Hansard, Monday, 2 August 2021

1 Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong asked the Minister for Transport what are the transportation infrastructure plans to support the build-up of Tuas Mega Port and increased business activities in Tuas.

the Minister for Transport): The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and agencies have been monitoring the pace of developments in the Tuas area, including the plan for the build-up of operations at Tuas Port up till the 2040s when it will become fully operational. To support the expected increase in travel demand to the area, LTA has been progressively expanding transport provisions.

In 2017, LTA completed the Tuas West Extension by adding four Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations to the East-West Line. This has brought about significant time savings for commuters travelling to the Tuas area. LTA also introduced two new public bus services 247 and 248 to enhance transport connectivity in the Tuas and Tuas South region. Tuas Road Viaduct Phase 1, which improves accessibility to Tuas South and Tuas Port, has also been completed.

The completion of the Jurong Region Line by the second half of this decade will also significantly improve connectivity in the Western region and benefit workers.

LTA and the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) have also worked with PSA to expand the coverage of their employee shuttle services to complement the public bus network.

Agencies will continue to monitor the travel demand, review the adequacy of transport provisions, and engage key stakeholders of the area, such as PSA and the unions.

Mr Shawn Huang.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I understand that in 2019, an assessment was made that the Tuas South MRT Line has insufficient ridership to support a line there. Three years down the road, based on current estimates, will there be an update for this assessment?

Madam, I thank Mr Huang for his question. This is an issue which we will continue to monitor. I have explained in this House previously that the extension of the MRT network will depend on the demand for public transport services. And this is not going to be dependent only on the workers who are going to PSA, but also on the surrounding industrial area where we are planning to build up some manufacturing capabilities in the vicinity of the port.

So, depending on the developments and also depending on the demand for public transport services, the need to invest additional amount of resources to extend the MRT can then be made based on this more holistic and complete picture.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would just like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are any plans to expand the road network or to increase the capacity of current expressways or roads leading to Tuas and the Tuas Mega Port area, specifically, for road transport and logistical purposes? And if so, when will these constructions be taken?

Madam, this network of roads leading to the port is important. As Mr Tan pointed out, we want to make sure that for the container trucks and also other vehicles that are travelling to and from the port, there will be sufficient capacity to cater to this requirement.

It is an ongoing review. The development of the port will not happen in one phase but over a period of time; demand will build up. And therefore, the development of the road infrastructure to support port operations would also have to be reviewed in tandem with how we scale up the operations of Tuas Port.

2 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the estimated percentage of marine debris that originates from (i) disposal of waste from ships and (ii) floating debris from neighbouring countries; and (b) if such data is not currently collected, whether the Ministry will start collecting the data.

(for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in 2019 and 2020, the National Environment Agency (NEA) cleared, on average, about 3,500 tonnes of marine debris that washed onto our beaches each year, while the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) collected, on average, about 1,000 tonnes of flotsam from the sea each year. However, apportioning this marine litter to different sources is inherently challenging, as there is currently no internationally accepted methodology to conclusively determine the origins of transboundary marine litter.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Madam. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I think we have the very beautiful upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park, which I think is going to be covered by marine trash and these alarming figures that the Minister of State has just mentioned. Clean-up after clean-up, we realise that it really and truly is never-ending.

So, I am just wondering whether the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) can study this. By looking at the packaging labels, we can sort of determine where the trash came from. So, whether we can do some baseline study so that we can address the root of the problem.

Secondly, as part of the Parliamentary Question, I think it is really an issue of the ships throwing their trash into the waters as well. So, can MSE also look into this and address these root causes?

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The bulk of our beach litter comes from the marine trash that are brought in by our natural tidal waves. Given that our monsoon seasons are twice a year, it does not really help. The Member did suggest maybe looking at the labels of the trash and from the labels, we probably can tell where it was made, but it is unlikely to be able to confirm where the litter is thrown from.

I will take the opportunity to also explain what are the things that have already been done by the Government to try to minimise and reduce the marine trash and marine pollution.

First of all, we have strict regulations on pollution control as well as waste disposal. This is both from the land-based inland waterways as well as from the ships from the sea, which are currently regulated by MPA.

For land-based sources, NEA administers the Environmental Protection and Management Act as well as the Environmental Public Health Act that governs the discharge of polluting compounds and litter into the waterways such as plastics, chemicals and oil. Our waste management approach in Singapore also ensures that we properly dispose our waste and minimise any waste that is washed into the ocean.

As for the ships, MPA is the agency that implements regulations to minimise marine pollution through the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, or PPSA. Any form of disposal into the sea from the ship, is currently prohibited and any violation can result in fines or imprisonment. Ships are also required to maintain records of all their garbage and management plans for verification by inspectors. I understand that MPA today, on average, sends out five garbage collection vessels every day and they have nine additional vessels to pick up the marine trash flotsam from the sea.

At the regional level, Singapore, along with ASEAN member states, continues to adopt the Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in ASEAN Region and the ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris from 2019. We will continue to actively participate to address marine debris pollution and to contribute to initiatives and ideas that can help ASEAN's collective as well as individual capabilities to address the marine pollution issue.

These are the existing measures. We recognise that despite all these regulations, there are still tonnes of garbage that are swept onto our beaches every day. These are important places that our residents and our people value. We thank the many community groups and individuals for stepping forward to keep these clean. NEA will continue to do its part to step up on the cleaning, especially during the monsoon seasons.

One last point. I wish to mention that to better understand the marine litter situation in Singapore, NEA has recently embarked on a two-year study to gain a better understanding of the levels as well as the pathways of marine litter and micro-plastics in Singapore's inland waters, coastal waters as well as recreational beaches, which could then support recommendations for future marine litter and micro-plastics monitoring programme or initiatives.

I want to caveat at this juncture that it is not clear if the study would be able to explain the causes or the origins of the debris but we think that is an important step forward.

3 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the number of licensed cleaning businesses that have failed to comply with the Progressive Wage Model since its implementation in 2014; (b) what actions have been taken against these companies; and (c) what efforts are taken to professional the cleaning industry and promote good practices to transform the industry.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, since the introduction of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) until 31 May 2021, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has imposed financial penalties against 57 licensed cleaning businesses and issued warning letters to 52 cleaning businesses for failing to comply with requirements under the PWM, such as failure to pay eligible cleaners bonuses or progressive wages.

Under the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map, strategies and initiatives have been developed to professionalise the cleaning workforce through the adoption of technology, upskilling of cleaners and improving procurement practices. These will help to build a professional, skilled and manpower-lean cleaning workforce and drive the adoption of good practices within the industry.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. I must say that I am heartened to know that companies were caught for breaching this and I am happy to know that the workers are given such strong support.

Based on industry feedback, some companies may try to circumvent the latest PWM requirement. They do this by cutting corners at the expense of service delivery to service buyers, engaging in non-licensed cleaning businesses and so on. Will NEA consider a whistle-blower system that will help in ensuring both buyers of cleaning services and cleaning companies comply with the intricacies of the PWM, such as fair contracts to achieve the desired social outcomes?

I would like to thank the Member for his interest in protecting our cleaners. The short answer to his question is yes, we will consider anyone who informs us about non-compliance. NEA and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, together with the Ministry of Manpower, will conduct enforcement checks.

4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the progress of regulatory approval of the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine; (b) when does Singapore expect to receive its first shipments of this vaccine for which advance purchase orders have already been placed; and (c) whether there plans to expedite the acquisition and approval of this vaccine in Singapore.

5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether short-term visit pass (STVP) holders are eligible for any vaccination schemes in Singapore; (b) if yes, when was this available to such individuals and how many have been vaccinated; and (c) if not, whether the Multi-Ministry Task Force will allow STVP holders who live in close contact with long-term residents to be eligible for the vaccination schemes.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I please address Question Nos 4 and 5?

Yes, please go ahead.

My answer will also cover Written Question No 23 from today's Order Paper as well as the Oral questions filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng1 and Mr Gerald Giam2 for future Sittings.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the national vaccination programme has been progressing well. As of 31 July 2021, 61% of our population have completed the full vaccination regimen. We are also making steady progress with our seniors: 79% of those aged 70 and above have been vaccinated with at least one dose. More seniors are coming forward to be vaccinated; each day, about 1,000 seniors sign up for their first dose.

We have to continue encouraging our seniors to get vaccinated because they are the most vulnerable to serious illnesses. More than 96,000 or 21% of seniors aged 70 and above have not booked a vaccination appointment. This is six percentage points higher than the general population. We will continue to reach out to as many seniors as possible and encourage them to get vaccinated. Staff and volunteers from the People's Association and the Silver Generation Office have intensified their outreach efforts through house visits and engagement dialogues. They are trained and equipped with an information kit to correct misinformation about mRNA vaccines and allay the fears of seniors. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has also called on all primary care providers to persuade seniors who are their regular patients to go for their COVID-19 vaccinations.

Our mobile vaccination teams have started to provide bed-bound and less mobile seniors with vaccinations in their homes or in the heartlands. The service has started in a few towns with a higher proportion of seniors and complements the main vaccination efforts at the vaccination centres, all of which are wheelchair-accessible. Individuals who have received one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine but are unable to receive the second dose due to allergic reactions have been invited to take the Sinovac or Coronavac vaccine. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has established a dedicated public health programme for them to be vaccinated at a clinic in public hospitals for closer monitoring, considering their previous allergic reaction. These individuals, who receive one dose of the mRNA vaccine and then complete the vaccination process with Sinovac or Coronavac, will be considered as fully vaccinated.

This group of individuals who are allergic to the mRNA vaccines may also choose to wait for the Novavax vaccine that MOH has procured and expects to be delivered by the end of the year. MOH and the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) are working closely with Novavax to facilitate the regulatory submission for their protein subunit vaccine. The review timeline will depend on the availability and the submission of data by the company to HSA. While we recognise the need to facilitate timely access to the vaccine, there should be no compromise on the scientific rigour of the assessment of their quality, safety and efficacy.

As for the Sinovac vaccine, on 5 July 2021, the company submitted to HSA the critical data requested by the agency for PSAR approval. HSA is conducting a careful and thorough review of the data and aims to complete its evaluation before the end of August. The national vaccination programme will cover all who make Singapore their home or who are here for an extended period of time. We are reviewing how short-term pass holders, such as those who are more vulnerable and who have been in Singapore on an extended basis due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, may receive vaccinations. We will announce details later.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Madam. I know quite a number of people, including some of my residents, are eagerly awaiting the approval of the Novavax vaccine which is a protein-based non-mNRA vaccine, while people who have had allergic reactions to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine are unable to take the second dose. If they get the Novavax vaccine, similar to the Sinovac vaccine, would they be able to be considered fully vaccinated?

Secondly, some seniors are genuinely concerned about the safety of vaccines, possibly because of the many private messages they might have received about people suffering adverse effects after getting the jabs. Can I ask if MOH can strive to provide more detailed information and updates in response to widely-circulated reports of adverse reactions to the vaccines so that these incidents do not get imprinted in people's minds as this may lead to further hesitancy?

Lastly, just a quick question. Will international students, including those studying in private schools in Singapore, be allowed to get vaccinated and are there plans to open up the vaccines to other non-residents once there is sufficient supply, possibly at a fee?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions.

The first question was whether, if somebody had a first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and had an allergic reaction and completed the process through Novavax, would they be considered fully vaccinated? So, that is taking the analogy from what I have just described as a process where you take one dose of an mRNA vaccine and a second dose of the Sinovac or Coronavax vaccine.

I think the first thing is that we should not try to second-guess or jump the gun on the professional process that needs to be undergone through our Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination (EC-19 Committee). We need the data submitted by Novavax. We need to study it and make sure that it meets the standards of quality, safety and efficacy. And, in principle, if it does meet those same standards, I see no reason why it should not be considered in the same way as the other processes that I have just described. But I think it is premature at this point to guarantee that it will be. We will get the data, will put it through the process and then we will announce the details later on.

Mr Gerald Giam brought up a very important point, which is that seniors can get concerned about private messages spreading vaccine misinformation or disinformation. Indeed, MOH continues to try to push back against this by putting out information and infographics. Everyone has a responsibility. It is not just MOH, but, as a society, we do need to make sure that we are providing everyone – our families, our friends, our workplace context – reliable information and not inadvertently spreading misinformation and disinformation. We need to give them access to where they can also educate themselves and seek more information. So, MOH will continue to call out false news, disinformation, put out timely facts and clarifications through the media, as well as our various social media platforms. We try to maintain a sort of a central repository of this at the MOH website and at gov.sg/resources.

Mr Gerald Giam then asked about the possibility of international students and other non-residents receiving the vaccination. As I have explained, we are studying how, when and the process through which people who are here for a shorter period of time can potentially get the vaccine and details will be announced later.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Madam. I just have a point of clarification or supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. Can I just ask what are the considerations that are given to whether STVP holders will eventually be eligible for the vaccine, given, after all, a lot of them are living very closely with our longer-term residents or even Singaporeans and PRs within the community? So, what are the reasons why they were not initially considered to be eligible for vaccinations and what are the considerations now when the Senior Minister of State has indicated that there is a review ongoing? When will we expect to hear the outcome of this review?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. The process is ongoing. In general, we will apply similar principles which are around risks and whether the person is at risk in terms of COVID-19. So, age is, of course, a consideration, as well as risks to the people around them – the settings in which they live, the circumstances in which they find themselves. So, there are a variety of considerations that we take into account.

6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the proportion of self-employed persons that could not receive their COVID-19 Recovery Grants due to their insufficient MediSave payments.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Member, Mr Leon Perera1 has also filed a question on the proportion of rejected applications due to the job search and training requirement for the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) for a subsequent Sitting. I will address both Questions in this reply. May I, Mdm Deputy Speaker?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Both CSG and CRG assist lower to middle income resident employees who, as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19, are:

Involuntarily unemployed due to retrenchment or contract termination;

Placed on involuntary no-pay leave for at least three consecutive months; or

Experiencing significant salary loss for at least three consecutive months.

CRG also supports self-employed persons (SEPs) who experience significant loss in net trade income for at least three consecutive months. Applications for the CSG closed on 31 December 2020, while CRG is open for applications until 31 December 2021.

For both CSG and CRG, applicants experiencing job loss are required to provide supporting documents for their job search or training efforts. They can include attending job interviews or applying for training opportunities via Government-linked touchpoints like the MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture portals.

Employees who are employed but are experiencing income loss or are on involuntary no-pay-leave are exempted from this criterion because they are still working or may be recalled to work and, hence, will face more difficulty committing to job search or training. SEP applicants who wish to remain in their current sector or trade can provide supporting evidence of their attempts to contact new clients or search for new business opportunities, in lieu of job search and training. We have also implemented the COVID-19 Recovery Grant – Temporary (CRG-T), which facilitates quicker assistance to those who are economically affected during this period of Heightened Alert. As it may be challenging for applicants to find jobs or undertake training under the tightened safe management measures, CRG-T does not have job search and training conditions.

Applicants failing to meet the job search or training criterion accounted for less than 1% of unsuccessful CSG applications and around 3% of unsuccessful CRG applications as of 27 June 2021.

The Member also asked about the CRG criterion for SEPs to fulfil their MediSave contribution obligations. All working individuals should regularly contribute to their CPF for their retirement and future healthcare needs. As SEPs do not receive MediSave contributions from employers, they are required to contribute to their own MediSave accounts based on their past years' declared earnings.

To qualify for a second tranche of CRG assistance, SEP applicants should either not have any outstanding MediSave contributions or commit to making contributions via a GIRO instalment plan with CPF Board. We have waived this requirement for those applying for their first tranche of CRG to allow eligible SEPs to receive timely assistance and give them more time to make arrangements for their MediSave contributions. Individuals who do not meet the MediSave contribution criterion make up less than 1% of the unsuccessful CRG applications by SEPs.

I would like to encourage those who do not meet the qualifying criteria for CRG, but are facing extenuating circumstances and need help, to approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs). Our SSOs will look into ways to support them and may also link them to other assistance schemes or community partners for further assistance, if necessary.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Minister for his reply and also the assurance that the SEPs who could not meet MediSave requirements constitute 1% of those who are rejected.

Just one clarification. The Minister mentioned that the Government will consider cases where SEPs still have MediSave arrears, if they will commit to an instalment plan or a GIRO plan, going forward. Bearing in mind that some of the SEPs at the lower end of income may still be very affected by the COVID-19 situation, would such consideration include allowing a time interval before the GIRO plan kicks in? Because some of the SEPs work in certain industries, like MICE and tourism-related, for example, may still face very low income for quite some time, and they may be able to commit to instalment payments of MediSave, but perhaps not so quickly or immediately.

As I mentioned, the number that is rejected on the basis of MediSave contributions is very, very low; less than 1%. This testifies to the commitment by the 99% or more SEPs who actually are very committed to grow their MediSave account, and I think we should compliment them and reward them and not, on the other hand, loosen too much on this MediSave contribution criterion.

Having said that, for everyone who needs help, we will extend help as much as we can. Even if they cannot qualify for CRG, I know, our SSOs look for every other means to help them to ensure that they are not somehow in dire need because of not meeting specific criteria of CRG or other assistance plans.

Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. Just to give us a better sense of the 1%, in absolute numbers, how many individuals are you referring to?

I thank the Leader of Opposition for the question. I do not have the specific number, but to be specific about the percentage, it is 0.04%. So, 0.04% is very, very small.

7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower (a) to date, what is the number of self-employed persons (SEPs) who could have qualified for Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) but are unable to do so because of their lack of MediSave contributions; and (b) whether the Government will consider providing concessions for SEPs to qualify for WIS by having their MediSave eligibility temporarily lowered in light of the COVID-19 crisis or having their MediSave contributions spaced out.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme tops up the incomes of our lower-wage workers, both employees and self-employed persons (SEPs). Eligible SEPs receive up to $2,667 in Workfare payouts a year.

All lower-wage employees and SEPs are required to contribute to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) to benefit from Workfare. This is because Workfare is a permanent scheme. The need to meet CPF obligations is part of Workfare's eligibility criteria and is consistently applied to both employees and SEPs. This ensures that workers continue to take personal responsibility in saving for their long-term retirement and healthcare needs, while receiving Government support via Workfare.

SEPs are only required to contribute to their MediSave accounts after declaring their incomes at the end of the Work Year. They have up to two years to do so. Based on latest available data, among SEPs who met all other Workfare criteria for Work Year 2018, nine in 10 fulfilled the required MediSave contributions and received their Workfare payouts. Complete data on WIS SEP recipients for Work Year 2019 and 2020 are not available, as SEPs have up till 31 December 2021 and 31 December 2022, respectively to make their required MediSave contributions to receive Workfare.

Within the two-year period, SEPs can also choose the mode of payment that best suits their circumstances. SEPs can either pay as a lump-sum or via monthly GIRO instalments. CPF Board also exercises flexibility to help SEPs who are facing financial difficulties, such as reducing monthly instalments by extending the GIRO arrangement, or temporarily deferring monthly instalments. We also consider exceptional appeals on a case-by-case basis. Once the SEP makes the required MediSave contributions in full, they will receive their Workfare payout.

We recognise that this is a difficult period. SEPs who are facing significant income loss and require urgent financial assistance may apply for MSF's COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) or COVID-19 Recovery Grant – Temporary . Taxi and private hire car drivers are also receiving additional financial support from the Land Transport Authority's COVID-19 Driver Relief Fund.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one clarification about what he said. I just wanted to understand if, in fact, SEPs who are unable to make the MediSave shortfall, whether there will be consideration given on a case-by-case basis to defer the time at which they can pay the MediSave or start an instalment plan, but they may still be able to get the Workfare payment before that happens. I believe the Senior Minister of State did refer to that, but I just wanted to clarify.

The reason I ask this is because I think many SEPs are at the lower end of the income scale and very badly hit by COVID-19. A report by DBS Bank, from December last year, said that those of their customers who are earning less than $3,000 a month, had about one-month of emergency funds left. This was in December last year, the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just wondering what is the extent of flexibility the Government will show to SEPs in that position?

I thank the Member for his question. In fact, these are valid concerns, given the current conditions. As I shared in the Ministry of Manpower, we are quite flexible because the SEP has two years to make MediSave contributions and within that, we can provide monthly instalments, or in some cases, as we mentioned, we will put temporary deferment if required.

The difference between the Workfare and CRG, or some of the other assistance schemes, is that, this is more an income top-up supplement as opposed to direct financial assistance that one might get out of SSO or CRG. So, these are slightly different schemes, and therefore, the focus is slightly different too.

For most SEPs, the MediSave contribution is far lower than that of normal employees. For example, most employees are paying about 20% CPF contributions, while the SEPs' payable is 10.5% on average. For lower-income workers, I think it goes even lower than that. To some extent, it is already a low bar and we are giving a long two-year period for SEPs to contribute to MediSave. I think that is generally quite reasonable and certainly, we can give flexibility, where required.

8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, what are the average and median starting salaries of a social worker; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to recommend higher salaries for social workers.

Mdm Speaker, based on the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Manpower and Salary Survey which collected salary data of employees in the social service agencies (SSAs) in 2015, 2017 and 2019, the monthly mean salary of entry-level social workers increased from $3,500 in 2015 and 2017, to $3,600 in 2019, while their monthly median salary increased from $3,400 in 2015 and 2017, to $3,600 in 2019. The figures are comparable with the salaries for all fresh graduates, including those without a Social Work Degree, in those years, based on the Graduate Employment Survey (GES) conducted by the Autonomous Universities.

MSF and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) are committed in guiding the sector to pay competitive salaries for all social service professionals, including social workers. NCSS publishes sector salary guidelines for a range of professions in the social service sector. The guidelines are updated annually to keep pace with competing market and general wage movements. The majority of SSAs adopt the guidelines and we strongly encourage SSAs to adhere to these guidelines to reward and retain good staff.

Madam, I thank the Minister for the reply, but could I ask the second part of the Parliamentary Question, which is whether MSF will be proposing increases to the salaries of social workers in the next financial year? And second, I am sure they are not in it for the money, but I think a good salary would help in terms of retaining social workers where I think there is a problem. So, could I ask MSF what else it is doing to retain social workers?

As I mentioned to the Member and the Members of this House, the guidelines are updated annually to keep pace with a competing market, so it is not just about the competition between SSAs, but also competition for qualified staff that will move out of the sector to other sectors too.

Therefore, we want to make sure that it is at the level, which commensurate with the skills and the market competition that these graduates or social workers can face. I think we should not get ahead of ourselves and we should not intervene with market forces, unless it is drastically bad for our social workers. Even when we do, we must know when to go out and not intervene all the time.

9 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health whether beyond the current utilisation limits for outpatient counselling and inpatient hospitalisation, the Government intends to further tackle the issue of longer term affordability and consistent accessibility for those seeking treatments and medication relating to mental health conditions given that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an adverse impact on our people's mental health and insurance options for mental health conditions are limited.

Madam, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has put in place various support measures to ensure access to affordable mental health services.

At our public health institutions (PHIs), eligible patients can receive up to 80% subsidies for inpatient mental health treatment. They are also covered under MediShield Life and can tap on MediSave to offset their remaining bills, up to prevailing limits. For outpatient treatments, eligible patients can receive up to 75% of subsidies at polyclinics and public specialist outpatient clinics. Patients can also enjoy subsidies of up to $500 per year at participating private general practitioner (GP) clinics via the Community Health Assist Scheme, for the management of mental health conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). In addition, patients can also tap on their MediSave to pay for their outpatient treatment of mental health conditions under the CDMP. Those who are 60 years old and above can additionally tap on the Flexi-MediSave scheme for outpatient expenses.

To ensure that no Singaporean is denied access to appropriate treatment due to inability to pay, MediFund is available at PHIs as a safety net to assist Singaporeans who are unable to afford their mental health treatments despite Government subsidies, insurance and MediSave.

MOH reviews the various financial schemes regularly to ensure they meet the needs of Singaporeans. For example, the MediSave annual withdrawal limit for patients with complex chronic conditions was increased from $500 to $700 from January 2021. The annual limit for Flexi-MediSave was also increased from $200 to $300 from June 2021. Since 1 March 2021, the MediShield Life claim limits for inpatient mental health treatment has been raised to $160 per day for up to 60 days per policy year, from the previous $100 per day for up to 35 days per policy year, which will help to improve patient affordability.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response.

Encouraging help-seeking behaviour is an important part of any mental health strategy. Affordability and the stigma around seeking help are two factors of the many which affect an individual's decision whether or not to reach out for help. For some, the treatment required may be prolonged over several years and can be very expensive. I have two points.

The first is, many young working adults have come up to me and they are worried about the impact of seeking help and having mental health records and how this may affect their career prospects in the future. While there are many good psychiatrists and counsellors in the public health sector, there remains a segment who fear that their mental health records, will be accessible by Government agencies as well as employers. And so, they postpone seeking help because private help remains out of reach. What is the Ministry's assurance and clarity on this point?

The second point is, turning to insurance; Will the Government consider working more closely with private insurers to encourage the provision of affordable and comprehensive mental health coverage for Singaporeans, just like any other medical and surgical coverage? For example, legislation like the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in the US?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. Let me answer the second point. As far as working with insurance companies to further optimise the coverage process and ensure affordability, that is an on-going piece of work. It will continue and the Ministry is committed to working with the stakeholders in order to ensure that it happens. So, the short answer is yes.

To her first question, if I understand her question correctly, it is about the issue of health records and the confidentiality of health records. I think she had asked about the difference in the confidentiality of health records between private practitioners and public practitioners. We should be clear that your health record is held in confidence by your medical care provider, regardless of whether it is a public practitioner or a private practitioner. We have a fair amount of regulation and legislation in order to protect and reinforce that process. I hope I have understood her question correctly.

Ms Raeesah Khan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. I am glad to hear that the withdrawal limit for inpatient treatment is now $160. But the withdrawal limit for physical treatment is $455. Is there going to be a review to, hopefully, equalise this amount?

Secondly, we know that the pandemic has exacerbated a lot of mental health issues. Are there any plans for establishing another tertiary psychiatric institution?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. The withdrawal limits are always under a regular review. The principle is not so much to make sure that there is a completely flat equivalence for all conditions and for all circumstances, but what is the outcome in terms of access and affordability, both bill size, out-of-pocket and the number of incidents of care-seeking behaviour within a period of time for an individual. So, I think it is the outcome that we want to drive in terms of setting withdrawal limits, together with the outcome of a sustainable healthcare system.

As for the provisions of infrastructure in terms of dealing with the pandemic and its effects on mental health, this is a matter that the COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce is looking at, as well as the new Inter-Agency Taskforce on Mental Health. We will be looking at the infrastructure and the service provisions that we need for our mental health needs.

As to whether provision for an extra tertiary hospital is necessary, it is one of the possibilities that the Member has suggested. It is not going to be the only issue that we will be studying. So, it will be looked at and reviewed.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Darryl David –

10 To ask the Minister for Education (a) when can inter-school games and sports competitions be expected to re-commence; and (b) whether more games and sports can eventually be included when the competitions re-commence.

Question No 10, please.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the National Schools Games involves intermingling of students from different schools in largely mask-off settings. As such, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a calibrated approach to the resumption of the games to ensure the safety and well-being of our students.

Earlier this year, MOE announced the cancellation of the remaining National Schools Games for 2021 due to an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases in our community.

Our current plan is to resume all sports in the National Schools Games, in a phased approach, next year in 2022. As majority of our secondary school and junior college and Millennia Institute students would have been vaccinated, we aim to resume all sports for the National Schools Games for this group of students first. As for primary school students, the pace of resumption would depend on whether younger students would be eligible to be vaccinated. If not, we would need to exercise greater caution. For this group of students, similar to what was practised earlier this year, we will resume with low-risk non-contact sports such as badminton, table tennis, tennis and volleyball before higher risk contact sports such as basketball, football, hockey and rugby are considered. If necessary, we will make modifications to the games and competition format to mitigate some of the risk involved in these games.

As inter-school games and sports competitions like the National Schools Games are key student development experiences, integral to our students’ holistic development and overall sense of well-being, we would want to resume these activities as soon as we can and when it is safe to do so.

11 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many Employment Pass and S Pass holders have submitted fabricated or forged education qualification certifications in the past three years in the ICT industry; and (b) whether the Ministry will review and work with only reputable overseas educational institutions with a proven track record for approval of both Employment Pass and S Pass applications.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, good afternoon. From 2018 to 2020, 11 Employment Pass and S Pass holders working in the infocomm technology (ICT) industry were found to have submitted false qualifications to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Their work passes were revoked and they were permanently barred from working in Singapore.

All employers have the primary responsibility to ensure the authenticity and quality of their candidates’ qualifications when submitting work pass applications.

MOM also conducts additional checks by screening the qualifications submitted through our database of institutions. This database is reviewed regularly through our scan of open source reports and research from third-party screening organisations. For applications containing qualifications from institutions that are not in our database, we require employers to submit verification proof from third-party screening organisations to ensure that the qualifications submitted are accredited. We will reject applications containing fake or unaccredited qualifications.

MOM takes a firm stance against foreigners who submit false qualifications to fraudulently obtain work passes. Besides revocation of work passes and debarment from employment in Singapore, we may also prosecute offenders for false declaration under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which carries a fine of up to $20,000 or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. May I know how fast can MOM expedite to screen all these non-accredited result slips that are submitted? Can MOM also elaborate whether they would review their process to pick up the cases faster?

I thank Mr Gan for his supplementary questions. At MOM, we use a predictive fraud model and we stratify the academic institutions according to different levels of risk. For the highest risk, we require the employers to submit, as I have alluded to earlier on, verification proof from a third-party screening organisation as part of the work pass application process. These verification agencies have been pre-assessed by MOM and they are listed on our MOM website. If there is no verification proof that confirms that the diploma and degree qualifications declared are genuine, the application will be rejected.

Of course, there are those on a lower-risk and those that are medium-risk. At different categories, we have a different response mechanism. I hope that answers the Member's question.

Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one point of clarification. When MOM classifies educational institutions by risks, what is the basis for that classification? Is it that certain educational institutions are deemed to be sort of less reputable or less well-accredited and, therefore, they are deemed to be higher-risk and, therefore, third-party verification will be required by the employer?

If so, then what is the assurance that lower-risk institutions may not also be subject to fake educational credentials? For example, someone may fake a degree from a well-known or reputable university. So, what is the assurance in those cases? My supplementary question is, really, what is the basis for this risk tiering?

I thank Mr Leon Perera for his question. For accreditation checks, we have maintained a database over the years as we screened the qualifications, whenever employers submit the respective to-be-hired employees' qualifications. Over the years, as we built the database, we have within our system and also, we compare them with the database from third-party verification agencies that we work closely with. I have also said earlier on that the list of these third-party verification agencies is available on our website. So, through the years, we have built that. We use a combination of data analytics; we screen them. And from that, we then ascertain a risk stratification strategy in which we match all of these applications when they come to us through this database that we have.

To the Member's point about those from accredited universities, or even some of them, Ivy League universities, and whether they can fake these degrees, we do have, from time to time, verification, independent checks where we check with the university concerned. Obviously, we do not do this on 100% of all applications submitted, but based on our predictive analytics, when we find that there is reason for us to have suspicion – and we do have a very high index of suspicion – we then activate this other route where we actually call them for independent checks.

12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry enforce the restrictions on work pass holders carrying on work outside of the designated employer; (b) over the last five years, what is the annual number of cases of work pass holders found to be working for more than one employer at the same time; and (c) what are the penalties for the employer and employee involved.

Madam, under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) work pass holders are only allowed to work for the official employer specified in their work pass card. It is an offence for the work pass holder to perform work for any other person or business entity.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) receives complaints, tip-offs and referrals from members of public as well as other public agencies on possible illegal employment of work pass holders. Based on the information received, MOM will conduct inspections and look into each and every allegation. At the same time, MOM also carries out proactive inspections based on our own analysis and triggers to detect possible illegal employment of work pass holders.

Between 2016 and 2020, MOM issued at least a warning to an average of 160 work pass holders each year who were found to have engaged in illegal employment. All of them were debarred from working in Singapore.

MOM takes a serious view of illegal employment. Work pass holders found to be engaged in illegal employment will face a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 2 August 2021, Vol 95, Issue 35, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

MOM will also debar them from working in Singapore. Likewise, employers who employ any foreigners without a valid work pass will face a fine of up to $30,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. Their work pass privileges will also be suspended.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just a quick clarification, in terms of the things that are being done to ensure compliance and to enforce that there is no moonlighting involved, I am just wondering how has the approach that the Ministry has taken evolved over the last five years, in terms of improving its processes to ensure that these cases are being picked up. A lot of them would be part-time in nature without necessarily any documentation involved.

A very recent example would be the KTV cluster where a number of them would have committed offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

Madam, as I said in my main reply, beyond the public tip-offs and complaints by perhaps a competing company, for example, we also conduct our own proactive data analytics to see if there are suspicious behaviour that we ought to take proactive action to verify and check. Beyond that, part of the work also involves educational efforts to make sure that foreign workers working in Singapore understand what constitutes illegal employment or violation of their work permit kind of conditions.

So, first, when we give an in-principle approval to the work pass applicants prior to their departure for Singapore, that letter states quite clearly that the work pass applicant can only work for the specified employer in that letter. Engagement and education of the migrant workers are done through several other initiatives and platforms. For example, the mobile app, FWMOMCare, where MOM pushes out employment-related messages through the app. So, it really is to help foreign workers themselves know what is illegal and wrong.

There is also the mandatory Settling-in Programme for first-time work permit holders, which educates the migrant workers on their responsibilities and employment rights as well as the laws and regulations for working in Singapore.

Prior to COVID-19, we did conduct a lot of road shows as well, at dormitories, at recreation centres, in public areas, where MOM would engage these work pass holders on their rights and responsibilities.

Of course, in the present day, we utilise a lot of social media platforms and the online medium to educate and raise awareness. And if we do have enforcement actions being taken, especially against companies who were egregious, we do publicise them on the mainstream media as well as online social media platforms because this raises awareness and serve as a deterrence to other would-be offenders – whether it is employers or employees.

13 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the overall measures to assist the vulnerable in the community such as cardboard collectors, beggars, rough sleepers and pedlars; and (b) what are the ways by which the Ministry can better and continually communicate to the public on the help measures available so that longer term sustainable support can be given to these vulnerable.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are various schemes and initiatives to provide assistance and support to those in need. For those who require financial assistance, they may apply for ComCare assistance or the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG).

To support employees and self-employed individuals who have been financially impacted by the current period of Heightened Alert measures, we have also implemented the CRG-Temporary (CRG-T) scheme to provide temporary financial support. For clients who require employment support, we link them up with Workforce Singapore or the Employment and Employability Institute. For clients with housing or other social issues, we similarly link them up with the relevant agencies accordingly to help resolve their issues.

In parallel, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) continues to work with community partners to reach out to and befriend those who may be more vulnerable in the community. For rough sleepers, there is the Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) Network. PEERS Network partners engage rough sleepers and may refer them to overnight community-based shelters, known as Safe Sound Sleeping Places. Rough sleepers who require short-term accommodation and onsite social work intervention to secure stable housing can seek shelter at MSF-funded Transitional Shelters. Social workers at the Transitional Shelters work with individuals to address their various underlying social issues and progress towards stable long-term housing.

For tissue sellers and cardboard collectors, befriending groups from the Vulnerable-in-Community (VIC) Network engage them to find out their needs and bring them into the social support system. For example, VIC partners refer individuals needing financial assistance to Social Service Offices (SSOs). If other forms of assistance are required, the SSOs link them up with the relevant help agencies.

MSF regularly shares information on the various available schemes and initiatives, including outreach efforts, through various public communication platforms such as the media, MSF website, MSF Facebook and MSFCares, an electronic newsletter which is disseminated to our partners to keep them connected with news and updates from MSF Family. This includes documentary series and videos which showcase various social issues and the support for beneficiaries.

One example would be news stories on the efforts by our charity food workgroup to tackle the issue of food insecurity and the coordination of food support for those in need. Another example would be MSF's collaboration with Nanyang Polytechnic students to produce a video featuring PEERS Network partners, such as Yio Chu Kang Chapel and Homeless Hearts of Singapore, who provide rough sleepers safe places to stay and help them navigate challenges.

We also work with our partners such as other Government agencies, social service agencies, grassroots organisations and leaders, and our volunteers to raise public awareness of available assistance schemes. We have plans to expand our engagement efforts. We will continue to feature the work of our existing partners to inform as well as inspire those who are interested to join our outreach and befriending efforts. We would also like to encourage members of the public who come across a rough sleeper, cardboard collector or tissue paper seller who is in need to contact the ComCare hotline at 1800-222-0000 or refer them to the nearest SSO for assistance.

Ms Denise Phua.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive answer. I also pledge that organisations and ground partners, like our CDCs, will continue to work to assist the vulnerable in the community.

A few supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Number one – obviously, there are many good programmes that are supporting existing vulnerable in the community. But looking at the communications channels listed by MSF, many people who want to help or who need help still would not naturally go to that official MSF channel. So, I wonder if the Ministry could invest even more aggressively and effectively in communications to reach those who need help and those who are willing or want to offer to help, whether in print or social media, or TV and channels and so forth. So, that is one, to invest more.

The second one is to invest more in public education. There are many persons in the community, in the public, who, whatever their intentions are, have the habit of, for example, just taking a photograph or a video, and then posting it on social media, most of the time, without permission. This kind of effort actually does not render sustainable help to the persons in need. So, I think to discourage such habits which are actually not that effective and sometimes, not very respectful of those who need help, I wonder if the Ministry could consider investing even more in aggressive public education in this, so that, more can be helped in a more dignified way.

My third supplementary question is on the ComCare helpline. I tried to call the ComCare helpline myself. I find that the response is in English and by a machine to re-direct perhaps due to the need to triage the needs. I wonder if there is another more effective way of looking into beyond the ComCare line, to ensure that it is more effective. Perhaps looking at different ways of doing it, for instance, setting up call centres that are actually answered by real persons and not by a machine.

So, all the above for the Ministry's consideration.

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I agree that, where necessary and where possible, MSF would invest more in communications to ensure that the vulnerable in our community know where and how they can get help. I had earlier spent some time talking about befriending and MSF is very grateful to our various partners such as Central CDC and other befrienders who have worked with us. Because we know that many of the vulnerable may not have a fixed abode, they may be moving from point to point. And like what the Member mentioned, they may not automatically just walk into an SSO to seek help.

That is why we rely on our network of partners in the community to reach out to them, so that they see a physical face, trust is built, relationships are built. And in so doing, some of these vulnerables may be more open to sharing about their underlying problems. Only then, can we really address the root issues that led them to the current situation.

The second point that the Member raised about public education, indeed, is a very important point. I know that there are members of the public who feel that they may be helping the vulnerable by taking a photo, putting up a video. But I would urge that members of the public to be cautious when doing so. The most appropriate and effective way really is to introduce, to direct these vulnerable persons to our SSO officer so that professional help is given to the vulnerable persons. Because when you put up a video or a photo, apart from the fact that you might be infringing on the privacy as well as confidentiality of the vulnerable person, sometimes you may be bringing unwanted attention to the vulnerable person which may or may not lead to better outcomes for the person. It might also worsen family relationships which sometimes are the underlying reasons why the vulnerable person is doing what he or she is doing.

On the third point that the Member raised, which is on the ComCare hotline, I will bring it back to MSF to discuss with them. At the end of the day, I would like to assure the Member that if there are vulnerable persons and individuals who need to communicate their issues in the vernacular language, we will make sure that we have an MSF SSO officer who is able to do so and to extend the help that is necessary to him or her.

14 Ms He Ting Ru asked Minister for Education (a) given the shift back to Phase Two (Heightened Alert), what is the assessed risk level for children under the age of 12 who are unable to be vaccinated; and (b) what are the considerations when deciding the further steps that need to be taken, particularly in indoor educational settings, to ensure the safety of these children and their families, whether now or in the future when moving into COVID-19 as an endemic disease.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, unvaccinated persons, generally, are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to vaccinated persons of the same age groups. For children, international experience and data on COVID-19 infections have thus far shown that the disease outcome is much less severe as compared to older adults and the elderly. In Singapore, we have so far observed mild disease in local cases aged under 12 years, even with the Delta variant. We are also fortunate thus far that for our children under 12 years who have been infected, none of them has required ICU care nor oxygen supplementation.

To keep our children safe in the school environment, we implement stringent safe management and surveillance measures, and have adjusted the conduct of school activities where necessary. All staff in schools and preschools are required to wear masks. Students in school are also required to wear masks, while in preschools, either masks or face shields are strongly encouraged for children above the age of two. For mask-off activities in schools, extra safe management measures are taken. For example, physical education classes are conducted outdoors or in well-ventilated venues and in small groups based on national guidelines. Mask-off activities are currently suspended in preschools. Preschools and schools also emphasise good personal hygiene and social responsibility. Staff in preschools and schools are also prioritised for vaccination. These measures collectively mitigate the risks of infection in our students.

The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination or EC19V as we call it, is monitoring on-going vaccination trials for children under the age of 12. The EC19V will assess if it is suitable to administer these vaccines to children under the age of 12 and make recommendations to MOH at the appropriate time.

Ultimately, managing COVID-19, whether nationally or in our school setting, is about managing risks and balancing trade-offs. Over time, we have developed a better understanding of the virus and how to live with it in our daily lives. As we move towards a new normal of COVID-19 as an endemic disease, we are making a conscious move to adopt an appropriate risk management strategy and collectively determine what level of risk is acceptable to us as a society.

The past few months have given us more confidence that we can strike a better balance by taking a more targeted approach to ring-fence cases and their close contacts. For example, by only having affected classes, levels or schools on Home-Based Learning (HBL), rather than resorting to full HBL for everyone on a nationwide scale. This has allowed us to isolate affected students and staff, and not close all Primary schools, where most students are not yet eligible for vaccination.

The alternative of full HBL on a prolonged basis comes at the cost of the learning and especially the social-emotional development of our young. And it takes a toll on the mental wellness, places additional stresses on educators, parents and students, especially when not all students have home environments that are conducive for HBL. The negative impact also falls disproportionally on lower-income families.

We will continue to finetune how we manage school cases and ensure its sustainability as we transit towards living with COVID-19 as an endemic disease. Taking reference from the national posture and working closely with parents, we will continue to work hard to keep our schools and students safe.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for his response. The reason I asked this question is because a lot of parents have come to me and said they are worried about the health and safety of their children, especially those under the age of 12, who are unable to get vaccinated at the moment. I just wanted to ask what efforts are being made to address these concerns, as in efforts to address these parents directly? Because, obviously, a lot of them are very worried, a lot of them are writing to me and writing to all of us here. They want to know how about those parents, for example, with children who have pre-existing medical conditions that make these children more vulnerable, if they do actually get COVID-19. Are these children expected to isolate or stay at home? What are the actual effects this will actually have on these children? These are some of the questions that parents have come up to me with and I would just like some clarifications from the Minister about this.

Earlier, the Minister also said that the task force is studying the safety of vaccinations on children under the age of 12. Do we have any estimates of when we expect to see results because the Minister mentioned that more announcements and decisions will be made at the appropriate time? Do we have an estimate of when this is expected to be available?

Lastly, I just wanted to ask, especially at the preschools and maybe even infant care levels, as many parents with young children will know, it is actually very difficult for these children to keep their masks on and adhere to hygiene and safe distancing measures. What sort of extra steps and precautions are taken to make sure that these children and by definition, their family members, especially vulnerable family members at home are also protected?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are three questions. Let me deal with the second one first and that is, when can we expect EC19V to make an announcement. That very much will depend on the work that they are doing and also from the work that the manufacturers of the vaccines are doing now, worldwide. So, at this point in time, I am unable to give a timeline as to when this work will be completed. But as far as we know, the work has started to trial this, to see if it is appropriate for children below the age of 12.

Let me deal with the first question. Like Ms He Ting Ru, I think all of us, as parents, are, of course, concerned with the safety of our children under the age of 12 who are unable to be vaccinated yet. And we also know that we are unlikely to have a vaccine for those under 12 years old, anytime soon. Having said that, what we need to do is to make sure that we put in place the safe management measures for our children to live their life as normally as possible so that they can continue to grow up and continue learning as much as possible. We need to do this in a sustainable way; and I want to emphasise this: "sustainable way". We do not know how long this disease will continue to ravage the world. We do not know when the vaccine will come. Bearing this in mind, we need sustainable solutions in order to allow our children, especially those below the age of 12, to continue learning and growing in as normal an environment as possible.

As I have mentioned in my speech, what are some of the things that we can do? One, we want to make sure that we observe all the safe management measures that we can practise: personal hygiene, cohorting of the classes to minimise the chances of our younger children getting it.

And I think, to this extent, the adults also have a role to play, which is why we encourage everyone to try to get vaccinated as soon as possible.

Having said that, it does not mean that those people who are vaccinated are no longer going to transmit or be carriers of the virus. But what it does mean is that the chances are reduced and the symptoms are much less. That is also one way to keep our younger children safe.

Beyond that preventive step, we are looking at the next step which we have also done: to make sure that we organise our activities in such a way that can allow our children to interact, learn in a group, but not having too many of them mixing around and just in case anything happens, which means that we have tight cohorting in the schools, preschools, to minimise the chances of this happening.

The next ring that we must implement is that upon the detection of any of the cases, quickly ring-fence the affected parties so that we can minimise the chances of this spreading to the rest. This is where parents can also play a part to work with the schools and the preschools to keep our children safe. If, for whatever reasons, a member of the family is ill, please do not send the children to school until we have verified that the children or the family will not pose a risk to the other students in the school. So, I think, collectively, we can also do that.

Going forward, if and when the day comes whereby we have other testing capabilities that are less intrusive, that we can conduct on a mass scale, that will give us yet another tool for us to see how we can safely have more activities by testing more people more regularly, including perhaps the younger ones. But at this point in time, we do not yet have that less intrusive testing capability for the younger ones. So, we have to continue to work together to make sure that we keep our children and our schools safe.

But coming back to that, I would like to appeal to everyone that we need to make this work on a sustainable basis. And that is why we need to work together. We can do certain things in the short term, we can scale up certain measures but the question is how do we make such measures sustainable, bearing in mind the interests of the children, the families and also the educators, which was what I had explained to the public last Friday.

The last question Ms He Ting Ru asked about was infant care and the preschool. Indeed, we all understand it is harder for the children of the younger ages to keep their masks on and it will take extra effort for us to make sure that we apply the safe management measures, keeping their personal hygiene good and, at the same time, cohorting them to minimise the chances of transmission, in case something should happen, in case one of them should be infected with this.

Having said that, it is very important for everyone again to work together so that a child who is sick or a child who is from a family who has someone ill and not verified yet, to avoid sending the child to the school or the preschool so that we minimise the chances of this spreading to other people. And we would need everybody's cooperation to make this happen.

Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, you have a clarification?

Thank you, Madam, I just want to clarify on the answer I had given to Question No 12. I had misspoken about the fine. For work pass holders found to be engaged in illegal employment, they will face a fine of $20,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both; not $2,000. [Please refer to "Enforcement of Restrictions on Work Pass Holders Working for More Than One Employer", Official Report, 2 August 2021, Vol 95, Issue 35, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

15 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport (a) for workers who are transported in lorries, what are the measures recommended by the Ministry that employers can adopt to ensure that workers remain dry if it rains during the journey; and (b) if there are no guidelines, whether the Ministry is considering implementing such guidelines.

Since 2011, lorries used to ferry any persons in their rear decks are required to be fitted with canopies. These provide shelter, including against inclement weather. Failure to do so is an offence under the Road Traffic Act. First-time offenders will face a fine of up to $1,000, an imprisonment term of up to three months, or both. These penalties are doubled for repeat offenders.

We take such offences seriously and have been actively enforcing against offenders. For the first half of 2021, we caught 23 offenders with lorries ferrying workers without canopies, or without having a sufficiently large canopy to shelter all workers. We will not hesitate to take stern action against the offenders. Members of the public can call the Land Transport Authority's hotline to report any non-compliance with these regulations.

That said, we strongly encourage all employers to do their part to ensure the welfare of their workers. In the event of severe weather, we recognise that the canopy alone may not confer sufficient protection from the elements. We certainly do encourage employers to take the initiative to install rain covers. These are typically waterproof canvas tarps that are installed on the sides of the rear deck, to complement canopies which serve primarily as a roof shelter. Where possible, employers should also consider putting on hold such trips until the heavy rain has passed.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills, Minister for Home Affairs.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18, 21, 24, 27-30, 32 and 33 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Penal Code to update the criminal offences, enhance the punishment for sexual offences and clarify the application of certain provisions, and to make amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Tan) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in September 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Environmental Protection and Management Act and to make a related amendment to the Environmental Public Health Act", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan) on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment; read the First time; to be read a Second time at the first available Sitting in September 2021, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Madam, families are the foundation of our society. They are the first environment in which children are nurtured and where they experience love and where values are inculcated. Every parent knows that parenthood has its challenges; yet, every parent also knows the joys it brings. The Government is consistent in its approach to supporting couples and, as couples embark on their parenting journey, we are here to support them and their family.

We have consistently reviewed our policies over the years to strengthen family ties, particularly between parent and child. We have made considerable strides. But we recognise that family formation is a personal decision. Our measures can only go so far as to address practical obstacles or financial concerns that many parents worry about. An overall eco-system, which includes family members, community partners, employers and Government measures, is needed to support parents on their journey.

We remain committed to encouraging people to get married, have children and to raise them in strong families. The Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) was first introduced in 2001. It has been 20 years. Over the years, we have increased coverage and introduced new schemes under the CDCA as part of a holistic suite of measures that families can tap on. The CDCA now covers the Child Development Account (CDA) and parental leave schemes, with respect to citizen children. Many today will know the CDA as part of the commonly known Baby Bonus scheme.

In 2008, the CDCA was amended to extend maternity leave from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, childcare leave from two to six days and to introduce six days of unpaid infant care leave. In 2013, one week of shared parental leave and paternity leave were introduced. We kept in mind that the economy could evolve and support could be extended to a wider group of parents, including those not on regular employment. Hence, the Government-Paid Maternity Benefits scheme was introduced for mothers who were either employed or self-employed, but not for the minimum continuous three-month period to qualify for maternity leave. These mothers could be on short-term contracts, or on contracts which expired just before they gave birth. In 2017, we also made it mandatory for employers to grant two weeks of Paternity Leave and increased Shared Parental Leave from one week to up to four weeks.

As a whole, working couples today can take up to 20 weeks of paid parental leave in the child's first year, comprising 16 weeks of maternity leave, two weeks of paternity leave and six days of childcare leave per parent. This is the result of continuous policy reviews over the years.

We have also made enhancements on other fronts. The maximum dollar-for-dollar Government co-matching of parents' savings in the CDA for the second child born from 1 January 2021 was doubled earlier this year, from $3,000 to $6,000. This is in addition to the CDA First Step Grant of $3,000 introduced in 2016 that is paid into the CDA when it is opened, without parents having to contribute first. To reassure couples to proceed with their parenthood plans despite the global pandemic, the Government also implemented the one-off Baby Support Grant of $3,000 for Singaporean children born from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2022.

The environment that Singaporeans work, live and raise families in, has evolved. MSF has proposed amendments to the CDCA to bolster our support for citizen children and their working parents, as well as employers, in this changing environment. We continue to encourage parenthood within marriage and our proposed amendments also ensure that our operational processes are robust and that there is accountability over public monies even as additional benefits are included and extended.

I now draw the House's attention to the key components in the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill, of which there are seven.

One, Government-Paid Paternity and Adoption Benefits. As announced in February this year, we will be introducing two new schemes. Some working fathers and adoptive mothers may not qualify for paternity leave or adoption leave under the CDCA respectively owing to their employment arrangements. They may be on multiple short-term contracts, or had their contracts expire shortly before the birth or adoption of their child. Clauses 13 and 26, therefore, legislate the new Government-Paid Paternity Benefit and Government-Paid Adoption Benefit schemes, or GPPB and GPAB respectively, under which such parents can qualify. The new schemes are not unprecedented. Already, working mothers can be eligible for the existing Government-Paid Maternity Benefits scheme, or GPMB in short, and we are extending this to working fathers and adoptive mothers.

A father can be eligible for GPPB if his child's date of birth or estimated date of delivery is on or after 1 January 2021. Adoptive parents can benefit from GPPB and GPAB if their application to adopt a child is submitted to the Court on or after 1 January 2021. In the case of a foreign child, we will refer to the date on which the dependant's pass is issued.

With the new schemes, parents can receive a cash benefit in lieu of the Government-paid portion of paternity leave or adoption leave. The parent must have worked as an employee or self-employed person, or both, for at least 90 days in the 12 months immediately preceding the child's date of birth or the eligibility date for an adopted child. The total cash pay-out will be calculated based on the average income earned in the same 12-month period, as prescribed in subsidiary legislation. Therefore, parents who work for longer periods will receive a higher benefit.

As further amendments need to be made to subsidiary legislation, eligible parents may apply for the new GPPB and GPAB schemes from 1 December 2021. We estimate that around 500 working fathers and adoptive mothers will benefit. Though this number is small, it remains important to ensure that these parents are supported in raising their children.

Two, assisting parents whose contracts expire, or who are retrenched. Even as we introduce the new GPPB and GPAB schemes, they are not intended to replace the existing schemes for paternity leave and adoption leave respectively. Generally, these schemes are mutually exclusive and parents will not be able to qualify for both leave and benefit schemes simultaneously. The majority of parents will qualify under the relevant leave schemes as they remain employed.

However, there is one existing exception. The CDCA allows for a GPMB top-up to be given to a mother whose contract expires while she is on maternity leave. An eligible mother may have started her maternity leave, but could not consume all of it before her contract expired due to the lack of time. Such mothers can receive cash benefits for the remaining Government-paid portion of the leave, which the Government would have reimbursed their employers had the leave not been forfeited.

With the new GPAB and GPPB schemes, we will extend this to working fathers and adoptive mothers in similar situations. They, too, will be eligible for a benefits top-up.

My Ministry has also proposed to introduce an additional exception, to assist working parents. We know that some parents may be retrenched, and have to give up their remaining leave. Clauses 8(m), 13 and 26 will address this, by granting a benefit top-up to retrenched parents who did not manage to take their leave. This leave would also have been otherwise forfeited. This will help provide greater assurances to parents, as we know that retrenchments are beyond their control.

Let me be clear that these top-ups will not affect existing protections for female employees who are pregnant, as they should not be denied their maternity leave benefits by the termination of their employment. These protections are provided for under the Employment Act.

Employers will have to pay maternity leave benefits to pregnant employees who have worked for their employers for at least three months, if their employment is terminated without sufficient cause, or if they are retrenched at any stage of their pregnancy. It is an offence to dismiss employees while they are on maternity leave. It is also an offence for employers to withhold parental leave from working parents.

Three, supporting parents of stillborn children. The proposed Bill will allow working parents of a stillborn child, who would have been a Singapore Citizen, to qualify for birth-linked Government-Paid Leave and Benefits Schemes – which are maternity leave and benefits, paternity leave and benefits, as well as shared parental leave.

We appreciate that many employers have been voluntarily granting paid leave to such parents as employers play a key role in fostering family-friendly workplaces in Singapore. Generally, we have supported this by granting reimbursement to them. The Bill will now entitle parents of stillborn children to the relevant schemes. Parents of stillborn children need to recover physically and emotionally and this move can help them in these difficult times.

The Government-paid portion of certain schemes also vary with the number of live citizen children a mother has; these are the maternity and adoption leave and benefit schemes. For instance, mothers with one or two children who are eligible for maternity leave receive eight weeks of employer-paid leave and eight weeks of Government-paid leave. From the third child, all 16 weeks of maternity leave under the CDCA are paid for by the Government.

In addition to the above entitlement to leave and benefits, clause 2(1)(h) will count stillborn children or deceased children in determining the number of children a mother has had. Depending on whether they are entitled to leave or benefits schemes, including them in the child order determination will allow more employers and working mothers to receive a higher quantum of reimbursement or payment. We hope that this will go some way to help mothers and also encourage employers to be more supportive of working mothers with more children.

Four, reimbursement to employers who voluntarily grant leave to employees for parental leave schemes. Employers are one of our main partners in developing a Singapore that is Made for Families. The support from employers is crucial, especially when their employees take on new roles as parents.

I am heartened to say that many employers have gone the extra mile and allowed employees to benefit from the parental leave schemes, even if the employees have not worked the minimum of three months continuously preceding the birth or adoption of their child to qualify for leave, which is one of the eligibility criteria under CDCA.

We recognise that progressive employers play an important part in helping working parents who are also new to their companies. To this end, clauses 10(b), 17(b) and 28(b) give the Government the discretion to reimburse employers if they grant paid maternity leave, paternity leave and adoption leave, respectively, even though the three-month criterion under CDCA is not satisfied. The parent must still meet all other eligibility criteria mentioned in the Bill, such as having a child who is a Singapore Citizen.

I must emphasise that there is no change to a parent’s entitlement. Legislatively, the minimum work criterion is there as a safeguard for employers who also bear some costs. Nonetheless, some employers provide leave for employees out of goodwill and can continue to do so of their own volition. The amendments are only intended to give my Ministry more latitude to reimburse these progressive employers.

Five, disqualify wed/unwed fathers from paid childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave, in respect of children born from extramarital affairs.

Over the years, significant steps have been taken to ensure that every child is cared for and supported in his or her development. The CDCA was last amended to extend maternity leave and the CDA, including the CDA First Step Grant and matched co-savings from the Government, to single unwed parents in 2017 and 2016 respectively. Earlier in 2013, we had also extended paid childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave under CDCA to support parents in their caregiving responsibilities. Our approach is to enable all Singaporean children and their parents to receive Government benefits that are intended to support the children’s growth and development. Nonetheless, the desired social norm in Singapore remains parenthood within marriage. These have been our policy considerations.

However, we have found that parents could also consume childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave with respect to children born as a result of extramarital affairs. This was not the policy intent. Our marriage and parenthood policies are intended to safeguard the family institution and not to condone extramarital affairs.

With the above in mind, the amendments laid out in clauses 18(c) and (f) and 21(b) disqualify wed and unwed fathers from paid childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave under CDCA with respect to children born from extramarital affairs. Gestational mothers will retain their entitlement to paid childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave to avoid unduly compromising a child’s well-being, given that mothers are, usually, the main caregivers. If the birth parents subsequently marry, the father will become eligible for childcare leave in respect of the child. All other single unwed fathers whose children are not born out of extramarital affairs continue to be eligible for paid childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave.

Six, disqualify mothers who have consumed maternity leave under the Employment Act (EA) from GPMB. I mentioned earlier that parents will not be able to qualify for both leave and benefit schemes simultaneously, with certain exceptions. Clause 8(l) will ensure that this treatment is equally applied to both mothers of children who are citizens from birth and those who are new citizens.

To elaborate, mothers of non-citizen children can qualify for maternity leave under the Employment Act. Should the child subsequently gain citizenship within one year of the child’s birth, a mother could then qualify for GPMB under CDCA, if she meets the eligibility criteria. In contrast, a mother of a citizen child would not be able to receive both paid leave and benefits simultaneously under CDCA, except in certain cases, as earlier mentioned.

The proposed amendment will ensure parity between different groups of working mothers, such that those in similar circumstances benefit equally from the maternity leave and benefits provisions under CDCA.

Seven, amendments to improve checks and accountability. Finally, the Bill proposes amendments at clause 32 to improve checks and ensure public accountability. First, the amendments will give my Ministry power to carry out audits, or require audits to be conducted.

Second, we will expand our powers to recover erroneous payments through clauses 6 and 30. Our powers to clawback are, currently, limited to payments made by mistake of fact, or due to false or misleading information or documents furnished. The amendment will allow the Government to also recover payments that were made due to any error; and this could include, for example, errors caused by an electronic system used by the Government to determine claims or made by any person. The Government will also be able to deduct the amount from subsequent claims with respect to the same parent.

For CDA benefits, the Government may deduct or set off the amount to be recovered from future Baby Bonus benefits payable to the relevant child. We will also be able to recover directly from persons who caused the erroneous payments and clawback from CDA trustees or approved persons in the event of unauthorised withdrawals from the CDA.

Just as benefits have been progressively expanded over the years, checks and balances must also correspondingly be updated. These amendments ensure that we continue to exercise rigorous oversight over the various schemes provided for under CDCA and bolster accountability over how public monies are utilised.

Madam, our intent is for the proposed amendments to further support a Singaporean couple’s decision to start, raise and grow their family. We are committed to this cause and have worked to ensure that our policies keep pace with and reflect our desired values. We want to ensure that parents are supported in their journey.

Nonetheless, the Government cannot be alone in doing so. Legislation is an insufficient and blunt tool for policies to support parents in child-raising, as families have differing needs. Equally important are employers, who can create conducive environments for employees to work and have their families. We are glad to see many have implemented family-friendly practices and I urge others to follow their lead. In addition, the extended family and the community can also pitch in to support families, especially when they are bringing up young children.

My Ministry will continue to work with our community partners, such as the Families for Life (FFL) movement so that strong family relations can be fostered. A whole-of-society effort is required, and we will continue to support Singaporeans in this journey. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed amendments are, indeed, helpful in filling the gaps, especially in the current business environment where job losses and business uncertainty are commonplace. Today, I will speak about my thoughts on benefits for retrenched parents, support for parents of stillborn children, followed by support for pro-family employers. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, I would like to state that I empathise with parents who have babies or young children while struggling with loss of income and uncertainty due to retrenchment. I have encountered several cases among my residents who are parents and not long after having their child, lose their jobs; and the family has to scramble to seek financial support. Such situations are daunting because families would not have expected this unfortunate loss of employment to happen. This is especially difficult for mothers, who will experience a lot of anxiety as well as social and emotional trauma due to concerns, such as how they will be able to provide food or milk to their newborn babies.

Even if they are able to find short-term contract jobs, there is a lot of uncertainty in the current market whereby some of them quickly find themselves out of a job after a few weeks or even after a few days. There are many business owners and self-employed persons who are also experiencing problems. They may find their incomes cut drastically or they may fall into debt and have to close their businesses for an indefinite period. In such situations, many families are not entitled to normal leave benefits that comes with a conventional permanent employment contract. So, it will be good if the Government can make exceptions to help them.

It is timely to introduce the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and the Government Paid Adoption Benefit (GPAB) schemes for working fathers and adoptive mothers who are on short-term employment contracts or whose employment contract had expired before their child was born or adopted. The enhancement of benefits for fathers is, certainly, the right move to improve gender equality. And adopting children, especially in this challenging climate, is a virtuous act that should receive support.

I note that eligible parents can only apply from December 2021. So, I would like to ask if this can be brought forward. First, this will provide some relief to parents who are feeling anxious and, secondly, this will lower the possibility of confusion amongst parents who take the effort to apply and then realise that it is not yet open for application.

(In English): The Bill proposes to grant Government-Paid Maternity Benefit (GPMB), GPPB or GPAB top-ups for parents who have been retrenched but have unconsumed parental leave. Can the Minister elaborate what is the process for affected parents? What kind of documents and evidence will they have to provide, if any? I think the Minister of State provided some details earlier, but further details might be useful, especially for the man in the street.

What happens if the company they work for is winding up? How do the claimants secure the relevant HR records? So, these are specific details that I am asking for.

It is a common problem that when the office is in somewhat of a mess, it will be challenging to retrieve records. If the company is unable or unwilling to provide the required information, even going as far as to cut off contact, what can the affected parties do to be eligible for their entitled grants?

On behalf of my residents, I would also like to clarify what is the definition of self-employed in the Bill. I think that gig workers and freelancers like delivery riders should fall under this category. However, a number of residents are telling me that they are quite doubtful, because they do not have employment contracts. A number of them have only started working as delivery riders this year as a last resort, so, they have not filed their income tax returns either. This group, generally, also tends to be the hardest hit, because their earnings are directly dependent on the number of hours worked. If they take a break to tend to childcare needs and if a COVID-19 situation closes down a specific childcare, then they miss all the earnings for that timeframe. Can the Minister share if they get any entitlements? And what is their recourse if they do not?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, welcoming a newborn should also be a happy occasion for all. But many after-birth healthcare expenses for both mother and child require money. Not only that, but the costs for transport to and from the clinics and hospitals as well as special nutrition for mum and baby all add up. When families are in a stressful situation, the mother, and, sometimes, even the father, too, are prone to post-natal depression, which presents another set of challenges. So, it is important to keep the processes to receive financial grants and aid simplified without compromising governance, so that the applicant would not be put to more stress having to answer a whole gamut of questions. Even the need to get a Notary Public to sign off a document can be a challenge as it means having to find their office, travel to and from the lawyer’s office, showing the original documents for inspection and, finally, paying for the fees.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on this subject of mental health, I am glad to know that the amendment to the Bill extends support to parents with stillborn children. It is indeed very thoughtful that we are extending the birth-linked leave and benefits to these parents as they work towards recovering physically and emotionally.

I hope the Ministry would also consider subsidising a quantum of any counselling services that the parents may need to undergo to overcome their distress. This would also, hopefully, go some ways towards normalising the need to seek help for one’s mental health. These are very challenging times and many have already found their mental health to be affected by the pandemic which has lasted more than a year. To experience the death of a loved one on top of all these problems is nothing short of devastating.

A group of people that we really need empathy from is employers. Pro-family employers are crucial in shaping a nation and culture that are sensitive and encouraging to the needs of parents.

Over the years, the Government has ramped up its policies and expanded the pool of parents who are eligible for paid parental leave. With the amendment to this Bill, employers who voluntarily grant leave to their employees who have not met the minimum three-month employment criterion for the various parental leave schemes will also be reimbursed. Employers who do their part to support nation-building and child-rearing must continue to be lauded.

However, there are some employers and recruiters who still believe that high productivity is only possible when work is not disrupted. They want to hire the employee who takes as little leave as possible. Last month, my colleagues and I moved our Adjournment Motion on workplace discrimination. My colleague Mr Louis Ng spoke about how some women were passed over for job opportunities simply because they were mothers.

The Government can offer any amount of leave benefits. We can even try to emulate Sweden and give parents an entitlement of 480 days of paid parental leave once a child is born or adopted. But all this means little if employers are passing over parents, especially mothers, for job and promotion opportunities to begin with. Under normal circumstances, when the economy is prosperous and the labour market is tight, it is easy to say that employers with poor employee welfare policies will find themselves penalised with greater difficulty to hire and retain talent. Unfortunately, more people are seeking employment than before. I am concerned that improving employees’ welfare may take a backseat for some employers, although this really should not be the case.

I hope the Government can do more to reward companies that are genuinely pro-family. The Government already offers leave benefits and reimbursements, as well as grants to cultivate family-friendly workplace polices. We all know there are many long-term benefits when companies have engaged and happy workers. Unfortunately, many are more interested in quick fixes, especially with the current pandemic. So, even if they are essentially funded to redesign their company policies, they may feel the effort is not worthwhile.

Can the Government, perhaps, look into dangling more carrots, including more grants and loans, where pro-family employers can benefit in other areas? This could be similar to how the Government provides higher subsidies for hiring of mature workers. And, likewise, it would be a temporary move, so, when the economy improves and the employer is able to see for themselves that the effort of implementing family-friendly policies pays off in the long run, they would have an existing system in place and will be inclined to continue with it even without external rewards.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, COVID-19 has caused many Singaporeans to postpone or even cancel their plans to have children. For those who go ahead to have children, the poor economy has made parenthood a greater struggle, on top of other social distancing measures that have greatly disrupted play time and the social lives of our young ones. It is prudent to have support measures so that our current generation of little ones may at least have a happy and healthy early childhood. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I more than welcome the proposed amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA). Many of the proposed changes extend support to those who are either enduring an incalculable loss or taking on an enormous responsibility, as they undertake sacrifices to secure the next generation. As a society, we should absolutely help them in any way we can.

I will speak today about the importance of helping the dejected, downtrodden and disaffected: parents of stillborn children, parents who have adopted children and working women in a precarious position due to a pregnancy.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in 1989, my mother became unexpectedly pregnant. At that time, I was 13 and my sister, six. Since our family was of modest means, my mother had to contribute to the household with a full-time job, which meant that she encountered all the challenges that working mothers face when they are working and carrying a child at the same time.

Moreover, it was a difficult pregnancy because mom was already more advanced in her years. In the final months, I recall how she had to sleep upright on many nights due to the discomfort. But we took the fact that since the expected birth would occur exactly seven years apart from my sister's and 14 after mine – seven being the perfect number – as a sign that my brother's conception was a gift from God.

But his birth was not to be. In the early hours of 6 May, I awoke to my father’s presence in my bedroom. He had tears in his eyes, one of only three times in my life when I had seen him cry. “We lost Jaaron,” he said. My brother had been stillborn. The sign of the seven had not been that perfect, after all.

It took my mother at least that many years to recover from that loss. Along the way, she questioned her choices, her faith and herself.

That is why amendments, such as that documented in clause 9(a) of the Bill, are so important. There is no difference between the physiological trauma endured by the mother of a healthy versus stillborn child. Consequently, I believe that we should not exempt the latter from any of the benefits of rest and recovery that Government-mandated maternity leave confers.

If anything, the added psychological trauma that the latter will experience may even be the cause for being willing to think about extending even longer maternity leave periods for such individuals. Studies suggest that a leave period of 12 weeks post-delivery will positively affect vitality, while 15 weeks yield positive effects on mental health and 20 weeks on role function. Since the norm in Singapore is either 12 weeks of maternity leave or 16 weeks of Government-paid maternity leave, it would not be unreasonable to allow for a longer leave period for those who have to recover from not just physical but also mental wounds.

As I shared earlier, the loss of my brother was one of only three occasions when I had seen my father cry. He was a traditional man and not given to public expression of his emotions. But the fact that he mourned the loss of my brother is indicative of the sort of pain and anguish that fathers also go through when they experience the loss of a child.

Consequently, it would make eminent sense for compassionate leave to be extended to the father in the case of a stillborn child, too. May I, therefore, clarify if the extension of shared leave benefits, from section 12(E)(5) of the original Act, that this would be applicable in this instance as well?

At this point, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will return to the example of my mother. I seem to be talking a lot about my mother; it is something that she would, undoubtedly, find great delight in and I see this as simply payback, since she never seems to tire about talking about her children.

As it turns out, my mother was also adopted as a child. This made an immense difference to her life, especially since my grandfather passed on while she was still a very young girl, and the fact that my mother was but one of 10 children meant that it was impossible for my grandmother to have raised her on her own.

Adoption confers a lease of life for such children. Adoption is a gift of parenthood for those who might, for various reasons, be unable to have biological children of their own.

As every forever parent knows, there is absolutely no distinction between being a parent to a biological or an adoptive child. Indeed, our latest demographic trends suggest that adoption may become ever-more prevalent, given how the median age of female marriages continues to drift higher – it was 28.8 years in 2020, almost a year more than a decade ago – all while our nation’s total fertility rate continues to decline. It stood at 1.1 per female in 2020.

Clause 13 is, therefore, a wholly welcome recognition of this reality. However, I should point out that the language in which the amendments are embedded – that the adoption benefits apply to eligible mothers – automatically vests these benefits onto the adoptive mother. Even the proposed addition of section 12A(4)(b) does not fully offset this implicit bias, since it still requires the mother to elect to share these benefits, in accordance with section 12(E)(5) of the original Act, with the father.

Moreover, while uncommon, the Adoption of Children Act does allow single men to adopt children, just not girls, except under very special circumstances. If so, fathers might be inadvertently excluded by the benefits outlined in section 12A.

It strikes me as far more reasonable to couch the language in terms of the primary caregiver, whether it be male or female, in order to preclude the possibility that male parents forever find themselves ineligible for benefits, simply by dint of their gender.

Clause 8(e) of the Bill introduces amendments to section 9A of the Act that are designed to protect working mothers. This House will, inevitably, return to this theme as we debate the gender equality Motion tomorrow. Here, I will limit my comments to underscoring how important it is to protect female employees who become pregnant.

Too often, we hear stories from our female friends and residents about how they are burdened by an immense sense of insecurity after they become pregnant. While outright dismissals purely on the grounds of pregnancy alone are exceedingly rare – not least because they would be deemed wrongful – pregnant women, nevertheless, often feel under immense pressure or scrutiny over their workplace performance.

In some egregious cases, however, unscrupulous employers may advance a case based on structural reasons to release a pregnant employee. While it is very difficult for an external party to perfectly adjudicate the validity of such justifications, per se, the fallback of Government-provided maternity benefits is, surely, welcome, as an additional safety net.

On a parting note, I would like to touch just very briefly on the issue of returns on savings in CDAs. Here, my concern is one of omission, rather than commission. There were notably no amendments proposed to CDCA pertaining to returns on CDAs. Indeed, beyond a brief allusion to returns on CDAs in the original Co-savings Scheme, which states that it seeks, and I quote, "to facilitate the making of financial provision for the development of a child… through the making of contributions to the child’s bank account", in section 3 of the original Act, along with some notion of the protection of benefits in section 5, there is remarkably little guidance on returns.

Hence, while CDAs do receive a number of Government grant injections and dollar-for-dollar matches, the incentives to further contribute to co-saving into the account – an aspiration embedded right in the name of the Act – is hardly encouraged.

As Members of this House will undoubtedly be aware, the closest we have to magic in the world of finance is the power of compound interest. Yet, a causal inspection of available CDA offered by the major bank reveals that returns amount to only at most 2% a year. This is notable especially in contrast to risk-free interest on the other major Government savings scheme, CPF, where there is a legislated mandatory minimum of 2.5% on the Ordinary Account, and significantly higher for other accounts. One is left to wonder why CDAs do not enjoy the same legislative protections that CPF offers to its members.

Notwithstanding these additional remarks, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I fully support the measures proposed in this Bill which will help Singaporeans have children.

The introduction of the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and Government-Paid Adoption Benefit (GPAB) is particularly welcomed, as is the provision for retrenched parents to benefit from the top-ups for leave during this very difficult period. I am very heartened by the support for another group of parents – those with stillborn children – who will receive birth-linked leave and benefits during a distressing juncture in their parenting journey. It is only right that the Government formalises the arrangement to reimburse employers who voluntarily grant parental leave to employees and make provisions for audits and recovery of erroneous payments. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to take this opportunity to make a request for parents of multiple births. Currently, the birth of twins or multiple babies is considered a single delivery by MOM. Parents do not receive double or additional Government-paid benefits. In fact, many countries already offer additional benefits to parents of multiple births. They include European countries and our neighbours in North and Southeast Asia. I hope that the Government will consider giving these parents more benefits so that they can have more time to take care of their babies, have a good rest and make further efforts to have a few more. This would be helpful in encouraging more births, too.

(In English): I would like to take this opportunity to make a request on behalf of parents of multiple births. This is a small group of parents but we must try to help them as much as possible.

Multiple births are a blessing but coping with twins, triplets or more babies is extremely challenging, especially for new mothers, and most of these will be new mothers because Singaporeans are having fewer babies.

Presently, the birth of twins or multiple babies is treated as a single delivery. The parents will not receive double or additional benefits. While the parents can receive the benefits for a subsequent delivery, due to our low fertility rate, once a family has two or more children, the chance for a subsequent delivery may not be high. Hence, why do we not provide more benefits for such families? The parents will be better rested and, instead of feeling stressed and overwhelmed, might be encouraged to have another child or more children.

As it is, many other countries are already offering parents of multiple births additional benefits. They range from European countries to our neighbours in North and Southeast Asia.

If the concern is the impact on employers, the impact is very small. Around 3% to 4% of births over the last decade are multiple births and the days of leave taken by the parents can be spread out over a longer duration, to lower the impact at the workplace. Flexibility and mutual understanding between employers and employees are key. I hope the Ministry will consider my request favourably.

Mr Louis Ng.

Madam, this Bill is a step in the right direction. It expands support to a wider group of working parents and promotes a more family-friendly working environment. The roles of working parents are already challenging in the best of times. Any support is even more welcomed in challenging times like the present pandemic.

While I am supportive of the measures of this Bill, I sincerely hope we can amend this piece of legislation further and provide more support to more parents. I have three suggestions.

My first suggestion is about leave benefits where to-be parents suffer a miscarriage. I am supportive of the move in this Bill to provide birth-linked leave and benefits to parents of stillborn children. This is a compassionate policy which recognises the need for these parents to recover both physically and emotionally.

Will the Ministry consider going further and reviewing its leave policies where a mother miscarries before the 28th week of pregnancy?

While a stillborn child is defined as a child who is birthed after the 28th week of pregnancy, the event is no less traumatic for parents where a mother miscarries in the 27th week of pregnancy.

Currently, these mothers are not eligible for maternity leave. MOM's guidance instead states that these others may take sick leave to recover. However, suffering a miscarriage is very different from coming down with the flu. It is also the mother who is entitled to sick leave to recover physically. The reality is that these parents, both mother and father, may require time to recover together.

Will the Ministry consider taking a first step by providing partial reimbursements to employers who provide leave benefits to parents where a mother miscarries before the 28th week of pregnancy?

Madam, I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Ministry to look into two other important issues, which I will cover in my second and third suggestions.

My second suggestion is on providing the cash component of the Baby Bonus for single unwed parents. I have spoken up about this many times over the years and it is time that we allow single unwed parents to qualify for the cash component of the Baby Bonus.

This Bill extends support to parents, including working fathers, adoptive mothers on short-term employment contracts, retrenched parents and parents with stillborn children.

Single unwed parents are also parents. In fact, if it is difficult to be a working parent, single unwed working parents have an even heavier burden of filling the shoes of both parental figures both emotionally and financially.

The Government's stance towards single unwed parents has evolved and I am appreciative of this.

In 2019, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, in response to my Adjournment Motion, said, "Single unwed parents and their children are valued citizens in our society, and like all parents, are respected for the love and care they provide for their children. They are no less a mother or a father, just because their child was born outside of marriage. Their children, like any other children in our society, are precious and every parent, regardless of their marital status, ought to be treated with respect. I acknowledge that in the past, the Government was fairly strict in limiting public housing access to married couples. However, over time, this position has evolved. For single unwed parents, we hope to facilitate their efforts to build a stable environment for their child."

Indeed, we have made much progress. We already provide them with the CDAC component of the Baby Bonus. We have levelled the playing field in terms of maternity leave.

The cash component of the Baby Bonus will go a long way in helping single unwed parents build a stable environment for their children. This policy has to evolve, too. This discrimination may lead to the odd position where millionaires may be getting cash from the Baby Bonus, cash they do not need. But single unwed parents do not receive the same benefits, even though they are parents, too and even though many of them are low-income, with those under 35 years old having just a median salary of $600.

Many single unwed parents need the cash component more than parents in dual-income families. They are not asking for more. They are asking to be treated fairly and equally. I sincerely hope that the Ministry will review this.

My last point is on paternity leave. Members of this House will be no stranger to my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy. Some Members tell me that they wait for me to say their names in my speeches.

I have shared many of their stories in this House. All these stories come from the memories I have forged with them through time spent together, precious time, especially when they were little babies.

I took my paternity leave, treasured it and wished I had more time. My factory is closed, so, I would never get paternity leave again, as Ms Joan Pereira has said, when you have twins, you will never have more kids. But I know how important this leave is and I want to make sure fathers have previous time with their children. I have said this many times: "Spend time with those you love, one of these days, you will either say I wish I had or I am glad I did."

Study after study show that paternity leave is vital. Researchers at NUS looked into this and published their findings just a few months ago: "This is the first evidence-based research that documents the positive relationship between paternity leave provision and family dynamics and children's well-being in Singapore. It is useful to see that, in addition to the immediate benefit for fathers to share the joy and responsibility of childcare when a child is born, leave-taking has a mid-to-long-term impact on children's and family's well-being and that a longer leave has greater benefits to the children's well-being."

They concluded that a two-week or longer paternity leave is significantly related to lower family conflict, maternal depression and mothers' parenting aggravation, and positively related to marital satisfaction and father-child closeness. In addition, children whose fathers took paternity leave have fewer behavioural problems.

These findings were similar to an IPS research paper in 2019 that found that fathers who took paternity leave experienced reduced conflicts, stronger family relationships and increased satisfaction in their marriage.

Madam, we are calling for more paternity leave not just for fathers to have more time with their babies but also to fight the gender stereotype. What message do we send out when we give mothers 16 weeks of maternity leave and fathers two weeks of paternity leave?

The IPS research paper stated that, "Family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman's responsibility and reinforce gender stereotypes." Indeed, they do.

The policy recommendations put forth by the IPS study include extending the length of paternity leave and that, instead of shared parenting leave, exclusive and non-transferable paternity leave can be put in place for parents. I wholeheartedly support this call and hope that we set a target year, perhaps 2030 or 2040, at which we will have an equal number of paternity leave and maternity leave.

We can introduce the increases to paternity leave in phases, giving our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce the gender stereotype around parenting.

I hope the Minister of State will look into this proposal in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, including the tripartite partners and NGOs, such as Families for Life and Centre for Fathering.

Madam, lastly, can the Minister of State share if any public consultation was done for this Bill? If public consultation was not done, can Minister of State share the reasons why it was not done?

Given the amendments have significant effects on many families and all employers, I am sure many would applaud the amendments in this Bill. I am also equally sure that many would have constructive feedback that would have helped refine the Bill further.

Madam, this Bill is all about families and parenting. And we all need to remember the advice that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan gave us, "Life is a one-way ticket. A baby will only remain a baby for a very short time. They will grow up before we even realise it. The thing about life is we cannot rewind time. So, my advice to young parents here is, your children need you, they need you desperately and they need you only for a very, very transient time in their lives. If we miss it, we cannot get it back." Madam, notwithstanding the above points, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

The key message in this Bill is that the Government stands ever-ready to support couples in starting families and having children. The Bill also signals a continuing shift from the traditional notion of mothers being primary caregivers to children, emphasising the role of fathers in parenthood. There are two amendments of special note.

First, the extension of benefits to parents of a stillborn child. There have been calls from various organisations to legitimise stillbirths as a significant life event. Many jurisdictions, such as the UK, have related policies to support women through stillbirth pregnancies. The trauma of stillbirth pregnancies cannot be understated; not only is there physical trauma, but what we must focus on is the lasting mental trauma it causes. I join Member Saktiandi Supaat in asking for the Government to support greater mental health support for this group of mothers. The extension of paternity leave and benefits to parents of a stillborn child will go a long way in reassuring couples that the Government acknowledges the mental trauma of stillbirths and will fully support these couples through such adversity.

Second, the pandemic has brought forth many job changes. But structurally, accepting a new job meant that some expectant employees may not be statutorily entitled to maternity benefits if they have worked for less than three months. Under the amendments, the Ministry will now reimburse companies which voluntarily offer maternity and adoption leave to local female employees who have worked for less than three months despite not being required to do so. This is a good move to lean into the needs of our mothers and will encourage companies to go beyond short-term considerations and support our mothers.

As the next bound of development, I hope that the Ministry can consider greater support for single mothers. We have come a long way in our support for single mothers. In 2016, the extension of maternity leave for single mothers to 16 weeks marked a positive change in our attitudes towards single mothers. In 2019, MND indicated that all mothers are equal and are welcome to apply for HDB housing. We have, indeed, made headway over the past decade in supporting our single mothers and we must not stop here.

I have spoken about the financial and mental hardships that single mothers face on various occasions. Not only do single mothers have less resources, compared to a two-parent family, but they also face the stigma of being unmarried, with the emphasis on parenthood within marriage in Governmental policies.

Under the current framework, single mothers are not entitled to various benefits. As Member Louis Ng has pointed out, they are left out of the Baby Bonus scheme which provides a cash entitlement of $8,000 for the first and second child. Furthermore, although many single mothers are in the workforce, they are ineligible for parenthood tax rebates and reliefs, such as the Working Mothers Child Relief (WMCR).

Although extending these benefits to single mothers may seemingly deviate from the traditional definition of a family unit, we must remember that the majority of single mothers are in their position due not to reasons within their control. We must ultimately be child-centric. Extending benefits, such as the Baby Bonus scheme to single mothers will benefit the child. Children of single mothers are all of equal importance as children of a married couple. These children all form the future generation of Singaporeans and we must not unduly disadvantage children of single mothers.

I urge the Ministry to consider extending more benefits to single mothers, such as the Baby Bonus scheme and the various reliefs, that single mothers are entitled to. Notwithstanding the above calls for supporting single mothers, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am supportive of the amendments. I feel that, as a society, we should have a re-think and consider accepting either the wife or the husband as a full-time homemaker looking after children and to waive the requirement of at least three months of work records. We should recognise that being a homemaker is a job in itself. Hence, the parental benefits can be given to the homemaker, that means, only one of the parents.

Regarding reimbursements to employers who voluntarily grant leave to employees for parental leave, I would like to ask how much reimbursement has been given each year since the scheme was launched. Although there are caps which vary between high- and low-income groups, the costs of leave among staff do differ for employers. What has been the amounts of reimbursement for each income group?

The Government recently doubled the maximum amount of dollar-for-dollar co-matching for parents' savings for the Child Development Account (CDA) for their second child, from $3,000 to $6,000. While this is good, middle- and lower-income families may not benefit as much as the higher-income groups, because they may face challenges putting in as much savings. How do we encourage parents to contribute to their children's CDAs to ensure they are not left out, especially parents who are self-employed and freelancers? What has been the number of children for each income group which benefited from the scheme? What has been the total grants for each child in each of the income groups? How many appeals has the Ministry received regarding CDAs?

Madam, few things in life are certain: birth, death and change. Yet, with all three come much uncertainty for the Singaporean worker. With today's reading of the Child Development Co-Savings Bill, we welcome amendments that safeguard the interests of workers and families alike. Particularly, we welcome the introduction of benefit schemes for contract workers and the sensible expansion of benefits even to parents of still-born children.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, when a child is due, a child is due. We cannot tell baby to wait for her parents' economic conditions to make a turn for the better, or for mom and dad to be placed with a permanent job. That is why we are encouraged by the Government's consideration of parents on short-term contracts, as seen in the Government-Paid Maternity Benefit and, so, we celebrate its extension to fathers and adoptive mothers as well. This signals that the Government recognises the biodiversity of livelihoods within our eco-system of workers and that alternative forms of livelihoods, such as contract workers, deserve to be weatherproofed, just as permanent employees' are.

Not only should all workers be protected equally; so should all parents. Some believe that parenting begins when a child is born, but I believe that parenthood begins in pregnancy – when your pregnancy home kit test first signals that you are positive, when you hear your child's first heartbeat, when you take your first ultrasound picture of your child. For a couple, there is so much expectation, so much preparation up to the due date. For most parents, this due date is a joyous occasion while, for some, a profound pain envelops their expectant hearts. I am referring to parents of stillborn children. Indeed, there is a physical healing process still for the mother to go through. But deeper and more unique to such couples is the emotional healing process, as other Members of this House have talked about. Grieving, accepting and moving on from such a tragedy require plenty of space and time. These birth-linked leave and benefits are thus appropriately and necessarily conferred on these couples who are very much parents in their own right.

As we celebrate the sensible considerations undergirding the amendments in this Bill that will move us towards more equitable outcomes for families, it is actually of paramount importance that we recall the spirit of the legislation at hand – that is, to support families in having more children. While, on paper, much of the legislation revolves around financial provisions for parents, these measures shape cultural norms, whether we like it or not. In particular, I am referring to the way the burden of parenting is shouldered by couples.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, more must be done to even out the weight of parenting between couples. However, I would like to preface by saying that this is not a call to point fingers, nor a "call out", but rather an invitation to share in the joys of parenting. When fathers do not pull their weight in parenting, both miss out on the joys of parenting – fathers from absence or distance and mothers from tiredness or burnout. However, when both parents are well involved, both share the responsibilities of parenthood and, together with the shared responsibilities, come joy.

This invitation rides on the low take-up rates of paternity leave, especially in the private sector. Although we may feel our take-up rates are strong against international standards, the actual benchmark for strong take-up rates should instead be compared to the take-up rates of maternity leave at home. Anything less than equal and we still have work to do. This, once again, is not to point fingers at fathers – most dads do want to spend time with their kids and many of my residents who are fathers have expressed joy with how much easier this has become since they have been working from home. We need to pick up our fight with what lies deeper – workplace cultures embedded in our society.

While no employers are hanging signs on office walls discouraging fathers from taking paternity leave, many fathers might feel the threat of being implicitly penalised for taking days off to care for their children. Perhaps, some employers think that this could be rightfully and naturally left to their spouses, or even see the usage of paternity leave as unnecessary or, worse still, opportunistic. Hence, it is no longer enough that employers merely provide opportunities for fathers taking paternity leave or other benefits, especially when fathers might be left second-guessing the costs incurred to their careers. Instead, employers should go a step further to actively encourage fathers to take days off to care for their family, especially in the form of their paternity leave days. This is the kind of assurance that is sure to drive the take-up rates of paternity leave usage.

This shift will not come easily. But to break out of old mindsets, new approaches must be embraced. Therefore, we call on the Government to incentivise employers on this front to be champions of equal parenting roles and, so, champions of strong families and children. An example could be expanding the Working Mother's Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief to working fathers. By availing incentivisation schemes to both mothers and fathers, this would reflect the better sharing of parental duties, reinforce the positive communications and, indeed, raise the visibility to the important role males play in parenting and, indeed, caregiving.

To go a step further, I draw on two recommendations our Women's Wing and Young PAP have formulated.

Firstly, we call on the Government to give parents full flexibility in deciding how to share their maternity and paternity leave. This flexible redistribution of the total maternity and paternity leave entitlement pie does not create additional burden to employers who are facing manpower shortages and yet places choice and full control in the hands of the parents.

Secondly, we call on the Government to create a support network for single mothers. As I have mentioned, not only should all workers be treated fairly; so, also should all parents. This is not an entirely new call. In 2013, the Labour Movement had called for equal benefits for single mothers and, as a result, we now see unwed mothers entitled to the same maternity leave, childcare and infant care leave, as well as the enjoyment of CDCA benefits. We will continue to stand with single mothers and not compound the burden of having to raise a child singlehandedly.

These make up just two of our 12 robust and highly actionable recommendations. We, too, delight in good ideas, but our delight is made complete in ideas that birth action, rather than just laundry lists that are strong on paper but often remain only on paper. The Labour Movement's continued ability to weave idealism and activation has been a cornerstone for women's consistent elevation in the workforce and we submit these calls to the Government as we march forward in a fruitful partnership.

Stronger families start with healthier parents and healthier parents are those who shoulder each other's burdens willingly and joyfully. As we gather to debate the Child Development Co-Savings Bill, our considerations must not only be on how the Government can help parents, but how the Government can help parents help each other as well. This is what a strong family starts with. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.31 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.11 pm until 4.31 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.31 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It has often been quoted that our greatest resource is our people. Our people drive the economy, forming a skilled and productive workforce in order to remain competitive. This same workforce must reproduce itself and, at the same time, provide care to our children who will be the workforce of the future.

Our total fertility rate (TFR) in 2020 was a historical low. Today, traditional notions of gender roles have shifted to more women pursuing their aspirations in the workforce while earning to support the family, away from the figure of the sole male breadwinner going out to work while the woman stays home. The last decade has seen an increase in the proportion of resident married-couple households with working wives and, as of 2020, more than half of our married couples are dual-income. With more women participating in the workforce, the dynamics of having a child today are very different from before.

But while the players have changed, the rules of the game have not quite kept up and expectations are still rooted in the past. It is not uncommon to hear women struggling with the mental load, burnt out from caregiving responsibilities, expected to attend that 5.30 pm Zoom work call while preparing dinner for the family and swinging by childcare to pick up the infant. There is still a gender bias in caregiving, something we have repeatedly heard during the ongoing Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development, highlighting a clear demand for greater equality in sharing responsibilities at home.

COVID-19 with home-based learning and work from home, has also brought about new realities, with a marked effect on what the family unit requires of each of its members, fathers included, and also what employers can expect from employees.

I am glad that this Bill introduces the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and Government-Paid Adoption Benefit (GPAB) schemes – the former giving fathers more benefits, signalling that they are important, too, when it comes to making trade-offs between work and family. I understand that eligible parents will be able to apply for these schemes from December 2021 and hope that the Government can provide an indicative timeline on the application process, as I am sure many will be interested to know how they can apply and what sort of records will employers and employees be required to keep to prevent disputes down the line, especially for retrenched parents.

Businesses will take the point from legislation. I am also glad that we are amending the benefits to recognise short-term employment contracts and parents who are, unfortunately, affected by unforeseen circumstances, such as retrenchment, which can cause great uncertainty, as well as extending compassion to parents of stillborn children, allowing them time to recover physically and emotionally.

I would like to raise two points, the first being societal attitudes and women’s development.

The monetisation of unused paternity leave under the GPPB provides an option that can benefit our families. However, it may not provide an incentive for parents to shoulder more responsibility at home. In fact, it may have the unintended consequence of lowering the opportunity cost for fathers. We already have a low take-up rate of paternity leave, with some pointing to societal attitudes, stigma, against men being caregivers as reasons for this, especially in the private sector.

The perfect woman is often imagined to have it all. While I have not yet had the opportunity to be a mom, I remember the daily dilemmas of a former colleague and friend of mine who has three children and, when one child is sick, it can be impossible to find a caregiver or enough days of leave. On the ground, we have heard of parents begging school principals to keep their child in infantcare if it is only a sniffle or light cough, instead of taking the child home, or despairing when a helper or grandparent is suddenly put on a Quarantine Order. It can be an impossible situation for parents.

Financial incentives will only go so far. As a society, we need to adjust both policies and mindsets to encourage fathers to play a more active role in raising their children. Currently, fathers have two weeks of paternity leave, with the option of "taking" four weeks from their partners. But despite the Government's ongoing efforts to get men more involved in raising their children, the majority of fathers do not take up the shared leave. Some have expressed reluctance to reduce the leave of the mothers as they read the differential in leave as a signal as to who is more responsible. More equal exclusive paternity leave, 16 weeks versus two weeks, will create opportunities for fathers, rather than making couples make tough decisions on a limited number of weeks, as mothers, too, prize the chance to bond with their child.

In the future, we can consider varying mechanisms to support wider family structures of fathers or mothers in their caregiving journey. In Germany, parents can access Parental Allowance Plus, which gives them the right to receive a parental allowance from the government, including if both parents decide to take parental leave at the same time, thus allowing for precious family time instead of foisting the responsibility of caregiving on just one parent. Spouses or partners who take care of the child after birth, even if the child is not their own, may also receive parental allowance, subject to the same conditions which give greater recognition to different family structures. This also applies to relatives up to the third degree, if the parents cannot look after their child alone on account of a hardship, such as disability, and also goes beyond adopted parents to include children taken into foster care with the aim of adoption. I hope that, as society evolves and family structures change, we will be even more inclusive in the definition of the child.

My second point, the impact on business. At the same time, we also need to recognise associated costs in implementing family-friendly policies, especially for businesses, in particular, SMEs or start-ups, which may struggle to find workers to cover. Where we can, we should also try to alleviate the cost on businesses. For example, financially covering more days of childcare leave may take some financial stress off employers, instead of only covering the last three days.

Encouraging employees to take paid leave may be costly for employers, but discouraging it or setting up unfriendly work practices can be costlier. Incorporating family-friendly policies in our workplace could be positive tools for hiring and employee retention, where employees feel cared for and they can grow with the family through different life stages and are more likely to remain loyal in a good work environment. There is a high correlation between employee satisfaction, family-friendly policies and flexibility in work.

Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In several meetings between myself, residents and volunteers in Ang Mo Kio, I have observed a change of mindset among fathers. Many of them now share the same responsibilities as mothers in terms of caregiving, providing guidance and spending time with their families. They show more concern and get involved in the daily chores. But at the same time, fathers have also shared with me the dilemma they face in balancing their responsibilities as dedicated husbands, fathers and workers.

We need efforts, not just on the part of the Government, but also from all levels of society, to eradicate the kind of thinking and workplace culture that places more pressure on the role of fathers or mothers.

There are many companies that can be emulated as inclusive employers. For example, the founder of Zahid & Shah Group encourages their employees to take paternity leave, provides flexible work arrangements and gives time-off to fathers who need to help their wives or accompany their elderly parents to vaccination appointments.

Guidance and support from men are also important in our efforts to encourage women to achieve their career aspirations and their lifelong dreams. I will not be here today without the support of my father and husband, who help to prepare breakfast or coffee and with the household chores.

I acknowledge that not all women receive the same support and guidance. Some are facing a dilemma too. They are pressured by their husbands or families to abandon their career aspirations.

This Bill is a step forward that reflects the Government's policy of being inclusive and family-friendly. I hope that this proposal can transform workplace culture to provide opportunities for parents to progress in their careers without any stigma and dilemma. I hope that more fathers will step forward to use paternity leave and the time given to help their wives and children in order to foster closer family ties at home.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am encouraged by the amendments introduced and support the Bill.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and support the changes to the Child Development Co-Savings Act. I am especially glad for the enhancements to the Government-Paid Paternity Benefits, as well as the Government's reimbursements to companies which opt to give additional leave to parents beyond the statutory requirements. It certainly helps in the efforts to encourage workplace cultures to be more family-friendly. I have a clarification to ask and some suggestions to make.

First, can there be more transparency and clearer instructions on how Self-Employed Persons' claims for Government-Paid Maternity and Paternity benefits will be assessed? I have had residents who write in to ask how and what proof they need to submit to show that they have taken leave when they are their own bosses. This applies to freelancers and sole proprietors who include tuition teachers, coaches, designers, arts and sports instructors, beauticians, home caterers, consultants, marketeers and many others, even including delivery riders, like what my hon colleague, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, has mentioned earlier. They are unsure and confused about what extent of documentation they need to submit and whether their claims will be approved. It would be helpful to have more clarity and certainty, as the success of the paid leave reimbursements impact on their financials at a time when money could be very tight due to the increased expenses brought on by a newborn child.

Second, amendments must be made for low-income families who currently benefit very little from the dollar-for-dollar matched savings benefit. And I echo my colleague Mr Gan Thiam Poh's call for it. While I welcome and support the recent revisions to increase the capped amount for the second child from $3,000 to $6,000, low-income families may be left with a further gap to catch up on, compared to other families in terms of child financing. Low-income Singaporeans are not able to save much, given their jobs and salaries pay only enough to make ends meet, if at all. Based on the latest Household Expenditure Survey, on average, the bottom 20% of households are now spending $2,570 a month while having a monthly income of $2,235, which includes already the regular Government transfers, such as Workfare. This means that these 20th percentile of families have a shortfall, on average, of $335 each month, leaving them no ability to save.

I suggest we have a differentiated and higher savings match ratio for households that are within the bottom 20th percentile of income in Singapore, to help make the savings matching scheme more equitable. This will be a positive step to help bridge the inequality gap, by providing better for children from low-income households. A financial literacy programme tailored to this community can also be coupled with this benefit to help equip low-income families with the planning skills to attain and maximise savings.

Third, we should equalise the Government's treatment of children born out of wedlock and within marriages. I am disappointed that the latest amendments continue to disadvantage children born to unwed parents, which is unfortunate and unfair for the child. I echo and support my hon colleague Mr Louis Ng's call to make unwed parents eligible for the Baby Bonus Cash Gift.

Although I understand the Government's position that it does not want to signal or encourage the birth of children out of wedlock, it needs to recognise that such circumstances can be born out of misfortune and not always wilful promiscuity.

I have a resident who was unable to marry her fiancé after getting pregnant because he died from a traffic accident before their wedding. To this day, she still feels penalised from being excluded from the various support schemes, including housing support, due to circumstances beyond her control. Many unwed mothers may also choose not to be trapped by marriage to irresponsible men. The fact that these men are irresponsible is often a discovery after the deed. Marriage is not always the ideal option if the father proves to be an untenable lifelong partner.

No matter what one's view or value is on wedlock, I believe we can all agree that the child of unwed parents should not be made to suffer the consequences of the parents' choices or mistakes.

If the Government's intention is to discourage extra-marital affairs, I would urge the Government to look into better enforcement of child support payments. One possibility could be using DNA tests to identify and hold accountable biological parents. Accountability to a child whom one sires or births should be regardless of marital status. This will help unwed mothers caring for a child to access child support payments from their co-parents if necessary.

In the rare case where the one caring for the child is the biological father, the accountability should be equally applied to any mother who has chosen to bail.

Every child born is precious, especially in Singapore. I hope CDCA can go beyond being a support programme to encourage and support parenthood to also become an instrument to equalise the circumstances and well-being of every Singaporean child.

In summary, I would like to make three asks. One, more administrative clarity for self-employed parents to access paternity and maternity benefits. Two, differentiated and higher ratio child-development savings match for low-income families. Three, equalised cash support in Baby Bonus, possibly renamed Baby Support, to children of unwed parents. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, families with young children have been profoundly affected by the pandemic. Many have to juggle with work-from-home arrangements and, at the same time, help their children with home-based learning. For others, they may have been made redundant or experienced a drop in income. The Bill amendments reflect that the Government is aware of parenting challenges during this difficult period. I will touch on three issues in my speech.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government should consider extending the benefits to single parents, including those who are unwed, separated or divorced. Many Members have also proposed this. It would not be a stretch to say that single parents are the hardest hit during the pandemic. They have to juggle managing their children, their jobs and everything else, with little to no support without a spouse. Even if they qualify for maintenance fees, it is a perpetual challenge for some to claim these fees, which involves going to Court each time.

At recruitment interviews, their marital status and caregiving arrangements are a perpetual concern for interviewers. They also do not have sufficient childcare leave or someone else to share the burden. A resident of mine, a single mother of one child, told me that she has been unemployed for two years. This was because she has been unable to find an employer who would accommodate her need to fulfill her caregiving duties.

Although single parents from low-income households may tap on financial assistance, the application and renewal processes are reportedly tedious. Regardless of their circumstances, these children are Singapore Citizens. They are our future. I hope that the Government can accord the same benefits eligible to conventional families to the single-parent families. They are in greater need.

I also wish to request that support for parents with stillborn children be extended to those who have suffered a miscarriage or other pregnancy loss. While some employers may not be compassionate enough to allow them to take bereavement leave, suffering a miscarriage is not quite the same as losing a family member to external circumstances.

We should acknowledge and empathise that a miscarriage is a devastating life event, which can take a significant toll on one's physical and emotional well-being.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, with more parents and, in turn, employers becoming eligible for the leave benefits, are they required to apply for the grants or will the process be automated? If manual application is required, can the Ministry share about the application and approval process? Can the platforms to apply and to check on applications be made digital and seamless? For a start, I think applicants should not be required to produce the supporting documents, as the relevant information on employees' marital status, number of children and so on should be available in the Government database. The hassle may be off-putting for employers. It is also an unnecessary inconvenience for the officers processing the applications.

Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, as with all new and enhanced initiatives involving finances, there must be effective means to monitor how well they are working. Can the Government share how we intend to measure success for this initiative? What are the KPIs to determine whether more parents are benefiting from family-friendly policies at the workplace? Are we looking beyond the amount of reimbursements issued and leave granted? I hope we can go beyond counting the figures. We should have actual conversations with parents to find out if these measures have boosted their confidence to grow their family in Singapore. These measures would be useful to assess if the initiatives have truly translated into family-friendly work environments.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that the Government is extending cash benefits and employment leave benefits to a wider group of parents. As a father of five myself, this issue concerns me personally. I am aware that many fathers do not take paternity leave. In 2019, only 45% of all fathers took paternity leave. As such, the amendments to the Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) will be welcomed. It will spur employers to support more fathers to spend time with their families. Likewise, we hope that fathers will actively take up these entitlements to spend time with their children, as they go through their formative years. Nothing should be more important than being there for one's kids when it matters most. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Minister of State Sun Xueling.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To all Members who have spoken on the Bill, I am grateful for your support of the Bill and the queries raised. Many of us continue to place emphasis on ensuring an environment that supports families. We are united in this effort.

Many Members also recognised that it is a complex task to balance the many interests and considerations at hand when it comes to decisions on whether new policies should be introduced and if enhancements should be made to existing schemes. Some have alluded to the many factors at play and I am glad that they appreciate the balance the Government must strike. We have to safeguard taxpayers' monies and allocate as fairly as we can, knowing that any policy decision made has an indelible impact across multiple stakeholders. Let me touch on the points raised in turn.

Members, such as Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Desmond Choo, have suggested that more could be done for single unwed parents. I respect their views and I thank Member Louis Ng for sharing what I had said in Parliament before. Over the years, all Government benefits that support the caregiving, growth and development of children have been equalised.

I had highlighted in my opening speech the suite of measures that all Singaporean children can access. These include subsidies in healthcare, education, childcare and infant care, as well as the MediSave Grant for Newborns, MediShield Life coverage from birth and the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession. In 2016, we further extended the Child Development Account (CDA) to children of single unwed parents, which includes the CDA First Step Grant and matched co-savings from the Government. In 2017, we extended support to unwed mothers for maternity leave under the CDCA. For unwed fathers who are the main caregivers of their children, MSF also evaluates their requests for paternity leave on a case-by-case basis.

Members have also raised that more benefits could be extended to single unwed parents. Single unwed parents who require further help can approach our Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres.

For other benefits, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and parenthood-related tax benefits, these continue to be targeted to encourage parenthood within marriage. We acknowledge Members' concerns about single unwed parents and we will do what we can to support them based on their needs. I also hope to assure Members that, together with other agencies, we regularly review how we can better support them.

For single unwed parents who require further support, they can also look to the SPIN programme, which can help improve their access to information and resources.

Ms Carrie Tan shared that there was a need to look into better enforcement of child support payments so as to reiterate that accountability to a child is independent of marital status. The Member will be happy to note that the duty of a parent to maintain his or her child is already provided for under the Women's Charter, regardless of whether the child is legitimate or illegitimate. Unwed mothers are, therefore, already able to apply to the Court for maintenance of a child from the father.

Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh also shared that some low-income parents may not be able to fully maximise the co-matching feature of CDA. This feature first requires parents to deposit into CDA to receive Government co-matching, which may be challenging for some low-income parents who may not have the means to set aside enough to save into CDA. In 2016, we introduced the CDA First Step Grant, which is a $3,000 deposit when CDA is opened, without parents having to save first. This is granted to all Singaporean children, regardless of their parents' marital or income status. I am glad that some community partners have also stepped forward to help families save more into CDA by making deposits into the accounts of children from low-income families. These contributions will qualify for Government co-matching and we encourage them to continue to do so.

The Government also provides adhoc top-ups to CDA. For example, as part of the Household Support Package announced at Budget this year, all Singaporean children aged six and under in 2021 will receive a $200 top-up to their CDA from September this year. The CDA remains open for 12 years. Therefore, parents have a substantial amount of time to deposit money into CDA to maximise the co-matching caps and should plan to do so at their own pace.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has asked why there are no legislative provisions to clearly set out the interest rates that apply to CDA. We welcome his wholehearted endorsement of CPF and its very generous, risk-free returns.

CDA's interest rates are determined by banks but have, generally, been higher than a normal savings account. On top of this, despite CDA being a bank account, the Government provides co-matching. Monies in CDA are intended to support the child's growth and development during their early years, in contrast to CPF, which helps support Singaporeans in their retirement years. And parents are able to withdraw from CDA, as needed, to defray educational and healthcare expenses at approved institutions, as compared to CPF.

There are dedicated schemes that low-income families can turn to, if they need social assistance, and such families can approach our Social Service Offices (SSOs), which stand ready to render help. Our SSOs will assess their households' needs and circumstances and provide assistance accordingly. For instance, families who require support with their basic living expenses can receive ComCare financial assistance if they meet the criteria and SSOs may also refer families to other Government agencies and community partners, such as Family Service Centres, for further support.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked that we consider waiving the employment criterion for Leave and Benefits schemes, in consideration of stay-at-home parents. For example, a cash grant could be given to a stay-at-home parent. The Leave and Benefits schemes are meant to support working parents in managing their work and caregiving responsibilities, without having to leave the workforce.

Nonetheless, we value the contributions of stay-at-home parents, as they, too, play a fundamental role in nurturing the next generation of Singaporeans. As such, we have put in place other support schemes that Singaporean children and their families can receive, regardless of their parents' working status, including the Baby Bonus Scheme, the MediSave Grant for Newborns and the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession.

One of the Government's key priorities is to ensure that parents have access to quality and affordable preschools for their children. To this end, we have significantly increased the number of full-day places, from about 120,000 in 2015 to around 190,000 today, an increase of over 50%. To answer Mr Yip Hon Weng's query, in spite of the COVID-19 situation, we are on track to grow the number of full-day places to over 200,000 by 2023.

Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about the accessibility of preschool places for parents who have switched to hybrid or remote working. Today, almost 70% of all childcare centres and over 95% of Anchor Operator childcare centres are located in residential estates, as families have, generally, expressed a preference for childcare services close to their homes.

Going forward, we will continue to build more preschool places in tandem with upcoming HDB developments where there are more new families. ECDA closely monitors local preschool enrolment and availability and regularly reviews its plans. Should local demand shift and exceed earlier expectations, ECDA would work with preschools and HDB to look into activating more void deck and communal spaces for centre extensions, where available.

Members such as Ms Carrie Tan, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Yip Hon Weng, have asked for clarity on the application process and how claims and payouts under the Government-Paid Leave Schemes and Benefits are assessed. In particular, Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked how self-employed persons' leave claims are assessed.

Let me first address Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query on how we define self-employed persons, which relates to how we assess their claims. Broadly, a self-employed man or woman is a resident of Singapore who engages in or carries on any trade, business, profession or vocation other than employment under a contract of service and derives income from such trade, business, profession or vocation. Freelancers and gig workers fall within this definition, as do delivery drivers.

To be clear, self-employed persons can qualify for payment under either the Leave or Benefits schemes. Their employment arrangement is the one that will determine which scheme they qualify under.

To Ms Carrie Tan's queries on how self-employed parents' leave claims are assessed and Mr Yip Hon Weng's query on whether the application and approval processes are automated, let me illustrate with an example. Self-employed mothers can submit maternity leave claims at MSF's "profamilyleave" website. They have to provide basic information, such as their personal particulars and their child's, as well as their occupation and period of inactivity from work. To avoid over-burdening applicants, we require only critical information to enable assessment. In most cases, they do not need to submit documents at this point of application but are required to declare that the information provided is accurate. We have automated the process, as much as possible.

We will verify against available data in the Government database that the eligibility criteria are met, for example, that the applicant's child is a Singapore Citizen. If eligible, the applicant will be entitled to payment from the Government for the Government-paid portion of leave, based on one's lost income, as capped by the limits set out in legislation. In determining the amount, we will look at the relevant Notice of Assessment, which is prescribed in the subsidiary legislation. For self-employed parents without a Notice of Assessment, I can assure Members that MSF will consider other documents which can serve as proof of income to facilitate our assessment. These could include bank statements, contracts for services or invoices.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked about the application process for the new Government-Paid Paternity Benefit (GPPB) and the Government-Paid Adoption Benefit (GPAB) schemes. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the application process for parents who have been retrenched but have unconsumed leave and want to apply for a benefits top-up.

Generally, the application process is similar to an application under the existing Government-Paid Maternity Benefits scheme, which is done at MSF's "profamilyleave" website. Parents will need to submit all their employment contracts for the period of 12 months immediately preceding their child's date of birth or eligibility date for an adopted child and their payslips for the employments or the latest Notice of Assessment. They will also need to submit the retrenchment letter. The amount that a parent receives will be derived from the average income earned over the 12 months preceding the child's date of birth or eligibility date for an adopted child.

For parents who require more details and fellow Members who meet residents with these queries, I encourage you to visit the "profamilyleave" website, which has information on the eligibility criteria, application procedures and payment for the various schemes. MSF is also happy to render assistance to parents who require help in navigating the process.

Mr Gam Thiam Poh raised a good point that we do not want self-employed persons to be left out. I hope that my explanation will reassure working parents who are self-employed, that they, too, should apply for the Leave and Benefits schemes.

To Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point that the amounts reimbursed to employers or paid out in the form of benefits may vary from person to person, this is correct. For employees on the leave schemes, they will continue to receive their salaries for the duration of their leave and, for the Government-paid portion, this would be subject to the reimbursement caps. For those who do not qualify for leave but are eligible for the benefits schemes, they will receive a payout from the Government equivalent to the Government-paid portion of leave, pro-rated based on their economic activity in the 12 months preceding the child's date of birth or the eligibility date for an adopted child.

The more a parent has worked in the 12 months before the birth of the child or eligibility date for an adopted child, the more benefits he or she will be eligible for. Our Leave and Benefits schemes are intended to support bona fide working parents and, therefore, the support granted will differ based on the parents' employment arrangement and economic activity.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh has also requested for additional data on the various schemes. While having more data-points will bolster our understanding of family needs, as a general principle, MSF does not require information for claims and applications above and beyond what is necessary to determine eligibility and entitlement. This avoids burdening employers and working parents excessively. For instance, household income is not needed to determine the quantum of Baby Bonus benefits, as the scheme does not vary with income. Likewise, we also do not require parents to submit information about the number of children they have when processing claims for Leave and Benefits schemes that do not vary with the birth order. Parents also need not submit information on other grants that they have received.

In this regard, we seek the Member's understanding that we must balance the need for policy review with making our claim and application processes citizen-centric and efficient.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat requested that the GPPB and GPAB application date of 1 December 2021 be brought forward. I seek the Member's understanding that we require time to make the necessary amendments to subsidiary legislation and to also enhance the IT system to support the schemes.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling has suggested a review of current schemes to better reflect the principle of shared parental duties, such as through the extension of Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) and Grandparent Caregiver Relief (GCR) to fathers. These schemes aim to encourage married women to continue working after childbirth, rather than provide general assistance to families. Families can benefit from other parenthood-related tax benefits, such as Qualifying Child Relief (QCR) and Parenthood Tax Rebate (PTR). She also suggested that exclusive, non-transferrable parental leave be equalised between mothers and fathers.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin stated that more exclusive paternity leave would be a strong signal, so that couples do not have to make tough decisions. Mr Louis Ng has also asked for a phased increase of paternity leave. We know that children benefit from having involved fathers who are committed to their growth and development. Today, fathers can already benefit from a series of leave enhancements made over the years.

Most recently, in 2017, we made the second week of paternity leave mandatory and shared parental leave was extended from one to four weeks. In total, fathers may take up to eight weeks of leave in the child’s first year, which they can use to spend time with both mother and child.

Active fatherhood is on the rise. Over the years, paternity leave take-up has increased markedly. In 2013, only 25% of fathers took up paternity leave. In 2019, the proportion has increased to a healthy 55%. The introduction of GPPB is also a recognition of the Government's support for fathers who may be in less conventional working arrangements.

Despite these improvements, there is still some way to go. I encourage more fathers to take their leave, but in order for fathers to do so, mindsets will have to shift and this can only happen over time.

One key contributor is whether fathers feel supported in the workplace and I encourage employers to implement more family-friendly practices like flexible working arrangements. I assure Mr Louis Ng that MSF is often in close consultation with our community partners, such as the Families for Life or the Centre for Fathering, which drives the Dads for Life movement to encourage active fathering. MSF takes the building of strong marriages and families seriously. We will continue to push through this effort with our partners.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for leave to be extended to couples who suffer miscarriages, as they will need to recover. Mr Louis Ng, in particular, suggested that the Government could extend partial reimbursement to employers who provide leave benefits to couples who have a miscarriage.

I understand the Members' concern, as miscarriages are unfortunate events. Today, working mothers who need to recuperate after a miscarriage are given medical leave. These working mothers can also use their annual leave and some companies may also offer compassionate leave.

The Bill takes reference from the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBDA) in defining a stillbirth as one occurring after the 28th week of pregnancy. As the Member is aware, the new RBDA was recently passed in Parliament. A stillborn child is now defined to mean a child delivered after the 22nd week of pregnancy. When the new RBDA comes into effect, the CDCA will also take on this interpretation. Parents will become eligible for birth-linked leave and benefits if their child is stillborn after the 22nd week of pregnancy.

I agree with Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Yip Hon Weng that families require further support as they recover physically and emotionally from the loss of a child, whether through a stillbirth or a miscarriage. We encourage families in need to seek help. Families may also approach Family Service Centres for support on socio-emotional issues.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has asked whether shared parental leave could be extended to fathers who have also experienced a stillbirth. I thank the Member for sharing his stories and my heart goes out to him and his family.

I would like to clarify that shared parental leave will be extended to these fathers if their wives have elected to share the leave. They will also be entitled to paternity leave and GPPB.

To the Member's query as to whether an adoptive father qualifies for leave and benefits, currently, paternity leave applies to both biological and adoptive fathers. Adoptive fathers will also qualify for the new GPPB scheme.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested that more leave, above and beyond the current maternity leave provisions, could be extended to parents who have stillbirths. Some companies may also offer compassionate leave over and beyond these entitlements.

Ms Joan Pereira has also called for additional leave for parents with multiple births, as they may face increased caregiving responsibilities. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked that we consider giving parents full flexibility to share parental leave. While more leave that could be flexibly used could be useful, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin has rightly pointed out that there are associated costs in implementing family-friendly practices and a practical approach must be taken and we have to be mindful that we do not, inadvertently, affect parents' employability if they are absent from work for an extended period of time.

Employers face manpower and operational demands and these must be calibrated alongside the need to support working parents. But I would like to reassure Members that I know where they are coming from and I do know that they want to support parents as much as they can. Any increase in leave provisions, however, will have to be considered carefully, especially in periods of business uncertainty.

I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that flexibility and mutual understanding between employers and employees are key. Flexible workplace arrangements (FWAs), which contribute to a family-friendly work environment are more sustainable and can be tailored to a parent's own needs.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested that more could be done to reward companies that are pro-family. Today, the Tripartite Standards on FWAs, on Work-Life Harmony and on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs recognise progressive companies that support their employees, including those with caregiving responsibilities, to manage both their work and personal needs. Employers who adopt these Standards can use the Tripartite Standard (TS) Logo to distinguish themselves as employers of choice. COVID-19 has also helped create momentum for the use of FWAs, as companies realised that FWAs could be implemented effectively and efficiently as we transition into the new normal. We encourage more employers to come on board and the Government will work with the tripartite partners to look into other ways to have FWAs become a norm at workplaces.

As to the Member's suggestion on introducing grants or funding schemes to employers who have demonstrated their commitment to fostering family-friendly workplaces in Singapore, we thank him for his suggestion and we will review this further.

Mr Louis Ng has also asked if a public consultation was done for this Bill and to share the reasons why it was not done, given that many could have given constructive feedback to refine the Bill. I would like to share that there was no public consultation with respect to the Bill, specifically, and there are two reasons for this.

First, the process of consultation is not a one-off event. Many Members today have given their feedback on the various schemes under the purview of the CDCA over the years, both formally and informally. We have also debated vigorously on the merits of various support schemes that families can access. In addition, we have regular touchpoints with parents and employers through our community partners and tripartite partners. I assure the Member that we have always adopted a listening posture and are receptive to feedback. The Bill is, therefore, a culmination of many feedback cycles, instead of a single consultation.

Second, most will benefit from this round of amendments. This is the result of the Government stepping up to provide additional support that accrues directly to parents and employers.

Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a question that is close to my heart: how do we measure the success of our efforts to create a Singapore that is Made for Families? Statistics like the take-up rate of various leave schemes, though useful, provide a limited understanding of the daily lives of families and their needs. I can assure the Member that this question preoccupies our minds and, MSF, together with the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), will strive to continue to keep our ear to the ground. Members may be aware that, as part of the Emerging Stronger Conversations, Minister Indranee Rajah and myself have been leading a series of conversations since April with individuals to better understand their experiences and thoughts on getting married and raising families.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the current amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act are but one step in our endeavour to support marriage and parenthood in Singapore. This is an iterative process and I am heartened by the many views shared by my colleagues; and there are also other ongoing reviews related to the conversations on Singapore Women's Development that the Government is leading and I look forward to sharing more in due course.

I thank Members for their various suggestions and inputs. The schemes under CDCA, be it the various Leave and Benefits schemes, or CDA, are essential in supporting working parents. However, they do not and should not function in isolation. A tapestry of measures and policies must be woven to ensure that families in Singapore are well-supported in their children's growth and development. This will only be possible with the help of our immediate and extended families, employers and community partners.

MSF will continue to do our best to ensure that our policies build a better future for Singapore, anchored by strong families. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Louis Ng, you have a clarification?

Thank you, Sir. The Minister of State has shared that we cannot give the cash component of the Baby Bonus to singles or unweds because it is part of the Marriage and Parenthood package, the key word being "marriage".

But I just want to point out that the CDA component of the Baby Bonus is also part of the Marriage and Parenthood package, but we do give it to the single unwed parents. So, why can we not just extend the other portion of the Baby Bonus to the single unweds?

Again, I want to stress, we need to remember our own data shows that single unwed parents under 35 have a median salary of $600. Six hundred dollars for someone caring for a newborn! I think this cash that many of us are pushing for is not a luxury for them. It really is a lifeline and I hope MSF will reconsider this policy.

I thank the Member for his clarification. As I have mentioned, there have been several reviews on our Marriage and Parenthood Packages. The CDA that he mentioned earlier was revised in 2016 to also take into account single unwed parents.

As I mentioned, there are certain Government policies that encourage parenthood within marriage; the Baby Bonus cash gift is one such benefit. But again, I would like to remind our Members that I have listed a whole series of benefits that have been equalised for children of both unwed as well as wedded parents. So, I hope that we can look at this holistically.

But again, as I have said, we constantly review our Marriage and Parenthood Packages and will continue to do so.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you have a clarification?

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. And I thank the Minister of State Ms Sun Xueling for the response. I hope that she would be able to clarify: in her explanation about CPF and CDA having different objectives, which she explained at length and, to be clear, I absolutely do not contest, it still remains unanswered why one qualifies for legislative protection of returns but the other does not.

Since we are doing clarifications, I should clarify myself that my reference to legislative protections for returns to CPF should not be construed as a ringing endorsement of the scheme.

I thank the Member for his clarification. As I shared in my reply earlier, the CDA's interest rates are determined by banks, that is number one. And number two, different from CPF, for the CDA account, parents can actually withdraw money from it as and when they need it to defray expenses that they need for the upbringing of their children. So, it is more short-term in nature because they can go and withdraw from the CDA bank account to defray those expenses. This is different from the CPF, which is locked in for a longer period of time.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time".

Sir, the practice of dentistry constantly evolves with changes in population demographics as well as advancement in technology and materials associated with dental treatment. With Singapore having one of the world's fastest ageing populations, one of its challenges is ensuring that the needs of a growing ageing population, including dental care needs, are well provided for.

The Singapore Dental Council (SDC) ensures that there is a steady supply of dentists each year to meet the expected demand for dental services. In addition to local graduates from the Faculty of Dentistry of the National University of Singapore, the SDC also registers dental graduates from foreign universities.

The proportion of foreign-trained dentists in Singapore has risen steadily from 20%, or about 302 out of 1,484 dentists in 2008, to 36%, or 900 out of 2,475 dentists in 2019. Against this backdrop, SDC undertook a review of the process for foreign-trained dental graduates to practise in Singapore, to ensure that they meet the same high competency standards as locally trained dental graduates.

SDC assessed that two measures are needed to achieve this objective. First, the Dental Registration Act (DRA) will be amended by this Bill to require that foreign-trained dental graduates must pass a qualifying examination to be eligible for conditional registration; and second, the DRA Schedule will be revised to list the foreign universities whose dental degree holders are automatically eligible to take the qualifying examination.

This Bill gives effect to the first measure, relating to the qualifying examination, which I will explain in more detail now. The second measure, which I will touch on briefly later, will be affected by way of subsidiary legislation.

Under the current DRA, dental graduates from foreign universities looking to practise in Singapore will, typically, have to apply for conditional registration first. This means that they have to complete a period of supervised work, usually around two years, and be assessed to be competent, before they can apply to be fully registered dentists.

For the purposes of an application for conditional registration, the SDC recognises dental degrees from universities in Australia, Canada, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which are listed in the Schedule of the DRA. If an applicant has a degree in dentistry from a foreign university listed in the Schedule and also meets the other prevailing criteria for conditional registration, the SDC may grant the applicant conditional registration.

These criteria do not currently include a requirement to pass a qualifying examination.

The SDC may also grant conditional registration to applicants who have degrees in dentistry from other foreign universities that are not listed in the Schedule. The SDC evaluates such applications on a case-by-case basis and may require that such applicants pass an examination, to ascertain that they have the minimum skills and knowledge to practise and treat patients safely and competently in our local context.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 14A of the DRA to introduce a requirement that foreign-trained dental graduates must take and pass a qualifying examination to be eligible for conditional registration.

This qualifying examination, which is currently already taken by foreign-trained dental graduates who do not have dentistry degrees in the Schedule, is administered by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Dentistry and overseen by SDC. It assesses a dental graduate’s clinical knowledge and procedural skills which are fundamental to the practice of dentistry. This is similar in scope and benchmarked to the standards of the final-year examination of the NUS Faculty of Dentistry.

Section 14A, when amended, will make it a requirement for foreign dental graduates, regardless of whether their qualifications are contained in the DRA Schedule, to pass a qualifying examination to be eligible for conditional registration.

Foreign graduates who have a degree in dentistry listed in the DRA Schedule will automatically be eligible to take the qualifying examination.

Those not listed in the DRA Schedule are not automatically eligible to take the qualifying examination, but the SDC may permit them to do so on a case-by-case basis if the circumstances set out in section 14A(2) apply. The treatment of foreign graduates with degrees in dentistry not listed in the DRA Schedule will not be so different from that under the current DRA in that they already have to pass an examination to be eligible for conditional registration.

This amendment will ensure that the competency standards of foreign dental graduates who are granted conditional registration in Singapore, whether or not their degrees are listed in the DRA Schedule, are aligned with those of dental graduates who have a Singapore degree, which means someone who has obtained a degree in dentistry from NUS.

This new requirement of a qualifying examination will also ensure that foreign dental graduates are familiar with the requirements for clinical practice here in Singapore. For example, the local dental curriculum has, in recent times, sharpened its focus on core clinical general dentistry skills and more emphasis has been placed on geriatric dentistry, considering the trends in Singapore’s demographics.

Under the current DRA, any foreign dental graduate with a degree listed in the Schedule is entitled to be registered as a dentist with conditional registration, if he has secured employment with a local dental practice. With the proposed amendment, the qualifying examination will be applicable to graduates with degrees listed in the Schedule as well.

To be clear, there is no change to the regime for dental graduates with a Singapore degree. They continue to be eligible to apply for full registration directly. There is no requirement of a qualifying examination for locally trained dental graduates.

I now move on to the second measure which we will be implementing to ensure the continued quality of foreign-trained dental graduates who practise in Singapore.

This will be a revision of the DRA Schedule, which contains the list of foreign degrees in dentistry that are recognised by the Singapore Dental Council (SDC) for the purposes of conditional registration. This list is curated based on a review of dentistry degrees from foreign universities which the SDC deems prima facie to meet the standards for practice in Singapore, subject to the individual dental graduate’s proof of his skills, knowledge and competencies through the qualifying examination.

As mentioned earlier, foreign dental graduates who have a degree listed in the DRA Schedule will automatically be eligible to take the qualifying examination, unlike the foreign graduates with degrees not listed in the Schedule. Alongside these amendments introduced by the Bill, we will be revising the Schedule to ensure that the list continues to reflect degrees in dentistry from foreign universities that give their holders this automatic eligibility to take the qualifying examination. The last revision of the Schedule was in 2008 and a review is timely to ensure the continued quality of foreign-trained dental graduates who practise as dentists in Singapore.

This revision will be done by way of subsidiary legislation and is actually not part of the Bill per se. But I have highlighted this as it complements the introduction of the mandatory qualifying examination that foreign-trained dental graduates must pass to be eligible for conditional registration.

There will be a transitional period after the revision of the Schedule, where qualifications in the current Schedule will continue to be recognised and, their holders, as well as students who are already enrolled or have secured places in courses leading to such qualifications, may apply for conditional registration under the DRA.

The Bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments, which are to provide for payment of penalties and composition sums into the Consolidated Fund, as well as for better administration of the Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will ensure the continued quality of foreign-trained dental graduates and that their clinical skills and competencies are aligned with those of locally trained dental graduates, so that they can effectively meet the dental needs of our population.

Once passed, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and SDC will work closely with the dental community and other stakeholders to implement and operationalise these requirements. At present, the introduction of the requirement for the qualifying examination is planned for 1 January 2029. In the coming months, SDC will engage dental students who will be affected by these changes, to ensure that they understand the new requirements and to address any concerns that they may have. I seek Members’ support for this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, we are facing a supply crunch in dental care. It has become necessary for Singapore to open its doors to graduates with foreign degrees in dentistry to supplement our locally trained dentists.

As early as 2017, the Ministry recognised that there were not enough locally trained dentists to handle all the demands for dental care and set the goal of achieving a ratio of one dentist to 2,200 people. In doing so, it is also important to ensure that there is some standardisation in the dentistry care that is provided in the industry.

This Bill helps to ensure that we strike the right balance between opening our doors and ensuring consistency in the profession.

I have three points of clarification.

My first point is on the implementation of the qualifying examination for foreign degree holders. Currently, SDC already administers a qualifying examination for graduates with foreign dentistry degrees from universities not specified in the Schedule to the Dentistry Act. The amendment to section 14A will expand this requirement to all graduates with foreign dentistry degrees, whether specified in the Schedule or not.

The SDC’s website states that an applicant only has two attempts at the qualifying examination which must be taken within 12 months of each other. The feedback from the ground is that the qualifying examination is very stringent and the failure rates are fairly high. I agree that we should set the bar high for the profession. The fact that we have several graduates who are failing the qualifying examination is not a reason to lower the bar. However, we should consider giving more time. With more time to practise and study, with more opportunities to attempt the examination, many dentistry graduates may, eventually, qualify and help alleviate the supply crunch facing the industry.

Can the Minister share if the Ministry is considering increasing the number of attempts allowed at the qualifying examination? Can the Minister also share if the Ministry is considering increasing the duration of 12 months between attempts, even as a temporary measure, considering the present circumstances of the pandemic? In addition, can the Minister share whether there are plans to provide increased support or training programmes for those who are struggling to pass this examination?

Dentistry is an extremely specialised degree and these graduates have spent many years applying themselves to it. It would be a shame to end their aspirations after just two attempts at the qualifying examination, especially when it is always possible to improve.

My second point is on the alternative careers for Singaporean graduates with foreign dentistry degrees. While there is likely to always be a proportion of graduates who are not able to pass the qualifying examination, this group of graduates may, nonetheless, possess some meaningful skills from their years of higher education.

Can MOH share if there are alternative pathways within the dentistry industry where we can channel this group of graduates into, so that these graduates can, nonetheless, pursue a career in this industry and help, again, to reduce our supply crunch?

My final point is on the present status of the dentistry industry. It is apparent from the 2019 Dental Association survey that we are some distance from easing the supply crunch. Can the Minister share more details about its progress in meeting the goal of the ratio of one dentist to 2,200 people? How effective has the measures adopted since 2017 been in easing the supply crunch? Are there plans to further increase the local intake of dentistry students to meet the population’s dentistry care needs?

Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Dr Shahira Abdullah.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I start by declaring my interest as a locally trained dentist in a public hospital.

For my speech, I will focus on the proposal to register all graduates who hold a foreign degree in dentistry, to pass a qualifying examination before they are granted conditional registration to practise as dentists in Singapore.

Firstly, I would like to say that I believe this is long overdue. Having the qualifying examinations ensures that the competencies of foreign graduates are aligned with the competencies of graduates holding a Singapore degree in dentistry. This protects the public by ensuring that only dentists who are adequately trained and qualified are eligible to start practising under conditional registration. This is already present in most other overseas jurisdictions and, with this, Singapore is actually aligning itself with the rest of the world.

Secondly, though I welcome this proposal, I do have some concerns regarding the implementation timing. At this juncture, there are many young students who are already enrolled in overseas universities who are part of the Schedule. They did so, particularly aiming for these universities, so they would not need to take the qualifying examinations. Therefore, I believe it is only fair to carry out these policies prospectively, giving them a few years, taking into account students who have already been accepted into these universities or who are unable to start the degree programme yet due to circumstances, such as National Service.

Thirdly, I do have some queries regarding section 14A which states that “any person who does not hold a Singapore degree or a degree from a specified university may also sit for the qualifying exam if the degree the person holds is, in the opinion of the Council, not lower in standing than the specified degrees.” May I know if the Council will be having a set of objective criteria to determining the quality of these foreign degrees?

I am, however, glad that the Ministry said that it is going to review the Schedule and adding universities or deleting universities from the Schedule, because I believe it will have more clarity for the students who are involved. For example, in my work with youths, I have encountered families who have decided to send their children to study in non-accredited universities just to help them realise their children's dreams. This kind of clarity will allow such families to make more informed decisions when preparing for entrance examinations before university.

Similarly, in subsection (b), clarity will also be beneficial in how the Council determines if a person has “a standing that is not lower than that of a local practitioner”. This is because the assessment has to be made before they are permitted to even take the qualifying examinations, which aim to peg their skills to the skills of a local practitioner.

Fourthly, I would also like to clarify what sort of circumstances MOH is envisaging would be of public interest to allow a graduate to sit or not sit for the qualifying examination.

Lastly, on the basis of the qualifying examination, it is based on the final examinations and competencies criteria of the dental graduates in Singapore. I think this is a fair benchmark to aim for.

However, there will be instances in which these young Singaporean graduates with foreign degrees may fail this examination and this may be due to a variety of reasons. For example, as an orthodontist and dentist myself, I have learnt that certain dental principles have to be applied to the local context. Dental graduates from foreign universities may not be so well-versed in, for example, the Singapore public health aspects, or that a Caucasian face would need a different treatment plan, as compared to the Asian face, or the fact that the range of common diseases changes from country to country, which means their experience and skills may differ accordingly.

The current guidelines dictate that the qualifying examination may be taken a maximum of two times. May I suggest increasing this but within reasonable limits, especially for the Singaporean graduates who have invested significantly in their dental education.

The serious implication that we must take into account is that after failing these qualifying examinations, the young graduate is, practically, unable to practise dentistry in Singapore. They are forced to look for alternative career pathways and maybe not even practise dentistry at all.

Another situation I feel we should think about is the fate of the young graduates with foreign degrees who come from families which are not so well-off. They are not able to work while doing the qualifying examination, which takes about a year to complete. If they fail, this may extend to another year, which may have a big impact on the family’s finances.

A suggestion I have is to provide some sort of scaffolding for these young dental graduates who may need help in retuning their skills to the local context. This can be in the form of short optional courses they can apply for, which the Dental Council can conduct. These young graduates are, essentially, our next generation of dentists and we should give them the support they need so that we do not lose our talents, especially as we aim to raise the standard of dentistry in Singapore.

Before I end, I would also like to wish a Happy Nurses’ Day to all the nurses who are such an integral part of the healthcare system, for their hard work, dedication, contributions and sacrifice, especially during this COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding those questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Dental Registration (Amendment) Bill will require the increasing proportion of foreign-trained dentists in Singapore to be subjected to the mandatory Qualifying Examinations. This is to ensure that their competency and standards are aligned with those of local dental graduates.

I support the amendment Bill. Quality dental care is something which all Singaporeans will benefit from.

However, I want to take a step back to question the current system of training dentists and the target dentist-to-population ratio. It appears to me that we are introducing these amendments because we do not have enough Singapore-trained dentists and we want to make sure that those who studied dentistry overseas are of a good standard.

Why do we not train more dentists in Singapore? Back in 2017, a Straits Times article had already pointed out that Singapore was not training enough dentists to meet the needs of a growing and ageing population. The proportion of foreign-trained dentists in Singapore had risen significantly from 20% in 2008 to 36% in 2019. In 2019, 900 out of a total of 2,475 dentists were foreign-trained. I also understand that many of those who have obtained their dentistry degree overseas are Singaporeans and PRs.

This is not surprising as the Faculty of Dentistry at the National University of Singapore only has a small intake of 44 students in 2008, although it has increased to 80 this year. Even then, many Singaporeans who have very good grades, many with perfect university admission score of 90 points, cannot get into dentistry. As a result, many of the rejected aspiring dentistry students have to ask their families to fork out a fortune for them to pursue a dentistry degree overseas.

Thus, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOH can consider increasing the capacity of the dentistry course at NUS. If NUS has no capacity, can we consider opening up another dental school in say, NTU, to meet the aspiration of Singaporeans and solve the insufficient supply of dentists in Singapore? Or is there an intention to restrict the numbers of locally-trained dentists?

Ultimately, how many local and overseas trained dentists we need is contingent on the target dentist-to-population ratio. I understand MOH’s target ratio is one dentist to 2,200 people. Is that enough?

Currently, our dentist to population ratio is one is to 2,304, an improvement from one is to 3,215 in 2010. The question is: how do we derive the target of one dentist to 2,200 people?

Comparing to other countries’ dentist-to-population ratios, South Korea’s was one is to 2,000 in 2018; United States was one to 1,638 in 2020; Israel's was one is to 1,400 in 2017; Japan's was one is to 1,250 in 2014. So, is Singapore’s target of one is to 2,200 too conservative a figure?

Today, MOH recommends we consult a dentist twice a year. How many Singaporeans really consult a dentist every six months? Many Singaporeans that I know of do not. Why? The cost of scaling and checking your teeth by a dentist in an HDB estate will easily set you back by more than $100 and it is not mandatory for companies to provide dental benefits.

If you want to save some money and consult a dentist at a polyclinic, it will cost you about $30 to $50 but you have to wait for months before you can make an appointment to see the dentist in the polyclinic. Why is this so? Is it because MOH does not consider oral health as basic healthcare? Or is it a way to suppress the need to increase the dentist-to-population ratio?

Meanwhile, we understand that blue Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), Merdeka and Pioneer Generation cardholders receive subsidies when they visit private dentists for routine check-ups. To make oral care more affordable, I would like to appeal to MOH to extend the subsidies to orange and green CHAS cardholders. At the same time, I would like to appeal to MOM to make it compulsory for all companies to provide workers with dental benefits in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] MOH has advised Singaporeans to see a dentist twice a year. However, it is expensive to see a dentist. It would cost over $100 even if you have your teeth cleaned at a neighbourhood dental clinic. If you want to save money by going to a polyclinic, you will have to wait a few months before you can see a dentist.

Fortunately, blue CHAS cardholders, Merdeka and Pioneer Generation Singaporeans can enjoy subsidies when they go to private dental clinics. However, green and orange CHAS cardholders do not get subsidies. Moreover, most employers do not give dental benefits to their employees. In other words, most Singaporeans only wait until they have a toothache before they see a dentist. This is not good. Hence, I suggest that MOH consider giving dental subsidies to green and orange CHAS cardholders. I also hope that MOM will also make it compulsory for employers to give dental benefits to their employees so that most Singaporeans can visit a dentist regularly and have affordable dental care.

If Singaporeans can afford seeing a dentist, there would be a corresponding increase in the demand for dentists. Are the current 2,475 dentists sufficient to meet the demand of Singaporeans? At the same time, we have to take into account the fact that an ageing population would have increased demand for dentists.

If there is a shortage of dentists in the short term, we will need to recruit a large number of foreign graduates to make up for the shortage of local dentists. The Dental Registration (Amendment) Bill will make it compulsory for foreign graduates to pass the local dental examinations to ensure that their skills are comparable to those of local graduates. I, therefore, support the Dental Registration (Amendment) Bill.

In the long run, NUS should consider increasing the number of dental students. The current number of 80 per year does not meet the demand of Singaporeans for dentists, much less the large number of students who apply for dentistry every year. As a result, many outstanding students have to pay high tuition fees to study dentistry abroad.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we hope that MOH could revamp the dentistry industry in Singapore and provide more subsidies for dental care. Otherwise, Singaporeans who opt to see a dentist at the polyclinic have to "dan gu gu" or "wait long long". If you cannot wait and have to see a private dentist, then you have to pay "high high", and this is not ideal.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, dental health is important, as oral diseases affect people throughout their lifetime. Although these diseases are less likely to cause death, they can pose significant morbidity.