporisers laced with substances like etomidate and ketamine; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to collaborate with social service agencies to address this issue.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a firm stance against substance abuse. In schools, students learn about Singapore's laws and regulations concerning illegal substances, their harmful consequences and new developments to be mindful of. Students are taught to recognise impulsive and addictive behaviours and are equipped with skills for self-control and managing negative peer influences. Schools share resources with parents to raise awareness of the consequences of substance abuse and strategies to support a substance-free lifestyle.
MOE also works closely with the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Health Promotion Board on preventive education and enforcement. This includes collaborations to raise awareness among students, parents and social service agencies of the illegality and harms of any new or emerging substances. When schools are informed of substance abuse cases, including those identified by social service agencies, they work with enforcement and social service agencies to rehabilitate the students and support their well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Improve Adaptive Problem-solving Skills among Singaporean Adults","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education in view of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study of adults' literacy in the latest cycle from 2022 to 2023 which awarded Singapore a score that aligns with the OECD average, whether measures are being taken by SkillsFuture Singapore to improve adaptive problem-solving skills among adults.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been addressed as part of the oral reply to Question Nos 2 to 7 at the Sitting of 8 January 2025. [Please refer to \"Addressing Survey Findings Which Showed Decline in English Literacy Skills amongst Older Workers and Average Scores for Adaptive Problem-solving\", Official Report, 8 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Yale-NUS College (YNC) Faculty Members Taking Up Positions at NUS after YNC's Closure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Education what proportion of Yale-NUS College (YNC) faculty members hired before the closure announcement in 2021 will be taking up positions at the National University of Singapore after YNC's closure later this year.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All faculty members of Yale-NUS College hired before August 2021 have been offered positions at the National University of Singapore. About 40% have accepted the offer to date and this proportion may increase as some are still considering their offers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reduction in Cut-off Points for Affiliated Primary School Students to be Admitted to Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for secondary schools with affiliated primary schools to receive reductions in Secondary 1 entry scores; (b) whether the Ministry exercises oversight over the magnitude of the reductions in entry scores applied by each school; and (c) how effective have these secondary schools been in ensuring that the high-scoring students do not fall behind relative to their peers that entered with lower scores.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In Singapore, our goals in education are to spark the joy of learning in students, help them realise their potential and build the foundations for them to be active, contributing members of society. This is why we have a variegated education landscape that offers our students a range of school options catering to their diverse interests, needs and strengths. Affiliated schools contribute to one part of this landscape, with their long history and distinctive school culture.
In achieving this balance, we acknowledge that there are competing policy tensions.
First, we want to right-site our students based on their individual strengths and interests. Now, with Full-Subject Based Banding across our secondary school system, including affiliated schools, we are better able to achieve this today than before.
Second, we recognise that there are some educational merits to school affiliation. For example, the affiliation policy provides schools with a long history and distinctive culture with the opportunity to consistently imbue their school values, ethos and culture into their students over a longer period.
Third, we want to ensure that our society remains open and cohesive; not closed and fractured. This starts in our schools. Even as we support the building of school culture, values and tradition, this must not come at the expense of social cohesion and what we stand for as a nation.
This is why we have evolved our education system over time, as our society matures and faces greater risk of becoming more stratified. One example was when the Ministry of Education (MOE) required affiliated secondary schools to reserve 20% of places for non-affiliated students, when there was none before, from the 2019 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise. With MOE's encouragement, some affiliated schools have also tightened the Affiliate Minimum Requirements that affiliates must meet to be eligible for priority to the school, facilitating greater access for non-affiliated students.
For each year since the 2021 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise, about half of the Secondary 1 cohort of the affiliated secondary schools are from non-affiliated primary schools, with the remaining half from their respective affiliated primary schools. The difference in cut-off points between affiliates and non-affiliates varies depending on the Posting Group. For Posting Group 3, the average difference is about seven points. For Posting Groups 2 and 1, the average difference is smaller, at two and one point respectively, as the ranges of cut-off points in these posting groups are narrower than for Posting Group 3. The median mirrors the average for all three Posting Groups.
While this may be the current balance that we have established for now, we will continue to adjust and make further refinements, as time goes by and circumstances change, so that we can achieve the right balance for the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up and Retention Rates for Work-Study Diploma and Degree Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Education (a) since 2021, what is the take-up rate, in absolute and percentage terms, for work-study diplomas and degrees across sectors and the retention rate of each sector; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider disbursing higher grant support by tranches over the programme period so as to defray the costs of catering for structured training and factoring time to proficiency, for the learners that are borne by the participating organisation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes are co-developed and co-delivered by the Institutes of Higher Learning through classroom training and companies through on-the-job training.
Take-up for these programmes has increased steadily over the years. The number of trainees enrolled in SkillsFuture Work-Study Diploma programmes offered by the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) increased from 500 in 2021 to around 1,300 in 2024, while those enrolled in SkillsFuture Work-Study Degree programmes offered by the Autonomous Universities increased from 300 in 2021 to around 800 in 2023, which is the latest year of complete data.
SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes offered by ITE and the polytechnics require participating employers to hire and train the students in the programme. Based on our recent surveys, around seven in 10 graduates stayed with the company that hired and trained them.
Employers participating in SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes can receive grants of up to $15,000 for each eligible trainee whom they hire and train. We will continue to monitor and review the take-up of SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes among individuals and companies, including whether the employer incentive is sufficient to support on-the-job training costs incurred.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schools Which Conducted Balloting at Phase 2A of 2023's Primary 1 Registration Exercise That Also Had Reduced Intake","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education what is the number of primary schools which required balloting for Primary 1 registration in Phase 2A in 2023 which also had its intake reduced compared to 2003.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Over the past two decades, the school landscape has evolved significantly to better support the educational needs of our students. Besides building new primary schools in growing towns, the Ministry of Education (MOE) also moved all primary schools from double session to single session and reduced class sizes at the Primary 1 and 2 levels to 30 per class. We also merged and relocated schools as well as reduced the intake of some schools, in line with the falling cohort size and demand in that area.
In recent years, MOE has been making changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework. For example, from the 2018 Primary 1 Registration Exercise, children who were enrolled in the MOE Kindergarten located in the primary school became eligible for Phase 2A2 to facilitate their transition into that primary school; and from the 2022 Primary 1 Registration Exercise, we ring-fenced more places for Phase 2C and combined Phases 2A1 and 2A2 into a single Phase 2A. These changes were made to allow more children without prior connections, that is, children whose parents or siblings need not have studied in the school, a higher chance of gaining admission to the school at the Primary 1 Registration Exercise.
Therefore, to the Member's question, it would not be relevant to try to make links between one move and changes in balloting patterns over 20 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Punishment and Schools' Procedures for Handling Bullying following Recent Incident at Admiralty Secondary School","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education whether the recent assault incident on 7 January 2025 in Admiralty Secondary School has triggered a review of current punishment and procedures for handling assault and bullying cases in schools with a view to shifting the current balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: This question has been addressed as part of the oral reply to Question No 1 on 4 February 2025. [Please refer to \"Update on MOE's Probe into Alleged Assault on Student at Admiralty Secondary School on 7 January 2025\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Age Groups of Single Unwed Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for 2023, how many single unwed parents were at the time of the birth of their child (i) below 35 years old (ii) between 35 and 36 years old and (iii) 36 years old and above, respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of Citizen mothers with non-marital births1 in 2023 was 577 for mothers below 35 years old, 27 for those aged 35 years old and 132 for those aged 36 years and older.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on unique individuals in each age band"],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requiring Social Service Agencies to Provide Allowances for Social Work Interns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Government can consider (i) requiring social work graduate interns to be paid an allowance during their period of internship or (ii) providing Government-funded subsidies for approved social service agencies hosting graduate interns to provide basic allowances during their internship.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For students in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) who are participating in internships, IHLs provide host organisations with a recommended allowance range and organisations have the autonomy to decide on the allowance provided to the interns.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development encourages Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to provide students with an allowance, in addition to a positive learning experience, as part of their effort to grow a potential talent pipeline for the sector.
We will continue to work with the IHLs and SSAs to improve the support for students on internships, to strengthen upstream attraction to the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Child Abuse Cases Reported by Unrelated Persons and Public Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the increase in newly reported child abuse cases in 2021 as compared to 2020 as published in the Domestic Violence Trends Report 2024 (a) what proportion of such reports have been made by (i) the public unrelated to the abused or perpetrator and (ii) public institutions, such as schools, hospitals or religious institutions; and (b) how is the Ministry tracking the effectiveness of its various campaigns to raise awareness of domestic violence and the reporting of child abuse.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of calls made to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline (NAVH) has seen a steady increase from around 8,400 in 2021 to 11,600 in 2023. This shows greater awareness of the need to report domestic violence cases, including child abuse.
The proportion of child abuse investigations that were initiated arising from reports by the general public increased from 1% in 2020 to around 2% for the period 2021 to 2023, while the proportion from family members increased from 1% to 2% over the same period. The reports from public institutions, such as schools, hospitals, the Police and other community agencies, accounted for around 95% of cases for the period 2021 to 2023 compared to 98% in 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Literacy and Numeracy Performance and Family Backgrounds of Preschoolers Who Spend Over 40 Hours Per Week in Childcare","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether preschoolers spending extended hours of over 40 hours a week in childcare correlate with poorer English and Mathematics performance in primary and secondary schools in Singapore; (b) how many preschoolers spend over 40 hours a week in childcare; (c) what proportion of these preschoolers are from dual-income households; (d) how many of those parents have flexible work arrangements; and (e) how does ECDA ensure that preschools have the resources to nurture children who spend extended hours in childcare.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government does not track the number of hours that each child spends in preschool. Nevertheless, we note that more parents have been enrolling their children in full-day childcare over half-day programmes to balance their work and family commitments.
The Early Childhood Development Agency has introduced initiatives to equip preschools and educators with resources to improve the quality of care and education in preschools, to better support the holistic development of our young children. For example, we have updated the national learning and development frameworks for children from birth to age six, to guide preschools in designing learning environments and experiences that build on children's growing interests. Last year, we also launched the Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework (SPARK) 2.0, with updated SPARK criteria that focus on quality preschool experiences and children's holistic development.
Crucially, the efforts of preschools to support children's development must be complemented by that of parents, who play an important role as their child's first and most influential teacher. While the Government supports working families with access to affordable and quality childcare services, we also encourage parents to spend more quality time with their children. Parents can bond with their children through daily routines like dinner and bedtime as well as activities like play and reading. Employers also have a part to play, by providing a family-friendly work environment that supports their employees in managing work and caregiving responsibilities in a sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Motivating Productivity Solution Grant Vendors to Update Their Automation and Digital Solution Pricings Given Lowered Commercial Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms See Jinli Jean asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the measures in place to ensure that the Productivity Solution Grant vendors are motivated to update the pricing of their pre-approved automation and digital solutions when there is continual lowering of the cost of such technological products in the commercial marketplace; and (b) how can businesses provide feedback to the Government on the value-for-money quality of pre-approved technology products to ensure that such grant can be best optimised.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) supports businesses' adoption of pre-approved solutions under the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) SMEs Go Digital programme, which aims to help businesses improve productivity and enhance their business processes.
The PSG supports a diverse range of solutions and vendors, which businesses can choose from. This variety promotes price and quality competitiveness among vendors. Businesses are encouraged to choose solutions that best suits their needs and are value for money.
If there are concerns with the quality or pricing of the solutions, businesses can submit their feedback to IMDA on the GoBusiness platform or on the Business Grants Portal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Full NRIC Number in Government e-Services and Plans to Evaluate Security of These E-services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the e-services or transactions with the Government that rely on the user providing their NRIC number and NRIC date of issue; and (b) whether there are any plans to re-evaluate the security of these e-services in light of the recently reported case of unauthorised change of addresses for NRICs.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This question has been addressed in the oral reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 13 to 17 at the 4 February Sitting. [Please refer to \"Assistance for Victims of Incident Involving Address Changes Via ICA System, Punishment for Perpetrators and Remedial Actions to Correct System or Process\", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Eligibility of Divorced or Widowed Foreign Spouses with Singapore Citizen Children to Purchase New or Resale HDB Flats, or Retain Matrimonial Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in respect of divorced or widowed foreigners with a Singapore Citizen child below the age of 21, whether they are eligible to retain ownership of the matrimonial flat or purchase a new BTO flat or resale HDB flat in the open market to enable the family to meet their housing needs.
Mr Desmond Lee: Non-Residents (NRs) are not eligible to purchase the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.
A divorced or widowed NR with a Singapore Citizen (SC) child below the age of 21 can retain the matrimonial flat, if they include an eligible SC or Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) family member who is at least 21 years old as an owner.
If the NR is widowed, HDB may allow the flat to be held in trust by an SC or SPR trustee, on the condition that the flat is transferred to the SC child beneficiary when the child reaches 21 years old. If an NR with an SC child has no other housing options or family support, HDB may allow them to rent a public rental flat in the interest of the child.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Progress of OneMillionTrees Movement and Extent of Singapore's Green Cover","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is Singapore's green cover as of end-2024; and (b) whether Singapore is on track to meet its commitment under the OneMillionTrees movement to plant one million more trees across Singapore by 2030.
Mr Desmond Lee: Today, we have safeguarded more than 7,800 hectares of green spaces in the form of nature reserves, nature parks, gardens and parks and integrated greenery throughout the city. As a result of our greening efforts, Singapore's green cover currently stands at around 40%.
Under the OneMillionTrees movement, we aim to plant one million more trees across Singapore by 2030. Since the launch of the movement in April 2020, we have planted more than 750,000 trees with the help of the community. We are on track to meeting our target.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Approved Applicants for Public Rental Flats Yet to Complete Flat Selection and Average Waiting Times","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) as of 31 December 2024, what is the number of approved applicants for public rental flats who have not yet selected their flats; and (b) what has been the waiting time for rental flat selection, broken down into regions.
Mr Desmond Lee: As at 31 December 2024, there were about 800 approved applicants awaiting allocation of a public rental flat. Of these applicants, about 40% had a chance to select a flat previously but did not do so.
There is no difference in waiting time for rental flat selection by regions, as all approved applicants can select from available rental flats across Singapore. The average waiting time for a rental flat is currently five months, which has reduced from a peak of eight months in 2021 and 2022. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is continuing to work towards further reducing the waiting time.
For applicants who are in urgent need of a rental flat due to exceptional circumstances, HDB will expedite their applications for flat selection on a case-by-case basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Support for Town Councils for Additional Municipal Maintenance Works Related to Climate-related Wear and Tear","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry currently provides any funding support for Town Councils to carry out additional municipal maintenance works for climate-related wear and tear, such as waterproofing repair for older HDB buildings; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing additional schemes to enhance municipal resilience amidst inclement weather occurrences.
Mr Desmond Lee: Town Councils are responsible for maintaining common property, which includes conducting regular inspections and carrying out timely repairs. Over time, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has enhanced support for Town Councils, including on maintenance issues relating to changing climatic and weather conditions. In complex cases, HDB supports Town Councils by conducting joint inspections and providing technical advice, so as to identify the root causes and carry out appropriate repairs expeditiously. HDB also conducts regular training and sharing sessions to deepen the technical and case management skills of Town Councils' officers.
In addition, the Government provides substantial funding to Town Councils, amounting to almost $260 million annually, to offset the costs of estate maintenance. Where repairs to the exteriors of HDB blocks are required, HDB co-shares 50% of the costs under the Facade Finishes Repairs Co-payment Scheme. Town Councils should manage their finances prudently and cater a reasonable amount of contingency funds in their budgeting to cope with unexpected repairs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Durations between Application and Booking Dates for HDB BTO Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for National Development what are the median, lower quartile and upper quartile time periods that elapse between the application for a HDB BTO flat and the flat's booking date.
Mr Desmond Lee: Currently, the number of flat applicants the Housing and Development Board (HDB) shortlists in each public sales exercise is up to three times the flat supply. Shortlisted applicants are invited to book a flat based on their balloted queue position, subject to availability of units and ethnic quota when their turn is due.
For 2024, HDB has completed the flat booking for the Build-To-Order (BTO) exercises launched in February and June that offered a total of about 11,100 flats. For these two BTO exercises, the lower quartile, median and upper quartile time periods between flat application and booking were about 4.5, 5.1 and 5.7 months respectively.
To ensure more efficient allocation of flats, the rules for non-selection of new flats have been tightened from the October 2023 BTO exercise. Since then, the proportion of BTO flat applicants who did not book a flat when invited has halved, from 40% previously to about 19% over the three BTO exercises where the booking has been completed. This has enabled flat buyers to secure their flats more quickly.
With the lower non-selection rate, almost all flats are now booked by applicants queued within the first 200% of the flat supply. Hence, from the February 2025 BTO and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) exercises onwards, HDB will shortlist applicants up to 200% of the flat supply, instead of up to 300%. This will improve system efficiency, enabling HDB to serve shortlisted applicants faster. Flat applicants who are unable to secure a flat can also make alternative housing plans earlier or proceed to apply for the next BTO or SBF exercise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Minimum Annual Leave Entitlements of Full-time Resident Employees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of full-time resident employees who receive only seven days of annual leave are from the bottom 20th percentile wage group; (b) what are the top five sectors where workers commonly receive only minimum annual leave entitlement; and (c) among these workers, what percentage are employed by companies with annual revenue exceeding $10 million.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act stipulates that employees are entitled to a statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave in their first year of service if they have worked with their employer for at least three months. With each year of service, an employee's statutory annual leave entitlement increases by one day, up to a minimum entitlement of 14 days.
As mentioned in our earlier replies to related Parliamentary Questions read on 14 October 2024 and 13 November 2024, 18,800 full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 who were in their first year of employment in 2023 received seven days of paid annual leave. [Please refer to \"Full-time Resident Employees Aged 25 to 64 Receiving Only Seven Days Paid Annual Leave in First Year of Employment\", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Full-time Resident Employees Who Received Only Seven Days of Paid Annual Leave in First Year of Employment\", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
\tThis forms a small percentage, about 1.1%, of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64.
Persons who worked less than one year in their current job are a small group. More detailed estimates about this group, such as by income, industry and firms' annual revenue, are, therefore, not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Non-compliance with Overtime Regulations and Study on Impact on Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, how many cases of inflated job titles to avoid paying overtime have been investigated and what proportion of such cases are substantiated; (b) what are the safeguards to prevent such practices and whether targeted audits are planned; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted studies to assess the impact of non-compliance with overtime regulations on burnout among workers; and (d) what enforcement measures are being considered to combat this issue.
Dr Tan See Leng: The prevalence of misclassification to avoid paying overtime pay remains low. In the past three years, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) received an average of 45 claims per year from employees who felt they were misclassified and denied of overtime. This can include cases where the employee felt that their job titles were being inflated. TADM found about 30% of these claims to be valid and employers were advised to make due compensation. In handling such cases, the employee's job title is not a relevant factor. Rather, each case is assessed individually based on the specific scope of the job, such as the level of decision-making powers in managing a business function.
To safeguard against the non-payment of overtime pay and other breaches of employment laws, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly conducts Workright outreach campaigns and around 5,000 Workright inspections yearly to check on employers' compliance with the Employment Act. Employers found to have lapses will be referred to Employment Act clinics for training and rectification. If the lapses identified are more severe or systemic, we will take a strong stance and more serious enforcement actions, such as fines and prosecution, will be taken.
On the issue of overtime leading to burnout, MOM has so far not conducted studies to assess how non-compliance with overtime regulations impacts burnout. Nonetheless, we have put in place various legislative safeguards to protect the well-being of workers and ensure that they have sufficient rest. For example, employers must provide one rest day per week and are restricted from contractually binding employees to work more than eight hours in one day or more than 44 hours in one week. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers are also required to conduct proper risk assessment of work activities and manage their employees' workload and work shift so as to manage fatigue.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Technical Limitations in Implementing Platform Screen Doors for LRT Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport what are the technical limitations in implementing platform screen doors for the LRT system, similar to those implemented for overground MRT stations in terms of (i) existing trains and (ii) existing platforms respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Platform screen doors require power supply, communications and signal control equipment. As Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations are smaller than Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, it is not practical to install all the above equipment as it will reduce the available waiting area for commuters.
For commuter safety, all LRT stations have fixed barriers, as well as tactile warning studs along the station platform to warn commuters that they are approaching the edge of the platform. Our operators have also put in place detection systems using artificial intelligence and video analytics to detect track intrusions at LRT stations and to alert the staff at the operations control centre so they could respond quickly to these incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback on Bus Services Based on Data from MyTransport.SG and Other Apps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the LTA accepts feedback on bus services based solely on data from the MyTransport.SG app and not from third-party applications that utilise LTA-provided application programming interfaces; and (b) if so, what are the reasons for this limitation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Land Transport Authority accepts feedback from all sources, including via third-party apps or referencing data from third-party apps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Obtaining and Disseminating Threat Intelligence Related to Airline Routes and Ensuring Safety of These Routes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) collaborate with international bodies to obtain and disseminate threat intelligence to Singapore-registered carriers; (b) what criteria are used by CAAS to determine the safety of air routes; and (c) whether CAAS requires Singapore-registered carriers to ensure flight crews are trained and equipped to manage security risks during flights near conflict areas.\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Safety of flights and passengers is a top priority for the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and Singapore-registered air carriers.
We have protocols in place to disseminate threat intelligence to Singapore-registered carriers to ensure they are aware of any ongoing risks in their flight routes. The carriers conduct risk assessments and implement risk mitigation measures before every flight, including taking appropriate measures to avoid conflict zones. They also use threat information from aviation security consultants to develop contingency plans and backup routes, and train their flight crews for rerouting during flights.
CAAS conducts regular safety audits to ensure that Singapore-registered air carriers have proper processes to assess and mitigate flight safety risks, including those arising from conflict zones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply given by the Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang) during Question Time for Question Nos 7 and 8 at the Sitting of 5 February 2025: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): To this end, MOE has devoted significant resources to support students with higher needs. For instance, our schools provide specialised academic intervention for primary and secondary school students who need more support to build their literacy and numeracy foundation through the Learning Support Programme and the Learning Support for Mathematics. Schools also have partnerships with volunteers and self-help groups that provide affordable academic support. One example is the Collaborative Tuition Programme, which provides students, particularly those from lower-income households, with subsidised tuition. [Please refer to \"Potential Impact from Rising Tuition Expenditure on Educational Equity\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Gan Siow Huang circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply made at the Sitting of 5 February 2025. My statement should read as follows:
The Minister of State for Education (Ms Gan Siow Huang): To this end, MOE has devoted significant resources to support students with higher needs. For instance, our schools provide specialised academic intervention for primary school students who need more support to build their literacy and numeracy foundation through the Learning Support Programme and the Learning Support for Mathematics. Schools also have partnerships with volunteers and self-help groups that provide affordable academic support. One example is the Collaborative Tuition Programme, which provides students, particularly those from lower-income households, with subsidised tuition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, and Second Minister for Finance and National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in the reply given by the Minister, Prime Minister’s Office, and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the Motion on “Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families” at the Sitting of 5 February 2025: (proc text)]
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): All in all, factoring our investments in the early childhood sector and upcoming parental leave enhancements, we expect marriage and parenthood initiatives to cost the Government close to $7 billion in FY2026, up from over $4 billion in 2020. That is just for the early childhood sector and the upcoming parental leave enhancements. This is over and above our subsidies for general and higher education as well as our housing subsidies. [Please refer to \"Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No. 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my speech during the Motion on “Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families” at the Sitting on 5 February 2025. My reply should read as follows:
The Minister, Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): All in all, factoring our investments in the early childhood sector and upcoming parental leave enhancements, we expect marriage and parenthood initiatives to cost the Government close to $7 billion in FY2026, up from over $4 billion in 2020. Most of that increase is for the early childhood sector and the upcoming parental leave enhancements. This is over and above our subsidies for general and higher education as well as our housing subsidies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua) during the response to the Adjournment Motion “Helping Our Charities Make a Global Impact” for the Sitting of 5 February 2025: (proc text)]
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua): In 2014, the COC granted a total of 71 permits for organisations to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes. [Please refer to \"Helping our Charities Make a Global Impact\", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Matter raised on Adjournment Motion section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Eric Chua circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction in my response to the Adjournment Motion during the Sitting of 5 February 2025. My statement should read as follows:
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua): In 2024, the COC granted a total of 71 permits for organisations to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6402,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hany Soh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Hany Soh Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Hany Soh Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6403,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Zhulkanain Rahim Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Zhulkanain Rahim Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6404,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Louis Chua Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Louis Chua Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6405,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Faisal Manap Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Faisal Manap Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6406,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Hazel Poa","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Hazel Poa Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Hazel Poa Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6407,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6408,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Razwana Begum Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Razwana Begum Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6409,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Joan Pereira Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6410,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Sun Xueling Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Mandarin.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6411,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Indranee Rajah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20250205/vernacular-Indranee Rajah Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf","fileName":"Indranee Rajah Motion on Families 5 Feb 2025 - Malay.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}