Hansard, Wednesday, 13 November 2024

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the work of the recently announced Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce; (b) what are the key areas of focus of the Taskforce; and (c) to what extent has the Taskforce engaged different stakeholders to enhance bus and commuter safety.

Sir, the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce was formed on 1 July 2024 to review how road safety may be enhanced for bus commuters, bus captains and other road users in their interactions with public buses. The review builds on the safety initiatives and practices that the Land Transport Authority, the public transport operators and workers have put in place over the years. It aims to identify ways to make further improvements in areas such as safety protocols and procedures, staffing levels and work conditions, design of road infrastructure and the usage of technology.

Between July 2024 and October 2024, the Taskforce engaged stakeholders such as commuters, road users, bus captains and other public transport workers, to obtain their feedback on how to improve bus safety. This includes a one-month long public survey which gathered over 2,300 responses, a survey for our bus captains which garnered over 3,400 responses, as well as in-person focus group discussions with around 160 commuters and road users. The Taskforce also visited all four bus operators to understand their safety practices. During the visits, Taskforce members also had the opportunity to engage face-to-face with bus captains to understand their concerns and challenges. To learn from stakeholders outside the bus sector, the Taskforce engaged the Singapore Armed Forces' (SAF’s) Transport Command to learn about safety initiatives for transport operators in the SAF.

The Taskforce conveys its thanks to all participants of its surveys, focus group discussions and visits. It is reviewing the feedback and learning points from the numerous engagements.

In the coming months, the Taskforce will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators and operators to identify suitable best practices that the local public bus sector can adopt. The Taskforce aims to complete its review by the first half of 2025.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of State for his answers. I am particularly interested in this Parliamentary Question (PQ) because of the bus safety issues, following the previous PQs I had asked before, especially the ones a few years ago on the accident near the bus interchange.

May I ask the Minister of State whether he can share any preliminary findings from whatever has been achieved so far since October, since the last round of consultations? And what other new consultations or engagements does he plan to make over the next few months, before the findings are released next year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the concern expressed by the hon Member Mr Saktiandi. May I just assure him that the number of serious collision accidents annually involving public buses has remained stable in the past few years. This remains the case since the announcement by Minister Chee Hong Tat on the formation of the Taskforce in July 2024.

As to the preliminary findings, the surveys and engagements that the Taskforce had so far showed that commuters generally feel that the safety standards onboard buses are good. But of course, there are always areas that we can look at to enhance these standards.

As to what further steps we will be taking to get the inputs necessary, as I mentioned in my speech, we will be engaging international experts, overseas regulators as well as operators to identify best practices that we can adopt in the local public bus sector.

Dr Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have Clementi residents who are ageing and so are understandably giving much attention to whether our bus services, our bus infrastructure continue to be accommodating of the elderly.

Can I ask the Minister of State, in the stakeholder consultations, will there be attention given to engaging healthcare professionals who work with the elderly and may have insights into the challenges faced by the elderly? Professionals such as geriatricians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other allied health professionals with relevant experience.

Mr Speaker, in response to the hon Member Dr Tan Wu Meng's question, so far, indeed, we have engaged seniors who are commuters and also received responses from bus captains who have been engaging with the seniors as well. In particular, one area of concern is how they would be dealing with situations where the bus had to decelerate quickly as that may cause problems for our seniors. This is one area we are trying to see how best we can progress.

The other area is also, sometimes, to dissuade seniors who have mobility issues from going to the upper deck in double-deck buses, but instead, to remain in the lower deck of the buses so that they do not take any chances while climbing up to the upper deck. That requires some level of education.

I thank Dr Tan for his suggestion for the Taskforce to engage the healthcare professionals. This is something that we could look at to see how we can bolster the safety for seniors while they travel in our buses.

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there is a specific threshold of reach or impact that the Ministry considers before taking action to block websites linked to potential misinformation campaigns; (b) how effective is the blocking of these websites, considering the availability of tools like virtual private network (VPN) to circumvent such restrictions; and (c) whether there is a process for website owners to appeal or seek recourse if they believe their websites have been mistakenly blocked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not set a threshold of reach or impact in assessing whether to pre-emptively act against threats of hostile information campaigns (HICs).

In the case of 10 inauthentic websites that were blocked on 22 October 2024, the level of exposure of Singaporeans to these 10 websites were assessed to be low. However, based on our investigations, they could potentially be used by foreign actors to mount HICs against Singapore. Most of these websites are associated with global networks of inauthentic news websites that have been reported by cybersecurity researchers to have conducted HICs and influence campaigns in other countries.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) had considered the MHA’s findings and was satisfied that it was in the public interest to take pre-emptive action and not wait until a HIC is mounted before acting against these websites.

Singaporeans should continue to remain vigilant when consuming online content and be alert to such inauthentic websites and the threat that they pose. The directions to Internet Access Service Providers to disable access to the 10 inauthentic websites were issued with the intent of protecting users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by these inauthentic websites. However, if individuals choose to circumvent these protections and use virtual private networks or other means to access dubious content, they do so at their own risk. We cannot protect people who deliberately avoid the protection.

Under section 59 of the Broadcasting Act, any licensee aggrieved by any decision of the IMDA may appeal to the Minister.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Blocking websites is a very powerful tool, but it also can have unintended consequences, such as driving traffic underground. How will the Ministry monitor this and deal with these unintended consequences? Are there complementary strategies to address misinformation besides blocking websites?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The objective of issuing directions to the inauthentic websites is to protect users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by them, and to raise public awareness of such foreign interference risks. So, by issuing a direction, by blocking access to these websites, we would have achieved these objectives.

I take the point that the Member mentioned that there could be users, audiences in Singapore who would try other ways and means to get access to this content. I had shared in my main reply that we cannot prevent them from doing so, but we would have achieved our purpose of highlighting to these users already the risk of accessing such content.

Beyond what we can do in the areas of issuing directions, I think what is most important is that we need to remind members of the public that they have to remain aware and vigilant against potential foreign interference activity.

The Government has conducted public education efforts and communication campaigns. We will continue to do so. These include the National Library Board's SURE campaign, which stands for Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate, to impart critical thinking skills to help Singaporeans discern the reliability of information, as well as the annual Total Defence campaign that reminds Singaporeans of the part that they need to play to counter hybrid threats. Lastly, the media also plays an important role by increasing the audience's awareness of the threat of foreign interference. I thank the Member for his questions.

3 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider introducing guidelines or regulations on employer's use of Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT), which are artificial intelligence technologies that substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making in hiring or promotions, in order to prevent biases and including measures such as requiring companies to conduct a bias audit or to make disclosure where such tools are used to rank candidates or assess employees for promotion.

Mr Speaker, regardless of the technological tools used to aid employment decisions, such as hiring or promotions, employers must comply with the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which promotes fair and merit-based employment practices.

If certain artificial intelligence (AI) use results in discriminatory employment practices, workers or job applicants can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance. TAFEP will work with the employer to address the grievances of the workers or job applicants and ensure that the employer’s recruitment or performance appraisal processes adhere to the principles of fair employment. To date, TAFEP has not received complaints of discrimination arising from the use of AI tools.

I would also like to caution that AI technologies are evolving at a fast pace. In deploying AI-powered human resources (HR) tools, organisations should refer to the guidelines introduced by the Government to support the responsible development and use of AI. The Government will continue to closely monitor the trends in AI adoption and work with our tripartite partners, the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) and the broader HR community to regularly assess if existing guidelines and regulations are adequate.

Mr Tay.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. Just one supplementary question on how we can better protect workers' data privacy when AI systems are used, especially in HR processes.

I am glad that the Minister has introduced the Workplace Fairness Bill as well as some of the measures and Tripartite Advisories, but can we ensure that workers' consent is obtained before their data is used for AI-driven decisions, including promotions, hiring, re-employment and layoffs?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We certainly will take the Member's suggestion to continue to improve the processes and to tighten it.

As I have shared earlier on, the adoption of AI, the use of the multiple tools is proceeding at a fairly rapid pace. To be overly prescriptive, to be overly tight in terms of our regulations, I think it would not just be not practical, but I do not think at this particular point in time, given the stage of evolution of the entire AI industry, we can really catch up with them adequately.

I think the best, nuanced approach is to continue to maintain clear responsible use of AI, which the Government has actually introduced in the form of a model AI governance framework. And one particular example is AI Verify. I think for the purpose of the brevity of this discussion, I do not want to go into too much discussion on that part of it. This is a toolkit, which is developed by IMDA. I am happy to walk the Members of the House through at subsequent Parliamentary Sittings if there is another Parliamentary Question filed on that, to talk about how we can use that.

For the use of data in terms of the algorithms that many of these companies may want to use, it is important that the data pertaining to individuals is anonymised. And, of course, consent would really be one of those things that we are looking at as well. So, I hope that gives the Member that reassurance that we are doing everything that we can to stay on top of it.

Dr Tan Wu Meng, a short one please.

Can I ask the Minister, in his assessment of the current landscape of TAFEP cases on unfair HR practices, roughly what proportion of cases did the adjudication hinge on proof of intention by the hiring manager or the company's management? Because with AI, it can be difficult to ascertain intention because the AI is not able to give testimony and be cross-examined or provide information for investigation the way a human can be questioned.

I thank Dr Tan for his supplementary question. As I have said, we are at a very pivotal state of transformation and the adoption of AI. If we were having a series of discussions earlier on and Dr Tan himself also brought to our attention that, today, you can actually file a legal suit using ChatGPT.

So, what is fundamentally important for us today is to work closely with employees or with potential employees who may feel that they are aggrieved, to surface such cases to us so that we can investigate. Then, obviously, we will work with the companies to see if some of the algorithms – sometimes, it may not be an intention, it could be a function of the datasets that the company is using – have an inherent bias, for instance, in looking at certain characteristics and, therefore, favour hiring or promotion in favour of those characteristics.

So, we need that constant sense of vigilance, we need the participation of all parties coming together. We also need different agencies, the IHRP, the Labour Movement and we need our tripartite partners to come into the space alongside with us. Then we can ensure a more equitable society and workplace for everyone.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, just a response to the Minister through a question vis-à-vis what he said about AI. Unfortunately, from the worker's perspective, one usually is not in a position of information superiority over the employer, so you do not know what back-end selections or pre-qualifications your AI system has done.

So, in that context, where there is always a power imbalance and there is always information asymmetry in favour of an employer, what new approaches would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) consider to encourage employees to raise concerns to, say, TAFEP or to any other appropriate authority in MOM?

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I think that it is important to recognise that in today's climate, depending on which aspects that you are looking at, the employee also has certain advantages vis-à-vis choosing the choice of employers that they want to work for, because we do have a very tight labour market. So, it is how we achieve that good balance, of balancing responsible employees who really form the majority of our workforce, alongside responsible employers who are also the majority of our entire job ecosystem, with a very good balance achieved through tripartism – working with the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), working with the Labour Movement and also getting other non-government organisations, the IHRP and other organisations which have been working alongside with us. We hope that we can continue to maintain this harmonious ecosystem.

Of course, we cannot take things for granted because we continue to work hard at tripartism, at working with the different chambers to achieve this. But I want to reassure the Leader that every single complaint and every single question is dealt with expeditiously in a very clear and transparent manner. And by building a database, a repository of the nature of the different types of complaints, it would sharpen our ability to protect employees better and, at the same time, maintain that balance for employers.

4 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of NParks’ revised typology that segregates selected stretches of the Park Connector Network into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths, whether NParks can study how to encourage safe and considerate use of such paths for different users, including those who are (i) on foot, (ii) using strollers, (iii) walking dogs, (iv) using wheelchairs and (v) using different types of active mobility devices, and for users to keep left or give way, to minimise accidents and improve user experience.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development in respect of NParks’ revised typology that segregates selected stretches of the Park Connector Network (PCN) into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths, whether NParks can consider the segregation of paths in a consistent manner and minimise frequent changes in the segregation of paths along similar stretches of PCN, including where the width of such paths have remained the same, so as to provide certainty and reduce confusion among users.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together?

Please proceed.

Sir, to enhance the user experience along our Park Connector Network (PCN), the National Parks Board (NParks) started piloting a revised PCN typology that segregates selected stretches of the PCN into pedestrian-only paths and shared paths in 2022. NParks has consistently implemented this revised typology on continuous stretches of the PCN, taking into consideration factors such as the width of the path and the human traffic in the area.

As part of the revised typology, NParks has also implemented revised lane markings to enhance the user experience and encourage safe and considerate use of the PCN. These include signs to remind users to keep left when using the park connectors as well as markings that clearly indicate the different types of users allowed on each lane within the path, including pedestrians, cyclists and users of personal mobility devices.

NParks works closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Friends of the PCN and the community to promote safe and gracious use of our PCN, especially for park connectors with high usage and more frequent feedback on user conflicts. NParks has also collaborated with the Singapore Kindness Movement to raise public awareness on PCN etiquette through its Kindness Ambassadors.

In the next phase, NParks will roll out the revised PCN typology for more park connectors, incorporating the feedback received so far. Thereafter, NParks will engage stakeholders again and assess the feasibility to implement the revised typology for more park connectors.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a regular user of the PCN, but my Question Nos 4 and 5 actually arose from recent feedback from a Hougang resident, quite consistent with what I have raised.

Just a bit of background for me asking this question, because I have spoken on this since 2018 and I have raised specifically in 2019 to 2021 regarding the new typology where, for the benefit of people listening to this, the new red lane markings for where one-third is exclusively for people on foot and about two-thirds for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, mobility scooters, strollers, e-scooters and pets on leash. I previously said that there are people walking on both lanes and not keeping left, and cyclists have to wait through the traffic, even going onto the exclusive walking lane, so to speak, because of congestion. I have previously asked for an increase in public education and enforcement efforts for safe and considerate use of the PCN. Almost four years on, with actually some of the red lanes having faded and turned to yellow again, awaiting a new coat of paint, the situation has, in my view and my resident's view, remained the same, especially during the peak hours of usage.

So, in the interest of safety and greater amenity of all PCN users – and I am grateful to the Minister of State for telling us about an update, that he is reviewing this – may I appeal to NParks or the Ministry of National Development (MND) to really review how we can improve on the use of the division of the lane, so that there is greater safety and greater amenity for all users? And moving forward, may I also ask NParks to increase its public education efforts on the use of this PCN for all users?

On Question No 5, currently, some parts of the PCN have no red lane markings, while others have such red lane markings, and often it is all within a few hundred metres along same stretches. Personally, I have observed that in some of these stretches, the width may not have varied. So, I would like to appeal to NParks to consider minimising different lane markings, different segregation of paths along similar stretches of PCN, to avoid confusion, perhaps adopting what LTA is doing with path segregation along its cycling network.

And may I ask, where does NParks or MND provide advisories to PCN users on the revised typology and their intended users, and can these be made more prominent on the ground? Because on the ground, I sense that people do not really understand how the division is meant to be used, even after all these years.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I can understand the issues raised by the Member. I have been very fortunate to be involved in this area of work since I was in the Ministry of Transport and I can see how things have improved significantly over the years. Members will realise that for behaviour to change, while we provide the infrastructure and we improve the markings, I think, as humans, we also will navigate this over time. I can see that the behaviour has changed over time significantly.

Sir, you and I, we were in Parliament, we started together. We could see how the incidents and the behaviour of the people, with regard to how they use the PCN and even the cycling paths, have significantly changed and, that to me, is a positive move. And NParks continues to make improvements.

If Members realise, we have this pilot, we do it in two phases. We just completed Phase 1 and when we completed Phase 1 in the third quarter of 2023, we did surveys with the Friends of the PCN and the different stakeholders in the spirit of understanding that it takes time to improve human behaviour, but also to see how our infrastructure meets the needs of the people. So, I assure the Member that we will continue to do this.

And I am not sure whether I heard the Member correctly. He shared about some of the pedestrian paths being used by those on personal mobility devices and cyclists. So, essentially, during our pilot Phase 1, we have segregated them and what we have seen is that people are adjusting to this whole process. When we embark on the Phase 2, we will take the feedback and comments we have heard from Phase 1 and then we will see how we can navigate this further.

We will introduce more markings, especially at the start of the PCN and at the end, and we will make these at smaller intervals. And for some, it may seem that the width may be the same, but there are intersections where you would be required to understand the behaviour of people when they come together. So, it may not be as straightforward as the width. We look at various factors when we design it.

So, I hope that the Member will join us in this journey to make sure that, while we are small, we maximise our land use. And what is key is this, a feedback that I heard from one of my counterparts recently is: "You are small, but you are able to use your land efficiently and the people are able to enjoy it even though they are all different types of users." So, we will continue to do this to make sure it brings goodness to Singaporeans.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, keep it short.

Thank you, Speaker. If I may just quickly build on the Parliamentary Question by my hon friend, Mr Dennis Tan, where he expressed some sense in which users are sometimes confused over the demarcations.

Like him, I use the Sengkang Riverside Park along the path that follows the Punggol River, and there, the confusion is not so much that users do not keep left, but they do not know whether to keep left on the path for pedestrians or to keep left in general along the broad path.

So, along those lines, I am wondering if NParks will commit for the PCN to have markings with colour demarcations for both pedestrians versus non-pedestrians. In that way, they will know for sure that they should be keeping left along the designated path for their use.

Sir, I use the same PCN, as what was shared by the Member, and I use it regularly. I find that, even over time, I have seen people getting used to the markings. So, like what I shared with the Member earlier, it takes time for people to look at the changes and then adjust their behaviour.

In the past, I remember when NParks first built it and started it, you realise that there were lots of people who did not know how to use it. But today, I walk or even cycle there at least three times a week, I realised that people are able to navigate better, there is less conflict along the path and, at the same time, when it comes to where users come in via the different paths into the PCN, you realise that they are able to look out for one another.

So, we will take the feedback raised by the Members, but I want to urge Members to join us in this journey to make sure that we really develop something good for our people, so that wherever they live, they are able to enjoy the PCNs and even the shared and cycling paths that we have.

6 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many past National Servicemen above 60 years old will be eligible for $200 in LifeSG credits under the 2024 Budget; and (b) how will the Government reach out to less technically savvy past National Servicemen to assist them in claiming the $200 credits, beyond asking them to approach the digital ambassadors located at the 16 digital community hubs.

Mr Speaker, the NS LifeSG Credits recognise past and present National Servicemen (NSmen) from the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team for their contributions to Singapore's defence and security. In the month of November, more than one million NSmen would have received, via the LifeSG application, $200 worth of credits which can be used to purchase a range of household and lifestyle goods and services. Twenty-six percent, or more than a quarter of a million, of the recipients are above 60 years old.

Recipients who need help to claim the credits can contact the NS Call Centre or approach the digital ambassadors at the 36 SG Digital Community Hubs and nine ServiceSG Centres. Those who are unable to access the credits via the digital LifeSG mobile application or who are not comfortable with digital payments, may request the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for hard copy vouchers.

This approach is similar to the arrangement for the NS55 Recognition Package in 2022. And this had worked well and received positive feedback from past and present NSmen.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I am not so sure we note that there is a WhatsApp message circulating around to allow the more IT-savvy Singaporeans to use PayNow to transfer the $200 LifeSG money to their savings account through some other payment apps. I am not so sure that is the intention of the Ministry to allow such easy transfers.

Secondly, I hope that with this $200 LifeSG movement, we will not increase the divide between the digitally-savvy and non-digitally-savvy Singaporeans, but rather to bridge the gap. So, we hope that beyond what you have done, maybe we can encourage more Community Centres to help make it easier for the non-IT savvy Singaporeans to get their $200 credits.

I thank the Member for his clarification. First and foremost, the LifeSG Credits are meant to recognise all our NSmen, past and present. And certainly, for those above 60, we want every single one of them to benefit, if possible. So, I want to assure the Member again that there is no intention to divide those who are digitally savvy and those who are not, because you have both options – the digital and the hard copies that you can request from MHA and MINDEF.

But if the Member would like to have a sense, based on the last disbursement that we had with the LifeSG Credits in 2022, about 88% of eligible NSmen who were above 60 years old had utilised their credits, and just 2% of them requested and received hard copy vouchers. So, the numbers are quite small. I would hope that after one round of experience, maybe more would have a positive experience this round as well and would be used to the LifeSG app.

But overall, if we look at the survey that we had done in the last poll – this was just about four months after the last campaign or the last disbursement in 2022 – about 95% of our NSmen indicated that they were supportive of digital disbursements. So, there is widespread support. But there are also the hard copies that members can request from MINDEF and MHA, if they cannot access digital payments.

One more point, Mr Speaker. On the Member's other point about potential scams or attempts on use of PayNow payments. If the Member has specific information on the WhatsApp messages, let us know, so that we can investigate and see if these are scams.

7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what specific factors have contributed to the lower hiring rate of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in the public sector compared to the private sector; (b) how the hiring rate of PwDs in Singapore’s Public Service quantitatively compares with that in other developed countries; (c) what structural or policy-related constraints prevent Singapore Government agencies from increasing PwD hires; and (d) what steps are being taken to address these constraints directly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not meaningful to compare the hiring rate of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the public and private sectors as the contexts and nature of jobs in the two sectors differ. The Government is focused on raising the overall employment rate of PwDs across both the public and private sectors, where PwDs are placed and retained in jobs that are best suited to their strengths and capabilities.

However, the public sector also has a significant proportion of roles for which a certain level of physical and mental fitness is required, such as the uniformed services. This is one reason why hiring rates of PwDs may differ across sectors. There is also no comparative data for the hiring rates of PwDs in the public sector across developed countries.

The hon Member also asked about the constraints of hiring PwDs and steps taken to address these constraints. The Member may refer to the responses to the Parliamentary Question (PQ) that he raised on 15 October, and the PQ raised by the Member, Mr Don Wee, on 9 September, where we shared the public sector's approach to the issue.

The public sector has been and will continue to support the employment of PwDs.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, as of December 2023, the private sector had employed 75% more PwDs as a proportion of the total employment compared to the public sector. I understand that the Minister said that is not meaningful to compare. I would just like more clarification on why he thinks that is not meaningful, apart from the fact that the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team may not be able to hire as many PwDs in combat positions.

As the largest employer in Singapore, does the Minister agree that the Government bears a greater responsibility to set a positive hiring example in inclusive hiring? Ideally, the public sector should lead the hiring of PwDs, rather than lagging behind.

Secondly, could the Minister share if there are concrete targets for PwD employment in the public sector over the next five years and, if so, what strategies are in place to ensure that these targets are achieved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained that the nature of jobs in the public sector is quite different from the nature of jobs in the private sector. For us, it is more important to make sure that instead of counting the number of jobs, it is to make every job count. And that is what the Public Service sector is prepared and is committed to do.

We want to make sure that every PwD employed by the Public Service sector has a meaningful job, based on their capabilities and strengths, and we will continue to look out for jobs where we can meaningfully employ PwDs to best make use of their talents. We are not here just to meet the numbers. And I think all my agencies are trying their best to make sure that they can convert jobs that are relevant and meaningful for us to hire PwDs.

I have said that there are many jobs in the Public Service sector that are not comparable with the jobs in the private sector, and it is not meaningful for us to make that comparison.

Ms Denise Phua, keep it short.

Speaker, I want to declare, first, that I am a volunteer actively helping job centres in inclusive employment. I want to present another angle. I am quite excited about the work that is going on in inclusive employment in the public sector.

Just to name a few: the National Library Board, VITAL, GovTech, the Central Provident Fund Board, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore General Hospital and also the transport sector. Actually, I think that they have done quite a bit in inclusive hiring, sometimes not allowing us in the charity sector to give up even.

The average rate does not reflect some of the very good work that is done.

There are also critical success factors that I hope the Minister will agree with me that we can learn from. The first is top leadership engagement and support, middle management focus, job design, equipping the colleagues and encouraging those on the ground. So, quite a bit of critical success factors.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider forming even a small task force for those who are actually passionate about this in the public sector to suss out all the critical success factors and those good in this area. And, in fact, position the public sector strongly as a leader in inclusive employment. There is a lot of room there and I am very encouraged by the hiring so far.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I completely agree with Ms Denise Phua. Indeed, we have groups of civil servants who are passionate about this and they go about doing their work quietly to make sure that jobs that can be converted, or even modified, to take in PwDs. We have done so and will continue to do so.

But as I have mentioned, the nature of the jobs is quite different. So, we should not set artificial targets or we should not do what we call "tokenism", just to meet targets. We want to make sure that every job counts, rather than count every job.

It is important for us that we employ PwDs to give them meaningful work, rather than just to meet any numerical targets. And as what Ms Denise Phua has mentioned, it is important that we continue this journey, not only with top-level management attention on this, but it also requires every one of us who is working in the sector to make accommodations and adjustments, so that we can bring out the best in everyone, including PwDs. And we will continue to do so.

8 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider augmenting the policy refresh accompanying the Government's acceptance of the MediShield Life Council's recommendations for the MediShield Life 2024 review by better supporting fertility preservation for young cancer patients whose fertility may be compromised as a consequence of cancer or medical treatment for cancer.

Mr Speaker, for young cancer patients who want to undergo fertility preservation, so that they can have children in the future, they can tap on MediSave for egg freezing. If they get married in the future and would like to use their eggs for Assisted Reproduction treatments, they can also receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments.

We will study extending more support for such patients, separately from the MediShield Life 2024 review, bearing in mind there may be other medically necessary treatments for conditions besides cancer that could also affect fertility.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her update. She mentioned the use of MediSave for young cancer patients needing help with fertility preservation. Would the Minister of State, firstly, agree that for some young cancer patients from families of limited means, especially if the patient has not yet started work, that patient may not have much MediSave? And if the family is disadvantaged, the family may also not have much MediSave. And therefore, would the Minister of State also agree this is an issue on the ground that the Ministry of Health (MOH) should look at, to ensure that young patients diagnosed early in life with cancer, regardless of background, have that chance at preserving their dreams of a family?

May I also declare as well that I am a medical doctor looking after cancer patients, including young cancer patients, at a public hospital.

Mr Speaker, I note the Member's deep interest in this matter and appreciate his enthusiasm. He has raised this matter in an Adjournment Motion previously and also in several Parliamentary Questions. Certainly, the Ministry is aware of and empathise with the situation faced by cancer patients, especially if they are of low income. And I can imagine it must be traumatic and devastating for them to go through this journey. As I have also explained, we are reviewing this matter.

MediShield Life is designed as a basic insurance scheme, covering large bills due to treatment of diseases in subsidised public hospitals. That is a separate thing. We are looking at this matter. We have also taken note of some of the suggestions Dr Tan has made in his Adjournment Motion. We will be looking at how we can continue to provide more support and see what is the adequacy of co-funding of other support that we can provide in fertility treatments of cancer patients.

9 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what specific upgrades are planned for the national grid and energy infrastructure to accommodate new energy sources like small modular reactors and ammonia; (b) what is the projected timeline for implementing these upgrades; and (c) how is the Government ensuring that infrastructure and grid readiness align with the commercial availability of these technologies.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Power (SP) Group is Singapore's national grid operator. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) works closely with the SP Group to plan for and implement the necessary upgrades and expansion of our grid infrastructure. This helps to ensure a stable and a reliable power system in Singapore, even as we complement our natural gas power plants with new energy sources, such as solar panels, low-carbon electricity imports from the region, and other sources that are still currently under study.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are still nascent. As we have previously communicated in this House, SMRs have yet to be fully commercialised. We are, however, closely monitoring developments in SMR technology to assess if and when they can be and may be safe enough and feasible for Singapore.

As for ammonia, we are developing an Ammonia Pathfinder project for pilot-scale power generation and marine bunkering. For power generation, the plan is to deploy a 55- to 65-megawatt (MW) ammonia power plant by 2028. The pilot will help us evaluate the feasibility of scaling up ammonia power generation in Singapore. If ammonia power generation becomes feasible, we will naturally consider building the infrastructure required to support this new pathway.

Mr Chua.

Just two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, I note that there will be a Future Energy Fund which will be set up by the year-end. I just wanted to ask if there is a specific amount that will be ear-marked for these two new technologies for the infrastructure and grid upgrades that will be necessary, should we decide to go ahead with implementing this on a larger scale.

Second, I note the Minister's response that the Government is still monitoring SMR technology. At the same time, I also saw a recent piece of news that the EMA Chief Executive shared that SMR technology is actually a possible solution to power Singapore's data centres. So, on that note, I just wanted to ask if there is a certain timeline on this. Given that the last time we did a feasibility study was about 10 years ago, are there any plans to then conduct a proper study to see whether it is possible to power, not just the data centre industry, but that of our energy requirements?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. For the Future Energy Fund, I have shared earlier on, I believe it was at the Budget or Committee of Supply debate this year, that in some of the infrastructural investments, particularly pertaining to interconnectors, that is what we envisage part of the Future Energy Fund will be used for.

It would be premature at this particular point in time to talk about what amounts have been ear-marked. But with time, we will come back and lay out what are the amounts that we have been setting aside to develop and to invest in, to seed and to catalyse some of the developments. So, the first point is, perhaps for the Member's own understanding, the first focus will be on the interconnectors and this is relating to the renewable energy imports.

For the SMRs today, while there have been a lot of discussions, there has been also a lot of publicity around the potential for SMRs. We have been looking globally. The number of sites where one SMR has been deployed in a commercially and economically feasible segment, has yet to be demonstrated.

However, that being said, it still holds quite a fair bit of promise because the safety buffer zones are significantly less than during the time when we did the first feasibility study. I think that was back in around 2012, where the safety buffer zones for the conventional large-sized nuclear reactors did not make it possible or feasible for us to be considering investing in such type of technology within our island state.

However, today, given the nascency of some of these projects, we have not decided whether we will move on to another feasibility study. We are waiting for data to come out. We have just entered into an agreement, the 123 Agreement with the United States. Our main focus is on understanding the safety, the reliability and the technical aspects of SMR type of technology.

I think in the context of thinking forward, what are some possible pathways we can use – because we have committed to a net zero target by 2050, so what are some of the alternative pathways we can do for us to continue to fulfil our zero emission target and at the same time accommodate high-growth industries, whether it is in semiconductors or even wafer fabs or even data centres?

We will explore all possible pathways in order for us to enable our policy space to be able to accommodate some of these set-ups.

So, SMR is one. I have also shared in this House that we are also looking at geothermal exploration. As I have earlier on shared, we are considering using ammonia as a pathfinder. We are also looking at the possibility of carbon capture and storage. We are also working with like-minded countries for implementation agreements according to Article 6 of the Paris Accords on carbon credits as well.

So, it is one of multiple pathways that EMA and the Energy Division of the Ministry of Trade and Industry have embarked on to explore every possible means we can to decarbonise and within our confines of policy space, in terms of affordability and sustainability.

10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted any post-implementation surveys or studies to assess the impact of providing digital devices on students’ learning abilities, learning habits, academic performance, and attention span; (b) besides digital literacy, what other key performance indicators (KPIs) are considered in evaluating the effectiveness of providing these devices to students; and (c) how will these KPIs be measured.

This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) published response to Question No 42 at the 11 November 2024 Sitting. [Please refer to "Ensuring Proper Use of Personal Learning Devices in Schools to Effectively Support Students' Learning", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

Members may refer to the published response.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

If I may follow up, Speaker, because I did not quite get the opportunity to pose supplementary questions on this. One major motivation behind the Parliamentary Question (PQ), stressing the importance of key performance indicators (KPIs), was because, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there is an active debate in the education literature about the net benefits of deploying technology to facilitate customised learning on one hand, versus the net cost of excess screen time on children's attention span and development of social skills.

If you would agree with me that we should not adopt an extreme approach either way by either outright banning such devices in school or allowing their use to go unmanaged, then what we really need is the data to evaluate whether this middle ground is working.

Speaking as an educator and researcher myself, I would make an appeal to MOE to consider releasing any KPI data that are collected for academic scrutiny, subject to the usual privacy provisions, of course.

Sir, I agree with the Member that we have to strike a balance. We cannot just swing one way or the other. Just to assure the Member that MOE did commission a National Institute of Education study – it was a two-year study which was commissioned in September 2022, but it is not completed yet. Data is still being assessed and some interim findings suggest that students found the use of personal learning devices beneficial in their learning, including their communications with the teachers and collaboration with peers.

But I assure the Member that once the study is completed early next year, we will share the findings with the Member.

11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of neighbourhood centres that have been selected for Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) scheme since March 2024; and (b) whether HDB will consider increasing the funding of ROS given the rapid rise of construction costs in the last three years.

Sir, 11 Neighbourhood Centres have been selected for upgrading of common areas under Batch 8 of the Revitalisation of Shops (ROS) Scheme. HDB has informed the relevant Town Councils and merchants' associations of the selected sites in March this year.

In 2023, we had increased the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) co-payment share for the main ROS upgrading cost from 70% to 85% to reduce the co-payment borne by shop owners from 20% to 5%. We also introduced additional funding support for optional works at the shopfront.

There are currently no plans to change the ROS budget. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation and refine our schemes as needed.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker, and also to the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions.

Firstly, for those 11 Neighbourhood Centres that have been informed that they have been selected, when can we start implementing and asking the shop owners to vote? So far, I have not gotten a response from HDB on this portion.

Secondly, construction costs have increased, and we also note that the subsidies for the shop owners have increased but that the total budget allocated for the ROS has not increased significantly, despite the construction cost increase over the last three years by, maybe up to 50%. We noted that there is a bit more grants for the shop front, but the total construction cost still remains an issue.

Thirdly, for some of the shop owners, if they find that they have difficulty paying even the co-payment, is HDB prepared to allow them to pay by instalments?

And lastly, if the ROS is successfully implemented and some of the shop owners refuse to pay, what is the recourse that HDB has?

Sir, first of all, we will work as quickly as possible with the local working committees which need to be set up in order to effect the ROS. From my understanding, quite a few local working committees have already been set up, including in Mr Ang Wei Neng's area. We also seek the advisors' support for encouraging the local merchant associations to work closely with us because their inputs are important.

As for costs, I have mentioned that we will continue to monitor the situation and see if any review is required, although, for now, the plan is to keep to the budget.

Also, in terms of the Member's question about what happens if the merchants do not pay, in 2023, we amended the Housing and Development Act because of some policy changes under ROS. One of the changes that we have made is to empower HDB to collect the arrears or to collect the amount for the upgrading from shop owners who did not pay and to treat it as a form of arrears. This is something that the merchant associations would welcome because, in the past, it was the merchant associations who had to collect from these shop owners.

12 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education whether Chinese dialects can be introduced as an elective as part of the (i) current conversational Chinese enrichment programme for students in primary and secondary schools and (ii) modular foreign languages programme pilot at the secondary level.

Mr Speaker, bilingualism is the cornerstone of Singapore's education system. Our focus remains on developing students' proficiency in English and their Mother Tongue Languages. There are currently no plans to introduce Chinese dialects as an elective in our schools. Students who are interested in learning dialects can explore classes organised by the Chinese clan associations.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I do recognise that quite a number of the clan associations do conduct such classes to help to promote certain dialects for their respective dialect groups. But at the same time, just over the weekend, I had the pleasure, alongside other Members, of attending a certain dialect group's dinner, where quite a few actually lamented that the younger generation, right now, cannot speak the dialect at all.

So, in that spirit, just as how we, perhaps, have certain economic incentives to learn certain foreign languages, could we also not have pilots where it need not be an examinable subject, but it could be one where we can have it as an elective to better promote the understanding of a crucial part of our cultural identity?

We recognise that Chinese dialects are part of the Singapore Chinese culture and heritage, and we welcome the clans' efforts to do so, even as the Government maintains our existing language policy. Our focus continues to be on building up competency and proficiency in English language as well as the Mother Tongue Languages.

Our students, who are curious and interested in learning Chinese dialects, apart from approaching the Chinese clan associations, can also go online. There is a huge repertoire of resources that are available for self-directed learning.

13 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in the past three years, what has been the progress of developing more Information and Technology (IT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) professionals under the Career Conversion Programme; and (b) what is the Ministry’s plan in further developing this in the next three to five years.

Sir, there are multiple pathways for Singaporeans to acquire relevant skills for technology-related jobs. These include the more than 1,300 artificial intelligence (AI)-related courses offered by SkillsFuture Singapore as well as career conversion programmes supported by Workforce Singapore, which may also help Singaporeans take up jobs requiring AI-related skills.

Over the past three years, the Career Conversion Programme (CCP) and the TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) programme have helped more than 1,000 and 8,000 mid-career workers, respectively, to transition into technology roles, such as software and cloud professionals and AI engineers.

To strengthen our pipeline from mid-career workers, we are: (a) expanding the Company-Led Training programme under TeSA to organisations that are building AI Centres of Excellence; and (b) topping-up SkillsFuture Credits for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, under the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme to support substantive upskilling and reskilling programmes.

These initiatives complement our broader efforts to expand the pipeline of AI practitioners, including enhancing the AI-readiness of information and digital technology (IDT) graduates from our Institutes of Higher Learning. Our industry partners have also initiated programmes to train and hire AI practitioners, such as AI Singapore's AI Apprenticeship programme, Singtel's Catalyst programme and Temus’ Step IT Up programme.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Can I have a couple of supplementary questions?

Firstly, can the Senior Minister of State explain if there is a big difference between an IT professional and an AI professional? Because the Estimates Committee noted that the CCP through the Ministry, has produced 190 individuals who are able to transit to become AI professionals as mid-career people.

I want to ask whether they have plans to increase these conversion programmes, in terms of the frequency of the programmes and the number of programmes? Because the Ministry has stated that they want to convert 5,000 mid-career professionals to AI professionals over the next three to five years. The number 190 compared to 5,000, is quite a far cry. How have the private sectors chipped in and how many mid-career professionals have they converted to become AI professionals?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. It may be useful for me to set the context of the figures that he has cited. In December 2023, we launched the refreshed National AI Strategy 2.0, which sets out our vision and plans to achieve AI for the public good for Singapore and the world. To support this ambition, we intend to expand our pool of AI practitioners and uplift our workforce to be confident AI users.

AI practitioners, as mentioned by the Member, are fundamental to support AI transformation across the economy. We intend to triple the number of AI practitioners in Singapore from 5,000 to 15,000 in the next three to five years to meet the anticipated demand. We will look to re-skilling and upskilling our locals to take on these roles. To develop the additional 10,000 AI practitioners, we are looking at a few approaches.

One is to boost the AI-readiness of existing IDT graduates pipeline, about 5,000. So, these are for pre-employment training, or PET. About 10,000, 5,000 will be through the PET route. The other 5,000, we are looking at getting through the CET route – continuing education and training – mid-career transition, people who are already in the IT or the digital field and looking on to take on new skills to take on AI-related roles. So, that is the context of the figures of 10,000 and 5,000, which the Member cited.

On the 5,000 CET number, a recent Estimates Committee report noted that the CCP has, so far, only helped 190 people transit in their new roles. Allow me to set in context the 190 figure that Parliament's Estimates Committee referred to.

The 190 was referring to those who have transited through the five Jobs Transformation Map (JTM) training provider programme. What is the JTM programme? JTM is Job Transformation Map for the information and communication workforce, which was published in October 2022. That JTM report identified AI as one of the key emerging trends that will transform technology roles. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) partnered with five JTM partners to scale reskilling and upskilling efforts in AI and analytics, with an emphasis on generative AI (Gen AI) and two other in-demand areas: software engineering and cloud and mobility.

We launched the JTM Partners Programme and we are making good progress with our JTM partners since it launched in 2023, last year. So, the 190 figure was in the context of that very specific JTM training programme.

But as I mentioned earlier in my reply, we have a suite of different programmes under TeSA and under CCP which have shown good results in the past. JTM is part of this umbrella of effort that the Government is doing and there are many industry partners – I mentioned some in my earlier reply – and they are also stepping up to support mid-career transitions, supporting people who are currently in IT roles or technology roles to pick up new certifications, new skills to do new AI roles that are emerging.

I would also like to share with the Member that besides the good progress we are making with the JTM partners, we have a healthy pipeline of workers who have expressed interest to undergo the necessary CCP training.

In summary, the figures that the Estimates Committee referred to, the 190, is set in context to the specific JTM programme, which is part of the broader career conversion and TeSA skills that we are doing and part of the broader AI talent manpower strategy that we have embarked on.

14 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development when will the review of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 and the Code of Animal Welfare be completed.

Mr Speaker. as part of the National Parks Board's (NParks') efforts to safeguard animal health and welfare as well as public health and safety, we have embarked on a review of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 and the Code of Animal Welfare. For instance, the penalty framework under Animals and Birds Act will be reviewed to ensure that they are effective in deterring and punishing acts of animal cruelty and abuse.

The review is wide-ranging and apart from reviewing penalties and enforcements, as I have just said, it also includes strengthening animal disease and zoonosis prevention and control, possible regulation of veterinary health products, as well as animal training devices, and other areas. We will continue to take a collaborative approach in this review and will engage the public and community stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered.

We will announce more details when ready.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I note that NParks had shared publicly that they are reviewing the penalties for animal cruelty and animal abuse to ensure they are effective in deterring such acts, back in October 2021. So, could I check with the Minister, what is taking so long? Is there something that is delaying the completion of this review?

Second, the Minister had mentioned that they are going to consult widely. Could I check when the public consultations will be and also when will we be consulting the animal welfare groups, the vets and all the various stakeholders, including animal trainers as well?

Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank Mr Louis Ng. Mr Speaker, as I have said, the review is a comprehensive one. It includes not just a review of penalties, but also zoonosis prevention and control, and other areas as articulated earlier. So, it is looking not just at penalties, but also a wider range of issues as well.

We will consult the community, we will consult stakeholders, we will consult industry and professionals. Already, some work has started. For example, the Member will be aware that the dog training standards workgroup co-chaired by NParks and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, involves representatives from animal welfare groups, dog trainers, vets and representatives from working dog units to study one specific area – that is on the least intrusive, minimally-averse training techniques, as well as to study and develop plans on the regulatory approaches to training devices.

There are other work streams being undertaken involving consultation with different groups, but at a later stage, we will consult more widely.

15 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there is any room for the application process for financial assistance under ComCare schemes to be further expedited.

Mr Speaker, most ComCare applications are processed within four weeks, with almost all applications processed within six weeks. In the interim, if a household requires immediate support, Social Service Offices (SSOs) provide ComCare Interim Assistance.

Time is needed to assess a household’s application for financial assistance, to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria and for proper stewardship of public resources. Officers are required to gather information on clients’ circumstances, verify supporting documents and refer to other agencies or services for support beyond ComCare.

At the same time, we have made ComCare applications simpler and more convenient in recent years through digitalisation. The Member may wish to refer to past replies for further elaboration. We will continue to explore how to streamline our processes.

Mr Gan.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I do receive quite a number of residents' feedback, who actually came to me. It is because of the timeframe that they came to me for.

I wonder whether it is possible for the Ministry to go further to work with agencies to have direct access to the data, of course, with the permission of applicants.

Our officials have been working really hard to get cross-Ministry data and collaboration, and to ensure that we simplify for the applicants the process of getting support. One way is for them to apply online at the SupportGoWhere portal, where they no longer need to key in all their personal information by using Singpass access and everything that is within that, will already be submitted. That means there is no longer the need to submit physical documents.

Even after that, our officers still need to verify these documents and sometimes, they have to check with other agencies. Therefore, when they do this online and get the permission either through online self application or when they meet the clients, we can get information from other agencies like the Central Provident Fund Board, Housing and Development Board, and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. Therefore, all these documents need not be submitted physically.

For the very small minority who somehow did not get through in that timeframe and if they approach any of our Members, please send them to us and we will look at what the problems really are. If these are things that we can then streamline, we will certainly try to eliminate these delays.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, just a clarification for the Minister. In view of the rising number of seniors who stay alone, for example, and may face difficulties to get online, notwithstanding more touchpoints that the Minister shared, does the Ministry consider more frequent, or is it looking at even considering the prospect of visiting these people who ask for support or who need financial assistance but for various reasons such as mobility, are not able to reach the SSOs or access the various electronic options that are available for quicker assessment of their applications?

And if so, does the Minister foresee this to be an issue which will repeat itself more frequently in future, where there may well be a need for SSO officers to visit some individuals, as appropriate?

My thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing up that issue. It is a very specific issue for our seniors. Already, our Silver Generation Ambassadors (SGAs) visit them very regularly, some of them, so regularly and getting so intimate that when the seniors pass on, you can see the effect on our SGAs. It is not just about visiting them and taking data and so forth. They actually know the condition of the seniors. Through these, they also know that the seniors may not have support or because of changing circumstances may not have support, and therefore, will proactively ask them whether they need it, and then, will refer them to the SSOs.

So, the visiting is already being done by our SGAs. I do not think we need to duplicate that. The cross referencing is also being done and I know this is being done. The SSOs will then take over to check and assess whether our seniors are actually really needing the financial assistance. Then, we will bypass all the need for digitalisation and facilitate them getting the support they need.

16 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to enhance the information on LCD systems above MRT train doors by (i) displaying both the current stop and a route map for easier reference by commuters at all times and (ii) ensuring consistent information display across all trains and lines; and (b) if so, when are these enhancements expected to be implemented.

17 Mr Ong Hua Han asked the Minister for Transport (a) since the implementation of the LCD display systems, how many feedback reports have all the train operators and LTA received regarding the clarity of information on the LCD display systems above train doors; and (b) which MRT line received the most of such feedback.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also answer Question No 17, together with Question No 16?

Please proceed.

Thank you. The various train models across different Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines are fitted with liquid crystal display (LCD) screens above the train doors, with some variation in the layout of information displayed. They all provide similar information to help commuters in their wayfinding, such as the route map of the line, the direction of travel, current and upcoming stations, as well as the opening side of doors at the next station.

In addition to the LCD screens located above the doors, commuters are provided with travel information, such as the current and next station, through in-train announcements and ceiling level displays in the middle of train cabins.

Since 2023, feedback on the clarity of information on the LCD displays across the entire MRT network made up less than 1% of the total feedback received by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the operators, with no specific line receiving substantially more feedback. LTA will continue to monitor public feedback and make further enhancements to our wayfinding features as appropriate.

Mr Ong.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I ask these Parliamentary Questions as I frequently commute via the MRT. As a commuter, it is not always easy to identify where exactly I am on the MRT route, especially when the train is crowded and even more so for a wheelchair user, where the eye-level is a lot lower. So, the LCD display, as you pointed out, is not consistent across the train lines.

In my opinion, ensuring better user interface should be a priority and is potentially not too complex an issue to solve. So, I would just like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if there are any challenges to make this information more consistently clear across the train lines and whether or not we can share a more concrete timeline of when to expect them.

Mr Speaker, as in my earlier reply, the types of information displayed are largely similar. Depending on the make of the train and the design of the LCD screens – some come in two panels, some come in one panel. So, when it is the one-panel design, there will be rotating pieces of information that are displayed on the screen, but the frequency of display would suffice to allow commuters to read the information, interpret and react to the information within the space of travel between stations.

But if there are specific requests that the Member would like to make of LTA, I would be happy to follow up with him subsequently, so that we can look into enhancing the experience of all commuters.

Mr Ong.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I just want to say that as a commuter and a wheelchair user, it is not sufficient because it is quite important to be able to know exactly where you are at all times. I think the rotating information, sometimes you may miss out exactly where you are on the station and let us say you were not paying attention, for example, during the commute, you want to know in one look, where you are.

So, at the moment, I think, for instance, the North East Line does not exactly show a commuter where you are approaching. And then, the East-West Line tends to show the station name quite clearly, I think in the rotating information, but not in the context of where you are on the route map. So, let us say if you were dozing off on the train and you look up, it is not immediately clear and you may miss a stop. And it is even more so if you have mobility challenges and I just wanted to raise that. I would be happy to take this also offline to discuss how we can enhance this.

I thank Mr Ong for the specific feedback. Let us work on this offline. Thank you very much.

18 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in the past five years, whether MAS has received complaints against online "finfluencers" who discuss financial content; (b) if so, how many; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the Financial Advisers Act 2001 to regulate the "finfluencer" sector.

Mr Speaker, "finfluencers" use social media to share tips and insights on finance-related topics, such as investing, saving and budgeting. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects financial institutions who employ finfluencers to advertise their products or services, to ensure that the finfluencers present information in a clear and balanced format that highlights key features and risks.

If finfluencers provide financial advice, they must be licensed and regulated under the Financial Advisers Act, or FAA. MAS has issued guidelines to clarify that any individual who is remunerated for making a recommendation or expressing an opinion on the buying, selling or holding of investment products will be considered as providing financial advice. Even if he or she is not remunerated, he will be considered to have provided financial advice if he makes such recommendations or expressions regularly. Posting of general educational content is not financial advice.

Over the past five years, MAS received an average of less than five complaints per year against finfluencers. Most of these complaints relate to remarks made by finfluencers who were not providing any financial advice and hence, were not subject to regulation by MAS.

MAS and the Commercial Affairs Department will take enforcement action against individuals providing financial advice without a licence. Over the past three years, enforcement action has been taken against six individuals, none of whom were finfluencers.

Mr Yong.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I think we can all agree that finfluencers do hold significant sway over their viewers. This is often despite finfluencers stating that their words should not be construed as financial advice. As an unregulated sector, consumers are at risk of hefty losses. I think in the United States, this was the case when finfluencers were promoting the FTX platform, which subsequently collapsed.

So, in such a situation, the consumers' only recourse would be pursuing a civil claim against the finfluencer. To my understanding, there has been no such precedence in our local courts.

Given this, I would like to ask if MAS do have a position on whether finfluencers have a duty of care to their viewers when promoting financial products online and then, in the same breath saying, "Please do not construe my words as financial advice".

Could MAS work towards a set of industry guidelines to provide both the finfluencers as well as consumers on their respective roles and responsibilities and the due diligence that each party should conduct? By doing so, I believe that we can continue to leverage on these influencers to grow our financial literacy among consumers and especially while safeguarding vulnerable consumers.

I thank Mr Melvin Yong for his supplementary question. As I mentioned earlier on, only financial advisory firms and their representatives who are regulated under the FAA are allowed to provide financial advisory services on investment products. Therefore, a finfluencer who provides financial advice will have to be appointed as a representative of a financial advisory firm. That said, we regularly advise the public to only deal with and invest through persons regulated by the MAS.

We also list unregulated persons who may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised by MAS on our Investor Alert List. I want to assure the Member also that consumers who suspect any wrongdoing should lodge a complaint with MAS or the relevant financial advisory firms.

MAS will review reports of breaches or misconduct and take the appropriate regulatory action against the relevant parties found to have breached MAS's regulations, including providing financial advisory services without the appropriate licences or disseminating non-compliant advertisements.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day and Notice of Motion.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

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

Minister for Social and Family Development.

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

Families are the bedrock of our society. For our children, families are where they first learn the values that shape them, find comfort and strength when they face setbacks and celebrate milestones and achievements together. The Government remains committed to supporting both mothers and fathers as they embark on their parenthood journey so that our children can have a good start in life. We have been reviewing our policies regularly.

Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, may I please distribute an infographic?

Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

As the infographic is being distributed in the House, I would like to highlight that Members will see on the first page of the infographic our comprehensive suite of marriage and parenthood measures to support families. And on the second page of the infographic, Members will see our enhancements of parental leave over the years. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app.

Looking at the second page of the infographic, we see that one week of Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and one week of Shared Parental Leave (SPL) were first introduced by Minister Grace Fu in January 2013 as part of the 2013 Marriage and Parenthood Package. To quote from her speech: "We will signal strongly to the society on the important role fathers play in raising and caring for their children. Fathers will now enjoy one week of legislated Government-Paid Paternity Leave. In addition, we will introduce a new Government-Paid Shared Parental Leave. By inculcating shared parental responsibility from birth, we hope to put families off to a good start and encourage fathers to take on a bigger role in child-raising."

In 2016, then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that we would legislate the second week of GPPL and increase SPL from one week to four weeks. These were implemented from 2017 onwards. The enhancements were supported by Members of Parliament (MPs), such as Mr Desmond Choo, who raised in Parliament in 2016, as to whether the Government would legislate a second week of GPPL and if the Government would increase the SPL so that more leave can be taken on by fathers.

Then-MP Mr Seah Kian Peng, now Speaker, had also in 2016 suggested independent leave for each parent instead of drawing leave from the mother's maternity leave. Mr Louis Ng, in 2017, urged a review of maternity leave and paternity leave, and also filed an Adjournment Motion to extend parental leave. It is clear from the progressive enhancements to parental leave that the Government wants to support young parents in their caregiving needs and regularly reviews policies to push the envelope to support young parents even more.

The COVID-19 period of early 2020 to 2022 upended work structures and world economies were plunged into a period of economic uncertainty. Singapore was not spared but we were able to incorporate flexible workplace arrangements and work from home. Young parents and working adults adjusted their working arrangements.

As we came out of COVID-19, the Government continued its strong support for families by announcing at last year's Budget policy enhancements that strengthened financial and work-life support for parents. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift was increased for all birth orders, and we enhanced the Child Development Account First Step Grant and raised Government co-matching caps for Singaporean children born on or after 14 February 2023. Since 1 January 2024, we doubled the GPPL to four weeks, with the additional two weeks provided on a voluntary basis. We also increased Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years.

The Government regularly engages young parents to see how we can support their parenthood journey. Many parents continue to express concerns with managing family and work responsibilities. Increasingly, we see that younger generations of Singaporeans place greater emphasis on having a balance between work and personal commitments.

They also value more family time even as they build their careers. Our social and work norms are changing, and we should, as a society, evolve to support them. This includes working with employers to foster more family-friendly workplaces so that we can better support parents in their aspirations to do well both in work and in raising their children at the same time.

In particular, parents have shared that work-life support is especially critical during the child's first 18 months, when care needs tend to be the greatest. Most parents prefer to personally care for their infants or tap on the help of trusted family members. However, family support is expected to decline as family sizes shrink and many grandparents work longer or prefer to spend their retirement years on other pursuits. So, we need to provide stronger caregiving support for parents in the early stages of their child's life and enable them to be more involved in caring for their infants.

At the National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that we will, from 1 April 2025, mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL currently offered on a voluntary basis. He also announced that the current SPL will be replaced with a new scheme that will provide couples 10 weeks of paid parental leave, to be shared between themselves. To provide employers more time to adjust to the new scheme, the new SPL will be implemented in two phases, starting with six weeks from 1 April 2025, to be subsequently increased to 10 weeks from 1 April 2026.

With the enhancements, eligible couples will be entitled to 30 weeks of paid parental leave in the child's first year. This comprises 16 weeks of maternity leave, four weeks of paternity leave and 10 weeks of shared parental leave from 1 April 2026. These enhancements are significant steps that the Government is taking to normalise paternal involvement in child-raising and provide both parents with greater support in caring for their infants together. In addition, parents with young children are entitled to Government-Paid Childcare Leave and Extended Childcare Leave for their caregiving needs. Those who might require more time to take care of their newborns can also utilise their Unpaid Infant Care Leave.

In formulating our parental leave policies, we have studied overseas experiences. Some other countries provide longer durations of parental leave, but at varying levels of pay.

For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), parents enjoy longer maternity leave, shorter paternity leave and longer parental leave, but maternity leave and paternity leave are compensated at reduced pay and parental leave is unpaid. Some countries, such as the United States (US), do not have paid maternity leave, paternity leave or shared parental leave at all. For Singapore, while the combined duration of our parental leave provisions is shorter, most of it is fully paid. With the leave enhancements in this Bill, we will further extend the duration of paid leave that parents can take to care for their infants.

In considering Singapore's leave enhancements, we also engaged parents, consulted tripartite partners and employer representatives to ensure that we strike the right balance between parents' caregiving needs and employers' manpower and business needs.

The Government worked closely with tripartite partners to design the new SPL scheme and update the conditions surrounding our parental leave provisions to better address both employees' and employers' concerns, which I will go into more detail later.

The Government is also enhancing other forms of infant care support to complement parental leave. We will continue expanding infant care places in preschools and will develop about 6,000 new places from 2025 to 2029. We are also launching a three-year pilot in December 2024 to grow affordable, safe and reliable childminding services as an additional infant care option for families.

We hope that these enhancements will provide parents with more assurance as they go ahead with their plans to fulfil their family aspirations.

The Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill that is currently before this House seeks to give effect to the enhancements to the GPPL and SPL schemes. We will also introduce new employment protections as well as other operational and administrative changes.

First, the GPPL. Fathers play an important role in partnering their wives in sharing the duty of raising their children. We want to encourage shared parental responsibility and enable fathers to be more involved in child-raising. Research also shows that greater paternal involvement in a child's early years has positive effects on the child's development and family well-being.

With the additional two weeks of GPPL, we hope that fathers will make good use of the four weeks to care for and bond with their newborns. Clauses 9, 11 and 12 set out the main provisions for the enhancements to the GPPL scheme.

Clause 9 will mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL. These apply to fathers of children born on or after 1 April 2025, or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025, as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of application to adopt a child is on or after 1 April 2025.

Correspondingly, clauses 11 and 12 will double the amount of payment that an eligible employee is entitled to receive from his employer, as well as the limits for the reimbursement by the Government to an employer for that payment.

Second, the new SPL scheme. This scheme will allow parents to have more time off work to bond with and care for their infants. We have designed this new scheme such that the additional weeks of legislated parental leave can be taken by both fathers and mothers to emphasise shared parental responsibility. The following clauses set out the main provisions for the new SPL scheme, and the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme for working parents of a Singapore Citizen child born or with an estimated date of delivery on or after 1 April 2025.

Clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML), paternity leave and adoption leave under the Act, to the new SPL, and sets out the requirements for a valid sharing arrangement for the new SPL between two parents.

In line with our intent to encourage shared parental responsibility, each parent will be allocated half of the entitlement as the default, which means three weeks per parent from 1 April 2025 or five weeks per parent from 1 April 2026.

The allocation can be varied according to clause 23 to provide parents with the flexibility to use the leave in a way that meets their caregiving needs. This flexibility has to be balanced against the employers' need for some certainty of the employees' intended absences so they can plan for covering arrangements to ensure business continuity. The same clause, therefore, also provides that parents who wish to change their sharing arrangement on their own may do so within the first four weeks after their child's birth or, for an adopted child, within the first four weeks after the eligibility date of application to adopt. Thereafter, employees must obtain their employer's agreement before further changes can be made.

Clause 6 will also allow employees and employers to mutually agree on how the new SPL will be taken, as long as it is taken within 12 months of the child's birth. We understand that some parents may wish to have the flexibility to take this leave over a longer period. However, we have to balance this against the challenges that employers may face in their manpower planning if the leave-taking period stretches beyond one year. In the absence of a mutual agreement, employees are entitled to take their allocated share of the new SPL in a continuous block within the first 26 weeks of the child's birth, with sufficient notice given to their employer. I will share more about the notice period required further in my speech.

Similarly, clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for GPML, GPPL and Government-Paid Adoption Benefits to the new Shared Parental Benefits scheme. These cash benefit-equivalent schemes are intended for working parents who do not qualify for leave due to their employment arrangements such as employees on short-term contracts, or contracts that expire before the child’s birth.

To support employers with managing costs, all 10 weeks of the new SPL will be paid for by the Government, up to the reimbursement cap of $2,500 per week. Employers can then use the wage savings to hire temporary workers or make other operational adjustments when their employee is away on parental leave.

As the new SPL scheme is meant to replace the existing SPL scheme, clause 8 will amend the eligibility criteria for the existing SPL scheme such that it will no longer apply for a Singapore Citizen child born or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025.

This brings me to the third aspect of this Bill, new notice period requirements and employment protections, which seek to balance the needs of employers and employees utilising the parental leave schemes.

With the longer duration of leave, employers will need sufficient lead time to make covering arrangements when their employees are away. Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 will introduce a minimum notice period to be given by an employee, who wishes to take leave in a continuous block. This minimum notice period will be set at four weeks. Employees must inform employers at least four weeks before commencing continuous GPML, GPPL, adoption leave and the new SPL. This will give employers lead time to plan for covering arrangements and make operational adjustments.

While this is the legislated minimum requirement, I urge employees to exercise responsibility when taking the leave, to provide notice as early as possible and work through covering arrangements with your peers and employers before you go on leave.

We will update employment protections to give parents peace of mind when they go on parental leave entitlements. Today, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to a female employee when she is on maternity leave. Employers who do so today will be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment, or both. Clauses 4 and 9, will accord the same protection that mothers on the GPML have, to fathers and adoptive parents who take GPPL and adoption leave from 1 April 2025. This means it will be unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to employees on GPPL or adoption leave.

For the case of the new SPL, we want to strike a balance between providing both parents with a longer period of leave to care for their child in the first year, while allowing employers to carry out fair employment decisions during this extended period of leave. Hence, parents on SPL will not receive the same protection as those on GPML, GPPL and adoption leave. However, employees who consider themselves to be wrongfully dismissed when taking this leave, may seek recourse under the Employment Act. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will also strengthen protections against workplace discrimination.

I hope that these new protections will give our parents, including fathers, more assurance to take their maternity, paternity and adoption leave. Beyond legislation, I urge employers to show your support for the employees taking parental leave. For instance, by putting in place fair appraisal systems that recognise their contributions and not penalise employees simply for having taken parental leave. Managers and colleagues can also help to build a more family-friendly culture by being understanding of colleagues who need to take leave to care for their children. On the part of parents, I also encourage you to reciprocate when colleagues need to take time off to tend to their personal needs.

The other amendments pertain to clauses to improve operational efficiency and clarity. Clause 16 of the Bill will clarify that the limits for reimbursement of an employer will be implemented on a “per parent” basis for a parent with multiple employers, or a parent who is both employed and self-employed.

For example, an employee’s payment from a single employer is capped at $2,500 per week and the single employer’s reimbursement from the Government is similarly capped at $2,500 per week. While the parent will still be entitled to parental leave with each of his or her employers, the total reimbursement that all employers of the parent can claim from the Government will be capped at $2,500 per week. This ensures parity on the amount of Government-paid leave granted to all parents, regardless of the number of employments that they have. This amendment is also one of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF’s) corrective actions to address the Auditor-General's Office's (AGO’s) observations of possible irregularities in the payment of Government-Paid Leave Schemes in July this year.

Clause 16 of the Bill will determine that the sequence of leave taking under the Act such that employees are deemed to be consuming their entitlement to GPML, GPPL or adoption leave in full first, before consuming their entitlement for SPL. This is in line with our intent that all employees should consume their GPML, GPPL or adoption leave before commencing the new SPL.

Clause 2 of the Bill will also clarify that for the adoption of a child who is a Permanent Resident of Singapore, the definition of “eligibility date” in relation to an adoption is the date on which the application to adopt the child is made.

Sir, the birth of a child marks a new beginning for a couple. It is a joyful but also demanding period for the couple who needs to tend to the high care needs of their infant. We hope the leave enhancements covered in this Bill will give working parents greater peace of mind to focus on caring for their child during their early years.

We will also continue to enhance other caregiving options to provide more support to parents. However, this role of supporting parents in their parenthood journey cannot be played by the Government alone. Employers, for instance, have to be supportive of their employees, especially fathers, going on parental leave and should implement family-friendly workplaces. This will help employees returning to work post-leave can manage their work and parenting responsibilities well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, kindly allow me to say a few words in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family is the bedrock of our society. We hope that parents and children can build good relationships so that we have stronger foundation for our families. Many parents have told us that it is very challenging for them to balance both work and family commitments, especially when their children are in the infancy stage.

In order to better support dual-income families, we have worked closely with tripartite partners to introduce a new parental leave scheme. These new measures are a part of a series of initiatives we have introduced over the years to support couples in getting married and having children. We hope that the new SPL will provide more assistance to parents, giving them more time to spend with their newborns.

I encourage all parents, especially fathers, to use this additional parental leave to care for their newborns. I also hope that all sectors of society, including employers, can provide more support to working parents in the community and workplace.

(In English): Sir, this Bill will strengthen our support and assurance for Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I urge more employers, businesses and community partners, to work with us to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Melvin Yong.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to effect the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood measures that were announced at this year’s National Day Rally and also to amend the Child Development Co-savings Act for greater operational clarity.

Sir, Singapore’s total fertility rate (TFR) reached a historic low of 0.97 in 2023. This reflects a broad societal trend that young Singaporeans want better familial support, before they commit to having children.

I am glad that the Government has, in response, made big moves to foster a more family-friendly Singapore. In particular, I have heard from young couples living in my constituency, Radin Mas, that they were most excited about one, the additional two weeks of GPPL for fathers; two, the new SPL scheme that will encourage more fathers to take their parental leave; and most certainly, the increase in the number of shared parental leave to six weeks from 1 April 2025, and a subsequent increase to 10 weeks from 1 April 2026.

I also welcome the new Shared Parental Benefits, a cash benefit-equivalent scheme for parents who are not eligible for the SPL due to their employment arrangements. This would ensure parity for those who work as short-term contract workers.

While the changes will help to create a more family-friendly Singapore and encourage more couples to have more babies, one segment of couples have felt left out, as the changes will only take effect from 1 April 2025. I am referring to, of course, couples who are already expecting, with their estimated delivery dates sometime between 1 January and 31 March 2025.

I understand that Government schemes must start from a certain date and that there will inevitably be some that will be left out as a result. But, Sir, we will celebrate SG60 next year and those born in the first quarter of 2025 will be our first SG60 babies. I would therefore like to call on the Government to extend the enhanced marriage and parenthood measures to these parents. I hope that the Government would accord parents whose children are born in the first quarter of 2025 with the Shared Parental Benefits and provide them a cash benefit equivalent to two weeks’ worth of additional SPL. This would mirror the additional two weeks of GPPL for fathers. I am sure that couples with children born in the first quarter of 2025 would deeply appreciate this.

Sir, I also fully support the Ministry’s proposed amendments to clarify applicable limits on reimbursement and payment entitlements to be on a “per parent” basis and to provide parents with multiple employments with an entitlement to paid leave with all their employers.

This reflects the broader trend of fractional work, where an employee works for multiple employers, but on a shorter schedule. I am therefore happy that the Ministry is clarifying the Act to ensure that the total amount of reimbursements to employers of a working parent with multiple employments would be the same as the total amount of reimbursements made to the employer of a working parent with a single employment.

However, having multiple employers will result in greater complexities and potential disputes in the event that one employer finds themselves paying more than others. I would like to ask if there would be guidelines provided to ensure an equitable sharing of employer-paid portions of parental leave for fractional workers. Having clear guidelines will reduce potential disputes and protect our fractional workers from being discriminated against, due to their pregnancy.

Sir, as a father of two, I vividly recall the struggles that my wife and I faced in our children’s early years, particularly in preschool when they tended to fall sick more often. I also commonly hear from my grassroots volunteers that they sometimes utilised much of their annual leave to care for their young children who have fallen ill. Some even had to take unpaid leave, if their child has lower immunity.

The Government currently provides up to six days of Government-Paid Childcare Leave for parents who have children below seven years old and two days of Extended Childcare Leave for those with primary school-going children. According to parents that I have spoken to, this is inadequate and they hope that more support can be given in terms of childcare leave.

Could the Government consider staggering the number of Government-Paid Childcare Leave? For instance, more paid leave days could be provided to parents when the child is in infant care and nursery, and this tapers off gradually as the child enters kindergarten and primary school. Having more paid childcare leave when the child is youngest and requires the most care, will certainly go a long way in helping parents cope with the inevitable healthcare challenges in their children’s early years.

Sir, the decision to have children is a deeply personal choice and young couples often weigh the potential impact that having children would have on their career aspirations and on their finances. As we enhance marriage and parenthood benefits and continue to provide hefty Government subsidies for preschools, we can do more to alleviate any anxieties that might serve as an impediment to prospective parents.

Today, maternity insurance is not compulsory and insurers are allowed to reject applicants with pre-existing health conditions. Unexpected pregnancy complications can sometimes completely drain a couple’s finances. I hope that the MSF could work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to engage insurers to create a universal maternity insurance scheme where all mothers-to-be can subscribe to. Under such a scheme, we can sufficiently risk-pool and mothers with pre-existing health conditions will therefore not be denied coverage.

In closing, I would like to commend the Government for continuing to make bold and decisive moves to enhance both marriage and parenthood benefits. I am confident that these measures will help make Singapore more family-friendly and hopefully encourage more couples to have children. I hope that the Government will continue to evolve the scheme and also consider my suggestions to help young parents better cope in the early childhood years. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, this Bill enshrines into law enhancements to Singapore's statutory parental leave benefits, which were articulated by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during this year's National Day Rally.

The initial GPPL structure of two weeks mandatory and two weeks voluntary paternity leave will now become four weeks of mandatory GPPL. The SPL scheme was also introduced on top of the GPPL and GPML enhancements. From 2025, six weeks of SPL will be provided, with that number increasing to 10 weeks from 2026. Moreover, the Bill seeks to protect fathers who take GPPL from being served a notice of dismissal during the period of paternity leave.

With Singapore's TFR dropping to a record low of 0.97 in 2023, such measures are certainly a step forward in promoting parenthood amongst couples.

In my speech today, I will share my thoughts on several of these measures and other points which I believe, are important to consider including paternity leave, SPL, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and childcare leave provisions.

First, on paternity leave. During the debate on the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, I highlighted how policy moves such as increasing one's GPPL entitlement would encourage more fathers to take a more active role in their parenting and household responsibilities, and thus help nurture gender equality within society by shunning traditional gender norms.

In Singapore, however, it is deeply concerning that just over half of fathers even took paternity leave to begin with. As someone who had taken my full share of two weeks of paternity leave twice, I find it hard to understand, especially when it is an all-hands-on-deck situation at home immediately following a newborn's birth.

In my speech on the Budget 2023 debate, I shared that while the move to raise GPPL from two weeks to four weeks is no doubt welcome, I noted that this was purely on the voluntary basis on the part of employers and wondered if the then-Deputy Prime Minister's message that we want paternal involvement to be the norm in our society could in practice turn out as being construed as paternal involvement is voluntary. The move to make the four weeks of paternity leave mandatory is thus a welcome change.

That said, given our utilisation of paternity leave today, where only just over half of fathers take paternity leave and the median paternity leave taken by eligible fathers is only just over a week, I wonder if would-be fathers would be in a position to take the full entitlement of the expanded paternity leave and, importantly, feel comfortable doing so.

Perhaps it is worth considering having the Government payment of paternity leave to employers to be contingent on the utilisation of at least half of the full four weeks, at two weeks of paternity leave, before gradually increasing these over time. This could further entrench the notion that paternal involvement is important and necessary, while taking into account employers' concerns.

Next, on the new SPL provisions. This is certainly a welcome move which I wholeheartedly agree with. As part of the Workers' Party (WP) manifesto in 2020, we proposed a shared parental leave scheme that entitles parents to 24 weeks of Government-paid leave to be shared between mothers and fathers as they choose, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be granted to the mother and four weeks to the father. This was a point which I have also reiterated during the debate on the Empowering Women Motion in August 2021 and the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, as have my other WP colleagues.

As my Sengkang team mate Ms He Ting Ru described in her speech in October 2020, the current Government policy back then, which allows fathers to share only up to four weeks of the mother's leave, reinforces the outdated notion that childcare is primarily the mother's responsibility rather than promoting equal parenting roles.

That being said, while the default position is that each parent is allocated half of the SPL to encourage shared parental responsibility, I wonder if this is likely to be the case in reality. I acknowledge that we need to give parents the ability to decide what is best for their own families, but part of the requirements of the new SPL is that changes to the leave-sharing arrangements should be made within four weeks after the child's birth. Any changes thereafter will require mutual agreement between parents and their employers.

Likewise, I agree that we need to acknowledge the potential impact on business operations as a result of employees' parental leave arrangements. But can we consider putting in place mechanisms to better facilitate or mediate issues faced by parents when making changes to SPL arrangements, especially when the needs of either parent's employers may not be aligned? For example, while parents may have decided on an equal sharing of SPL, the mother's employer may have a new and time-sensitive work project that comes up and the father's employer may not see it in their own business interests to agree to the extension of the parental leave.

If this is not possible, can we consider extending the eligibility period for the parental leave to be taken within 24 months of the child's date of birth, instead of within 12 months from the child's birth? Doing so can also give both employers and parents the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances and needs within the households and also at the workplace.

This brings me to my point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which comes into effect in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs properly. Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs.

However, the recent uptick in employers such as Grab and Amazon requiring all employees to return to office for all five days of the week have undone the progress made to normalise FWAs in the workplace. While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work from home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may actually be more appropriate, I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.

Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October last year to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs and this would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments. FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions.

If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis? As many parents with young children may know, they will need to take significant time off from work to care for their children as they often tend to fall ill. For instance, I have shared in my Adjournment Motion speech on FWAs in 2023 that I had clocked 20 visits to a paediatrician over a period of nine months. With medical leave durations ranging from three days to about five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs?

Moreover, the reality is that parents will also need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to the Early Childhood Development Agency, is now up to eight working days a year and increased from six days a year previously. So, as it is, actually the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone for when our children actually fall sick.

In response to calls by Members of this House to enhance childcare leave provisions, the Government has articulated its concern about the impact that increasing such leave benefits have on the manpower and operational needs of their businesses. However, seeing how we are facing a TFR crisis of our generation, perhaps the Government should channel greater efforts towards granting Singaporeans who wish to start a family the opportunity to achieve that dream. Further, employers could still stand to benefit as it has the effect of boosting staff retention and productivity.

Nonetheless, should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements by a couple of days be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution.

Mr Speaker, my journey in Parliament pretty much coincides with my own parenthood journey. Given that my first child was born in September 2019 and less than a year later, I was elected together with my Sengkang team mates in July 2020. A year later, in November 2021, my second child was born and his birthday is in a couple of weeks. Like many of my peers with young children, to say that parenthood is like a roller coaster ride is not an understatement. With many ups and downs, unexpected twists and turns, where you could be screaming in terror one moment and crying tears of joy in the other. I have absolutely no regrets being a father, but I also feel deeply the sacrifices and difficulties that a working parent has to go through in the Singapore that we live in today.

For some of my peers who have decided not to have children, I do not blame them at all when they question whether or not all the sacrifices that are necessary in being a parent is actually worth their time, money and effort. Why wake up at 3.00 am in the morning for a feed when you could be sleeping in over the weekend and then have brunch? Why fret over paying for diapers, food, childcare, clothing when you could be on a nice ski holiday to Japan? Why scramble to pick up your kids from school when you could be striving to advance your career in the office?

As lawmakers, we cannot force Singaporeans to have more children, just as how we cannot force Members of this House to lead by example and meet the replacement TFR of 2.

1. But what we can do is to minimise the pains and difficulties faced by parents and parents-to-be, just so that they can better see the joys and wonders of parenthood.

And this is where we need to enact the right policies and legislation, putting in place something as simple as an incentive-disincentive framework for employers to make sure that fathers and mothers all take the full share of parental leave, they have sufficient leave to care for their child and that parents are not robbed of the ability to have FWAs just because of business needs. Just so that we can place the sustainability of Singapore as a nation as an utmost priority.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill, if passed, is a significant signal to our young Singaporeans that the Government will make significant policy moves to support their family journeys.

Many young couples desire to be highly involved parents. Besides resources and housing, many of them worry if they would have the time and space to care for their children. They want to give the best to their children. There are many needs, and there are already many policy interventions that are necessary and some of them are already in place.

The first year of birth is often the most challenging. As with all parents, we all struggle with caring for our babies. It is nearly always all hands on deck or crib in that first year. I remember speaking about this issue in 2016, a few months after the birth of my first child. The weariness and eye bags were very evident then.

Further supporting young Singaporeans in the first year of birth is indeed the right move. But this Bill also sends a strong message that there needs to be a greater and faster evolution in gender-based family stereotypes. Our women and mothers bear a greater responsibility at home. While we have made progress over the years, it is true that our women and mothers bear the lion's share of the burden.

The differences between the male and female labour force participation rates are evident, so our mothers will need greater caregiving support. But we also need a strong societal signal that everyone can play a role to narrow the gender gap, especially those born out of cultural norms. When fully implemented on 1 April 2026, it will bring total paid parental leave to 30 weeks, up from the current 20 weeks. It also encourages fathers to play a greater role in parenting.

With smaller family sizes, young couples are increasingly finding it difficult to manage both their aspirations with their family commitments. Most of us will have heard of young couples shelving their plans to start families because of the lack of caregiving support. I believe that the enhanced leave structure will go a long way in helping couples who wish to start or expand their families better manage their responsibilities. We will also continue to keep up pace in evolving social-cultural norms by promoting the new norm of shared parenting.

But providing the legislative support is futile if the utilisation of the GPPL does not continue to improve from the 53% in 2022. The legislative signal can promote an important signal to employers and peers. But there are also larger societal shifts that will be imperative to the success of this policy shift and, in fact, the SPL. I shall address them in turn.

Firstly, fathers must actively step up to their responsibilities to be more involved. The Bill places a renewed emphasis on the roles that fathers can have on parenting. It is a cultural norm, perhaps more so in Asian societies, that caregiving is still seen as that falling within the domain of mothers, while fathers are the traditional breadwinner. I believe that such cultural norms are already changing, especially amongst our younger Singaporeans. But such outdated notions remain in Singapore society.

The enhanced GPPL, whilst a shift in policy, cannot, by itself, drive this cultural change. For that shift to happen, we need both fathers and mothers to contribute within the home and in the workplace. This is why I would like to call on fathers to utilise the GPPL to take on an active, meaningful role in raising their children.

Research has shown that fathers who actively participate in caregiving for their children build stronger bonds with their children. Downstream effects of undertaking such an active role include positive cognitive and social developmental outcomes in children and can include positive labour-market outcomes.

Even while our young couples play their role in stepping up to their family commitments, supportive workplaces are key to making this aspiration a reality. Some single or older workers might be asked to cover duties for their child-bearing colleagues. Some employers have lamented where would the additional manpower come from. These are valid concerns, but the low birth rate is a national collective issue. I encourage companies to support our workers who would need to cover duties either with incentives or to hire additional manpower from the Government payment.

Workplaces play a crucial role in creating a positive environment that supports the Government's family-friendly policies. There will, indeed, be sacrifices from all quarters, but we had also made it work back then in the earlier years, where there were significantly more births. Besides, without a supportive environment, some women, or in fact men, might decide to leave the company. Therefore, it is a good human capital practice to retain talent in the company by providing support to our young parents.

Legislatively, the Bill does much to ensure that fathers enjoy the benefits and protection arising from GPPL. For example, the proposed amendments to section 12H of the Bill introduces protection for an employee against dismissals during the period that such an employee is taking the GPPL. Errant employers are liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or up to a six-month term of imprisonment. I also note and support that the same protections are also now extended to parents on adoption leave.

Could the Ministry consider increasing the quantum of such a fine to not exceeding $10,000 for first-time offenders across GPML, GPPL and, in fact, adoption leave? I believe that by doing so, we will send a stronger signal towards the Government's stance on such dismissals. Over time, together with the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation, which will strengthen protections for employees with caregiving responsibilities against discrimination for all employment decisions, this will help to normalise the role of fathers in shouldering caregiving responsibilities.

However, whilst such protection does provide some comfort to employees, some workers, especially fathers, may still hesitate to fully utilise their entitlement due to workplace cultures that might frown upon long absences. This is where inclusive workplace cultures become paramount. I would like to encourage employers to embrace family-friendly policies and consider a broader and deeper adoption of the flexible workplace arrangement for employees to allow them to shoulder both their work and family responsibilities.

From a business standpoint, the concerns of employers are real. Yet, studies have also demonstrated that supportive and family-oriented workplace policies enhance job satisfaction and may even enhance profitability. I do acknowledge that our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) may face operational constraints in complying with the new legislation, and I would like to urge the Ministry to consider the constraints faced by these SMEs and help them to adopt inclusive workplaces. The Labour Movement stands ready to assist the Ministry on this front.

Next, on closing the gender pay gap. The Bill before us today goes beyond addressing shared caregiving responsibilities alone. It can be a meaningful step towards narrowing the gender pay gap and improving the labour participation rates of women.

I have spoken on various occasions on the importance of closing the gender pay gap in Singapore. The gender pay gap has been attributed to the fact that women shoulder a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities which, in turn, causes them, or might cause them, to fall behind in the workplace. The time away from work can cause our women to lose out on work and wage progression. While we have made significant progress in the past decade to narrow our gender pay gap, more must be done.

With the renewed GPPL aimed at redistributing caregiving responsibilities more equitably at the start of a child's life, I hope that this shared commitment between couples would endure during the child's formative years. In turn, we can change the outdated notions of the roles of men and women within family and level the playing field between genders in the long run.

It is worth noting that this Bill will likely provide a positive, long-term effect on the next generation of Singaporeans. I am hopeful that children who grow up seeing both parents share caregiving responsibilities will thereafter carry these norms into their own lives when they start their own families in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us today is not just a routine Bill. It is a call to action for us all. For fathers, it is an invitation to play larger roles in parenting. For workplaces, it is a call for stakeholders to cultivate a supportive environment that is understanding of the dual responsibilities of both mothers and fathers. For society, Singapore at large, it is a reminder that gender equality is not just an issue women should care about, but instead, a social imperative for our society to flourish.

Let us work together as a nation to champion supportive workplaces, encourage families for life and pave a way for a future where Singapore's sons and daughters live in a society that values their contributions equally. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports the CDCA Bill. This Bill seeks to amend the CDCA for several purposes, including providing for new SPL, doubling the total period of paid paternity leave to four weeks, and introducing protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave.

These changes had been announced during the National Day Rally. In my response to the National Day Rally, I had stated that PSP supported these changes to uplift Singapore's low TFR, which fell to 0.97 in 2023. Although more parental leave alone might not necessarily have an immediate significant effect on our TFR, we believe it will create a positive effect as it gives potential parents peace of mind to take time off work to build secure and strong relationships with their newborn children, setting an important foundation for the long journey ahead.

We support the amendments to increase mandatory paid paternity leave and introduce protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current protection mothers have during paid maternity leave. These amendments send an important message that both parents are co-partners in a marriage and in starting a new family, and provide the crucial opportunity for both parents to be physically present to take on child-minding responsibilities.

Research has uncovered evidence pointing to the crucial role played by fathers in affecting not just newborn health and the subsequent development of a child, but also maternal health, postpartum and beyond. A father who is involved from the very start in the caring of a child provides important support to the mother, especially during the immediate postpartum period when mothers face the risk of postpartum depression. A mother who is both mentally and physically healthy is, in turn, better able to provide optimum care for the child.

Indeed, a longitudinal study conducted in Singapore found that fathers who were involved in their infant's birth were more actively involved in infant care at six months postpartum, highlighting how active participation from the start carries forward to the later periods in the child's life. Fathers also play a unique and critical role in the different stages of childhood development, affecting the socio-emotional and cognitive development of their children. It is, therefore, heartening to see that the Government is implementing policy changes to help fathers fulfil their important role in parenting.

Besides the duration of paid parental leave, we believe that there are many other factors at play which affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to have children. In our view, these other factors include the cost of living, especially the cost of housing, healthcare and education, as well as employment policies that have an impact on job security, the rates of unemployment and underemployment. In this regard, PSP strongly supports the introduction through this Bill of protection for fathers against a notice of dismissal during paid paternity leave, which is similar to the current provisions for mothers. As our cost of living continues to rise, job security is ever more important, especially to a couple who are contemplating on starting a new family and having children.

In totality, moving towards more parental leave and the gradual equalisation of maternity and paternity leave are both beneficial to building stronger marriages and families, and PSP appreciates the Government's efforts thus far to work with tripartite partners to establish the norms of fathers taking leave to care for and bond with their infants. We also believe that it is important for the Government to address the high cost of living in Singapore and consider employer incentives to create a more conducive work culture, as these also affect the ability and willingness of Singaporeans to start a family and have children. Mr Speaker, Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP supports the CDCA Bill to provide four weeks of statutory paternal leave for working fathers as well as to establish a new shared parental leave mechanism. Research has shown that fathers not only have a significant impact on the health of newborns and subsequent child development but are also important to the mothers' postpartum health. PSP therefore supports the Government's implementation of these policy changes to support fathers in playing their crucial role in the parenting process.

The issue of low fertility rates has troubled our country for many years. PSP believes that, in addition to the duration of paid parental leave, there are many factors affecting the ability and willingness of our citizens to have children. These include the cost of living, such as housing, healthcare and education, as well as job security and the employment environment.

We believe that if our country wants to further increase the willingness of citizens to have children, the Government must address the issue of high living costs and consider adopting measures to encourage employers to create a more pro-family work culture for their employees.

(In English): Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, the GPPL and SPL schemes are progressive measures to support families fostering progressive workplace practices and strengthening the foundations of our society. The move towards a default 50-50 split on shared parental leave between parents is a bold step in the right direction.

This structure sends a strong message about the normalisation of shared caregiving between women and men, not just at home, but also in the workplace and in society at large. With this flexibility, fathers are empowered and equipped to step up, take on more active roles at home, building stronger relationships with their children, strengthening marital bonds and setting a positive example to our children.

Beyond this, by being invested in the everyday runnings of the household, fathers also empower mothers to return to the workplace with peace of mind. According to the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) statistics, there are some 260,000 women of economic age who are not participating in the workforce. Caregiving responsibilities and, believe it or not, housework are common reasons given for this.

Indeed, in the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) #EveryWorkerMattersConversation Workers Compact Report in 2023, we found that in dual-income families, women were five times more likely than men to be managing housework and caregiving responsibilities, and women workers, unfortunately, were four times more likely to have left their jobs for caregiving than their men compatriots.

A 2021 Ipsos and United Women Singapore survey also found that while close to nine in 10 Singaporeans agree that household chores can be equally shared by husband and wife, gender-defined roles still exist in Singapore. The same study found that, in reality, more women take on the daily responsibilities of cleaning and laundry, tasks that take up daily attention, while men contribute by taking on household repairs and management of technological devices. These are not daily tasks.

Hence, Mr Speaker, would we not agree that many working mothers, especially those returning to their careers, would benefit immensely from the support of a partner who is actively involved in household responsibilities.

With the enhancements to the paternity and shared parental leave schemes, we hope to see more fathers encouraged to lean in and support their partners beyond traditional expectations. However, in order for this to happen, workplace norms would need to evolve to not only support, but encourage more fathers to take up these leave schemes.

As part of change management, companies must have open communications between management and employees, institute fair outcomes-based performance appraisals and create positive role models. Initiatives, such as townhalls, lunchtime parenting talks and even mentorship circles, are good ways to spark discussion within the workplace and I would like to ask our Ministry if support and resources can be availed to companies in their change culture process.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to talk about a group of Singaporean workers who, while traditionally under-served and under-represented, are now making great strides in improving their workplace rights. That is, our platform workers.

With the passing of our recent Platform Workers Bill, our platform workers are recognised for being employee-like and the Labour Movement thanks the Government for taking in our recommendation to include platform operators' Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions in the calculation of Government-paid leave payments. This adjustment ensures parity with salaried employees and recognising CPF contributions in leave calculations reinforces the idea that all workers deserve fair treatment when it comes to their parental leave entitlements.

Mr Speaker, our parents have shared that while they appreciate the paternity and SPL enhancements, raising a child is a lifelong process that goes beyond just the first year. While these enhancements address the critical first set of adjustments families must take after their child's birth, FWAs, enhanced caregiving leave, extended family support and a trusted ecosystem of care providers must be in place to support our families.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests will be implemented on 1 December this year and our parents and working caregivers welcome this move. In part, this is because, this is not about a one-size-fits-all FWA, but one that revolves around requests. Hence, revolving itself around the work hours and the work plans of our caregivers.

In NTUC's engagement with 40,000 workers at our #EWMC Conversations, 85% of workers with caregiving responsibilities cited FWAs as their most preferred form of support. Paid caregiving leave was second, at 64% and this was a good 20% lower than FWAs.

Some of our workers have shared their apprehension when it comes to asking for FWAs, citing that they may face backlash or future discrimination from their employers. In equipping workers and employers with the upcoming rollout, the Labour Movement and the Tripartite Workgroup for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests has provided resources, such as templated employee handbooks, training for workers, case studies for companies. I believe the upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will also, no doubt, set additional protective safety nets.

But how can MSF further support our parents and caregivers by helping to normalise FWAs in the workplace? Can the popular Becky the Bunny "Families For Life" theme become an expanded campaign in workplaces to spark frank discussions and family-friendly programmes in the workplace? This could include encouraging companies to adopt progressive leave practices, such as allowing singles to take childcare leave to help look after their nieces and nephews.

Mr Speaker, the enhancements to the GPPL and SPL schemes build a more robust support system for parents in Singapore and they promote a fairer caregiving/workplace norm and underscore the importance of shared parental responsibilities. With these enhancements, we are moving closer to a society where every parent, regardless of gender, is empowered and equipped to contribute meaningfully to their family, workplace and community. This is a very forward-looking policy change that demonstrates our commitment to strong family values and a supportive society. I support the Bill.

Ms Jean See.

Mr Speaker, the passing of this Bill would set in motion enhancements to shared parental leave and paternity leave schemes. Together with maternity leave, a couple who welcomes a baby in 2026 can benefit from 30 weeks of paid leave in total.

These enhancements that include the doubling of mandatory paternity leave from two to four weeks mark a major reset to policies and necessitate a major change in mindsets of how society can and should support parents and the parenting journey. Freelancers make up about one in ten of Singapore's resident workforce. Some, too, are hoping to start families. They welcome the Bill and look forward to the enhancements.

Nonetheless, some have raised concerns on how the Bill would be received by service buyers. Allow me to elaborate. Before I proceed, I declare my role as Director for NTUC's Freelancer and Self-Employed Unit.

Babies bring joy. However, some freelancers have found the journey of becoming a mother distressing. Why so? For instance, some freelance instructors shared about abrupt termination of their contracts after disclosing their pregnancy status to clients. These clients had included education institutions. Being dumped by clients in such manner is hurtful and runs counter to this Bill's push for progressive, family-friendly policies.

My Parliamentary Question at the recent 14 October 2024 Sitting, thus sought to know if MOM would extend maternity protection to Singaporeans engaged in non-standard forms of employment should the contracts of these freelancers, such as dependent contractors, be terminated on grounds related to pregnancy.

The Minister's response to the question provided the following guidance, "Self-employed persons and service buyers are encouraged to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for scenarios where a party is unable to fulfil the contract, such as pregnancy."

Parties can take reference from the Tripartite Standard on contracting with self-employed persons and any disputes can be brought to the Small Claims Tribunal. In this regard, would MSF consider working with MOM and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), to state upfront, in the Tripartite Standard on contracting with self-employed persons, that a service buyer should consider substitution options than to terminate the contract of a freelancer who must absent herself due to pregnancy and/or childbirth?

Could I also seek assurance from the Government that should a freelancer approach TAFEP and/or the Small Claims Tribunal about losing a contract or contracted gig after disclosing her pregnancy status to the client, the authorities would not condone such pregnancy discrimination?

On the operational aspect of the CDCA, given that the birth of a child is accompanied by many expenses, could MSF consider paying out the GPML amount to eligible freelancers when the maternity leave commences and not after the ninth week of the maternity leave period?

I would also like to seek clarification on the amendment where workers with multiple employment arrangements would be reimbursed on a per-parent basis instead of per-employment basis. How would this amendment be implemented for persons who are both employees and self-employed?

Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill and look forward to this decisive step towards a fair and inclusive work environment for freelancers and employees.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I wholeheartedly support this Bill, which will introduce policy changes that are very close to my heart. I have spoken up many times in this House about providing more paternity leave and equalising paternity leave, for making our policies fairer and sending a strong message that looking after a child is not just a mother's duty, but also that of the father's. This Bill will give our parents the most precious thing of all, more time.

With this Bill, we will double paid paternity leave to a total of four weeks and introduce 10 weeks of shared parental leave. My parenthood journey with my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy is the most rewarding journey I have taken. This journey started with paternity leave that allowed me to spend precious time with my babies. I hope many more fathers will be able to experience the same.

I thank the Ministry and our hardworking civil servants for making Singapore a country that is made for families. As my colleagues know, I am a housefly when it comes to asking for more. Even as Minister Indranee swats and shoos me, I keep coming back for more.

So, even as we celebrate this huge step forward, I also hope that we can look into three further points.

My first point is on how we can encourage fathers to take more paternity leave. The Government has sent a strong signal to employers and fathers by increasing mandatory paternity leave to four weeks. This is only just the start. This legislative signal will have to be accompanied by softer measures to encourage and inspire fathers to actually take the leave. From 2018 to 2020, only about 40% of eligible fathers took the full two weeks of GPPL in each year. In 2022, the take-up rate for paternity leave stood at only 53%. For maternity leave, it was 74%. I believe that fathers do want to spend more time with their newborn child.

An online infant care poll in October 2022 by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, found that 68% of respondents wanted themselves or their partners to be their infant's main caregiver but only 32% managed to make it happen.

Many fathers I speak to tell me they do not have a supportive environment at their workplace and so, they do not feel they can take the leave. Taking the full four weeks of GPPL does not mean fathers can become their infant's main caregivers, but it means they can be more present in the first few weeks of their infant's life – precious and important few weeks – and start their fatherhood journey on a strong footing.

In the Committee of Supply of 2022, Minister Indranee shared her thoughts on paternity leave, I quote, "We see more fathers wanting to be involved. Employers need to be onboard. Which is why, both at the Committee of Supply and now, I am reiterating, as, indeed, Mr Ng is, that it is actually better for your organisation if you are family-friendly. It is better for your organisation if you support fathers to take paternity leave and, of course, mothers as well. This is something that we need to work with the Tripartite Partners on. Mr Ng can be reassured that this is an area of work we will continue to look at." Unquote.

I am glad the Minister has provided the reassurances and, indeed, steps have been taken, but it is timely to receive another reassurance. Can the Minister of State and Minister Indranee share what steps the Ministry will be taking to encourage fathers to take more paternity leave?

My second point is on helping low-income fathers to take their paternity leave. A longitudinal study by the National University of Singapore Prof Jean Yeung found that fathers in more labour-intensive or lower-income roles are less likely to take paternity leave. She said that this segment of the population and their employers should be a key focus for policymakers and paternity leave policy. To quote Prof Yeung, "They may fear they will lose their jobs if they take the leave, so that they feel some pressure from their bosses and co-workers for taking this leave."

Being a new father is stressful. They have to care and provide for a new life. For lower-income fathers in precarious jobs, the stress is even more acute. Fathers should not have to choose between spending time with their babies and keeping their jobs. We have laws which generally provide against unfair dismissal, but these may not provide sufficient assurance. Can the Minister of State share how we can have more targeted support for lower-income fathers to take their paternity leave?

My third and final point is on equalising parental leave. I am glad that the default position is that the 10 weeks of shared parental leave will be equally shared. However, maternity leave is still four times that of paternity leave. The big gap between maternity and paternity leave entrenches gender stereotypes.

A 2019 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) research paper stated that “family policies in Singapore continue to signal that childcare is a woman’s responsibility and reinforces gender stereotypes”. This is a self-reinforcing loop. Because we give fathers less leave, they do not get to develop the skills and confidence needed to care for their kids. Thus, this, the IPS study finds, causes them to leave childcare to mothers.

More recently, a Cultivate SG-commissioned poll done in mid-2024 on parenthood and work found that material and financial provision is the most common perceived role for fathers. In contrast, mothers are associated with care-oriented roles.

I hope that we will eventually equalise the amount of paternity and maternity leave. This is an ambitious call but there are concrete steps we can take now. Let us start by setting a target year, perhaps 2030, or later, for equalising paternity and maternity leave. We can increase paternity leave in phases, like we are doing now, and give our employers time to plan ahead, while also providing a clear signal of our intentions to reduce gender perceptions of parenthood. Will the Minister of State look into this with tripartite partners and non-governmental oranisations, such as Families for Life and the Centre for Fathering?

Let me end with one of my most favourite quotes, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan’s best quote, “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."

I am grateful that the Government is providing more precious time for people to spend with their children. Our policies are changing and we are heading in the right direction. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for all the reassurances and I look forward to more reassurances in the Minister of State's wrap-up speech on how we will encourage fathers to take more paternity leave, how we can have more targeted paternity leave policies for lower-income fathers and when we will eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the CDCA Bill, which significantly improves our parental leave framework, including the new SPL scheme. This Bill goes beyond a routine policy update. It reflects our commitment to supporting the well-being of families which, in turn, strengthens both our economy and society.

As a father to three kids, my youngest just two years and four months old, and a business owner, I fully appreciate the priority of family. Whether it is attending to a sick child or ensuring they are receiving vaccinations, family will and should always come first. This is a value that the business community understands and respects, as we all recognise that a strong family foundation ultimately supports a stable and productive workforce.

However, I do have a few clarifications on the SPL scheme.

First, section 12DA provides a solid framework, but we can do more to encourage companies to be progressive in supporting parents. The Bill states that if a newly hired employee meets all requirements but has not yet completed three months of employment, and the employer grants them SPL, the Government may reimburse the employer. Could the Ministry provide clear guidance on the conditions for this reimbursement, as this could encourage more companies to adopt a progressive approach in supporting new hires in taking parental leave?

Second, for parents with multiple jobs or a combination of employment and self-employment, section 12M provides much-needed support. However, clear guidance on managing claims and reimbursement limits would alleviate potential concerns, particularly for employers. For example, if a parent holds two part-time jobs, they are eligible to claim SPL leave from both employers, but how would reimbursement limits and apportionment apply if the combined claims exceed the cap?

Employers may, in good faith, pay out the full leave benefits to employees but could later find that Government reimbursements are less than expected. This could increase administrative complexity and even require employers to claw back amounts from these part-time employees – an uncomfortable situation for all involved. Clarification from the Government on how these cases will be handled would be invaluable in reducing these risks for employers and ensuring smooth implementation of these provisions.

Third, the Bill also introduces penalties for employers who "without reasonable cause" fail to grant SPL. Many SMEs will be looking for more clarity in defining "reasonable cause", so that they can be in full compliance.

While employees have the flexibility to take leave within 12 months, certain situations may arise where immediate leave requests pose significant challenges. For instance, if a small business with limited staff cannot immediately accommodate leave without major disruptions, would that constitute a reasonable cause for delay, especially if the employee insists on taking it at that time? For sectors with critical peak seasons, such as retail during holidays, could an employer reasonably defer leave if an employee insists on taking it during such high demand times?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small nation with a limited resident workforce, Singapore relies on measures like SPL to support family growth and our nation’s fertility rate. The business community supports these initiatives as essential for workforce sustainability and economic resilience.

Yet, the extension of SPL presents operational challenges, especially for SMEs. Smaller businesses with lean teams must manage workload distribution, find temporary staffing and plan for the re-integration of employees returning from leave. For highly specialised roles, finding a suitable temporary replacement is not always straightforward. Re-integrating employees after extended leave also requires careful planning to maintain productivity. SMEs often incur additional costs during overlapping periods when both returning employees and temporary staff are needed. To help manage these challenges, I urge the Government to strongly consider support measures, such as extending pay coverage for returning employees by one to two months, to help offset the operational impact.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to stress that no good employer would want to disrupt an employee’s parental leave unnecessarily. We all understand that time away to care for a sick child or to meet other family needs is essential and should be respected fully. At the same time, fostering a supportive work environment is a shared responsibility. I encourage employees to give ample notice whenever possible in planning their parental leave and using this time with the purpose it is intended for, dedicating it to family. When everyone respects these principles, it strengthens trust between employers and employees and creates a smoother experience for all involved.

I also urge employees, when possible, to remain flexible and reachable for urgent matters during their leave. For instance, if you are in charge of IT in your organisation and it is hit by a serious virus, such as cloudstrike, and your colleagues need your help, please be there for them. This sense of mutual assistance reinforces trust, promotes teamwork and nurtures a workplace culture that benefits everyone.

Lastly, it is essential that both employers and employees acknowledge the efforts of colleagues who take on additional responsibilities during someone’s parental leave. Recognising and appreciating their contributions go a long way in fostering respect and a spirit of collaboration that supports the entire organisation.

In conclusion, with thoughtful collaboration between businesses, the Government and employees, this Bill positions Singapore as both a family-friendly and business-friendly society. By setting a new standard in progressive workplace policies, we enhance our global competitiveness and quality of life for all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Speaker, in the last debate on the CDCA Bill, I had urged the Government to accelerate making four weeks of paternity leave mandatory rather than voluntary, and to further review parental leave. The provisions in these latest amendments to the CDCA Bill represent a significant step towards realising a vision of society where healthy equal parenting is the norm, where dads get to be a much bigger part of their children’s lives from those vital early months, and moms get to continue to pursue their careers with the support of their partners.

By providing four months of maternity leave, four weeks of paternity leave and 10 weeks of SPL for a total of 30 weeks, we are giving moms and dads a genuine choice about how they want to balance parenting responsibilities and work.

But I want to stress a key point. Realising this vision is not just about the personal choices of individual moms and dads. Realising this vision requires a systemic cultural shift, where attitudes within workplaces and society at large are supportive of families, and those who take parental leave are not made to feel guilty or regret for doing so.

We have heard the concerns of employers over the operational challenges, as well as from colleagues, especially singles or childless colleagues, who worry that that they will be forced to pick up the slack for colleagues on parental leave with nothing in return for them. I do not trivialise these points of view. But I believe the importance of providing more support to families means we must go beyond these concerns.

How might we effect these cultural shifts? I would like to offer three suggestions.

First, we must ensure that men and women who take the parental leave that they are entitled to are not discriminated against. According to the Association of Women for Action and Research's (AWARE’s) Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Advisory, maternity discrimination from untoward job interview questions to wrongful dismissals, denials of bonuses and outright harassment is by far the most common form of discrimination seen. In 2022, such cases made up 85% of the service’s entire discrimination caseload.

But it is not just an issue for women. Studies have also suggested that some men also fear losing their jobs if they take their paternity leave and feel pressure from their bosses and co-workers when they want to do so.

It is important that the progressive moves in this Bill do not lead to unintended negative consequences. In India in 2017, mandated paid maternity leave was increased from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. A study found that the policy change caused a 30- percentage point decrease in women’s employment and a 2% to 4% decrease in income for employed women. This was attributed to a rise in firms’ reservations for hiring women in the high fertility age group, since employers alone financed the leave.

Here, in Singapore, the Government is funding the increase in leave and the policy intent is for the leave to be taken by both men and women. I urge the Government to further ensure that protections against discrimination for those who take up any form of parental leave, whether it is SPL, GPPL or GPML are strengthened, possibly in the upcoming workplace fairness legislation.

Second, we must promote a workplace culture that supports families and greater opportunities for women. This starts with inclusive leadership and line managers who walk the talk and must be supported by moves to embed gender balanced leadership and diversity within teams, and to enhance parental support in order to help sustain the change. Parental support here refers to not only parental leave but other forms of support before, during and after pregnancy. For example, progressive employers offer flexibility for medical appointments pre-delivery, FWAs post-delivery and after parental leave, and re-integration support post parental leave and childcare leave.

Line managers have an outsized impact on how any policy lands for their workers. They need to be socialised and trained on the benefits of parental leave to the company, including on recruitment and retention and to society as a whole. In a tight labour market, such as we are in now, companies need to put their best foot forward, and the sooner they move to a supportive workplace culture, the better.

It makes a big difference when managers encourage and are role models themselves for taking up parental leave options or FWAs, so that any employee looking to do so will not feel like he or she sticks out as an exception to the norm.

It is critically important that men take the new shared parental leave. By creating a new shared parental leave that is shared equally by mom and dad by default, versus sacrificing part of the mother's maternity leave as is the case today, which may explain the low take-up, is a great move. If the vast majority of shared parental leave is still taken by the moms, women will continue to struggle in the workforce and women of childbearing age could be discriminated against, whether or not they want to have children. So, take-up of SPL by fathers is something we really need to track.

Some organisations, especially SMEs, will need support in making the transition to this new culture. But the fact is, there are SMEs that are doing this today, who are progressive and more should take the same step.

As for single or childless workers who fear that all these might unfairly create additional burden to them, it is important to recognise that the responsibility for arranging parental leave cover does not like with these co-workers, it is the responsibility of the employer. The Government is paying them for it! Employees who take on a significantly heavier load to cover for a co-worker should be adequately compensated, or the company can look into taking on a temp worker to take over all or some of the duties. The longer the duration of parental leave also makes me more feasible to take on temp workers.

While employees are entitled to take their parental leave, proactiveness on their part to not only give sufficient notice as required under the new provisions and to also find practical solutions to their time off and hand over work responsibility, will no doubt be appreciated.

And may I ask for a clarification from the Minister of State. For shared parental leave, could it be taken rather than in full days, in half days and the time extended in order for companies to continue to be able to support their employers if needed?

Thirdly, we must track and make transparent metrics that will help us measure our progress. We can regularly report headline metrics like take-up rates for the various forms of parental leave. But beyond that, regular surveys can be done to measure shifts in culture and attitudes towards the ideal viz one where parenting is a more equal responsibility. There should also be periodic assessments of the impact on workforce outcomes and birth rates to help us assess progress and make necessary corrections over time.

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to repeat my call during the last Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill debate for the Government to also review childcare leave for families with many young children. Because caring for children does not stop after 12 months. We need to support parents to navigate caring from their children throughout their childcare years.

Mr Speaker, I do not have children of my own. But I feel passionately that moms and dads should have a genuine choice about how they manage parenting and work in the early years of their children's lives. It is good for dads, moms, our children, society and the economy in the long run. Let us build a Singapore that is pro-business, pro-worker and pro-family. I support the Bill.

Ms Hany Soh.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The amendments proposed in this Bill demonstrate our Government's unceasing effort to make Singapore an even more conducive environment for Singaporeans to start families. These amendments follow the slew of past measures such as enhancements to parental leave, increasing childcare availability and affordability, as well as providing more financial assistance to large families.

As shared by the Minister Indranee with this House on 28 February 2024, like many developed societies, Singapore's TFR has been on a declining trend and for the first time in history, fallen below 1.

0. This is an alarming sign and an existential threat to Singapore.

Prospective parents would have their respectively varying concerns and reasons militating against starting a family. Everybody's circumstances and challenges are unique and there is no silver bullet to miraculously improve Singapore's TFR overnight. That said, I have every firm believe that our PAP Government will never stop doing its best for Singaporeans, and today, we have this Bill to improve the conditions for prospective parents, which is a step in the right direction in an endless journey.

During the recent focus group discussions organised by the PAP's Women's Wing and Friendzone, I got to listen to approximately 100 youths aged between 20 and 40 years old. When asked whether they intend to have children, many of them candidly shared their concerns with me, that child raising comes with significant burdens – both emotionally and financially.

Amongst other comments, some of these youths painted a daunting picture with their words when they said, "marriage is hard, raising children is even harder" and "if I want to have a kid, I must be confident that I can provide him/her with the best, if I think I can't do that, I would rather not have one."

As I told them at the discussion, and I repeat now, we hear you. These are genuine concerns on at least two levels – in actuality and by perception. Either level could be sufficient to dissuade a couple from starting a family. The actual and/or perceived high costs of education, transportation, medical care, clothing and food, may generally cause couples to feel anxious and face challenges in sustaining their childless lifestyle, which may become or feel insurmountable should they have a child or children.

Mr Speaker, we can do more and do better, to not only allay such concerns, but also positively encourage aspiring parents to actually become parents. The Child Development Account or in short, CDA, is a Government initiative designed to support parents in managing the costs associated with raising children.

Over the years, the Government has broadened the scope of approved uses of the CDA to cover beyond education and healthcare expenses. Notwithstanding, many parents with whom I have interacted in my Woodgrove division still share their struggles arising from the high cost of maintaining a child, from the purchase of baby formula to enrolling their child to enrichment classes to ensure that the child is ready for school.

They therefore hope that the list of approved uses can be widened to further assist them with these expenses. Currently, there are restrictions on using CDA funds for optional enrichment programmes. However, many of them have confided in me, sharing that while these enrichment programs are offered by the preschool as "optional", they take place during the child's normal curriculum hours and they often feel a great dilemma on whether to enrol their child in these classes. Their primary fear is that their child will lose the learning opportunity and occasion to foster cohesion as well as friendships. As a mother of a five-year-old and one-year-old, I can relate to these concerns they have shared.

Another resident shared that bringing her four children out for family outings is an expensive activity. She appreciates our Woodgrove Division's frequent organisation of trips to attractions and places, catering to the needs of family with young children to bond, such as indoor playgrounds and the newly opened Bird Paradise at highly-subsidised rates, as otherwise, she and her husband would either not have been able to bring their children to these places, or would have faced significant financial strain in doing so.

Mr Speaker, my resident's hesitation in organising family outings is understandable and could also be shared by many other Singaporeans. Just as an example, while some local attractions offer subsidised rates or promotional offers for Singapore residents, a visit to one could cost this family of six, comprising two adults and four children, around $450. If allowed to tap on the CDA, it would spare them from having to cough out more than half in cash.

For the sake of Singaporean families, we ought to consider further improving the CDA.

I now move on to the topic of paternity leave. Our paternity leave scheme was introduced more than a decade ago. While the take-up rate has risen steadily in recent years, it is still at 53%. The reason why the uptake of paternity leave tends to remain low may likely be due to traditional gender norms and organisational stigma, despite that we are seeing more fathers are stepping up on assuming parenting responsibilities.

I am therefore doubtful that simply by mandating the enhanced paternity leave would encourage a substantive increment in take-up rates, particularly for the shared leave component where it may likely be a situation where couples decide that the wife should take up all 10 weeks so that she can have more time to recuperate both mentally and physically from child birth and enjoy more bonding time with the child during the breastfeeding journey. I therefore call for the Government to take bolder moves, just as what my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Ng, had sought in his speech earlier, with some of my suggestions as follows.

Firstly, the Government can consider providing more support, particularly to SMEs to improve the experience of employers in the administration of their employees' consumption of parental leave days. In this regard, the Government can also consider introducing support packages and tax incentives to support employers who encourage their employees to apply for parental leave, providing a workplace culture in which fellow co-workers have a better understanding of the role of the workplace in accepting parents' use of paid leave days.

Secondly, to ensure that fathers co-share the parenting responsibility, bonuses can also be introduced to incentivise fathers to use their parental leave and for their companies to encourage doing so. In Australia, where parents share their childcare benefits at a minimum ratio of 40:60, each parent would be entitled to a "partnership bonus" payment.

In the Singaporean context, apart from "Baby Bonus", can we look into providing an extra "New Parents" bonus payout or additional leave entitlement for these young parents where fathers are prepared to step up in utilising their paternity leave to spend quality time in caring for the newborn with their spouses?

We should also be mindful of the gender stereotyping that may occur at the workplace, particularly during the hiring process; a married women in her late 20s or 30s may often be subject and asked by her potential employer on whether she has plans to have children in the near future.

Ultimately, why can we not, as women, excel in both areas – in our careers as well as our role as mothers? Why must we sacrifice one for the other? Just like what my fellow Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, have shared earlier, I believe that we can and should create a work culture which will afford women the opportunity to achieve a balance and excel in both of these aspects. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Under this Bill, there is a requirement of a new minimum notice period of four weeks. While I can understand that this is to help employers better adjust their operations after parental leave benefits are enhanced, because parents may leave work for some time. However, as we all know, the journey of pregnancy may be rather unexpected, with occasional instances of premature births that may happen despite parents' best-laid plans. In such instances, may I ask whether there is a flexibility in how this law is being enforced and what level of support is available to alleviate or waive such notice periods?

(In English): Finally, when allocating the appropriate length of paid parental leaves for the mother and father respectively, as well as shared parental leave, I wish to enquire with the Ministry, whether the Government had taken reference from the measures introduced or enhanced by other countries – beyond those of the UK and US, as shared by the Minister of State Sun Xueling earlier – to better support their citizens in embracing parenthood? These changes in parental schemes in other countries whose demographics and lifestyles are relatable to ours, may allow us to observe the impact of specific policy changes on parental behaviours, and adopt best policies and practices.

Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill.

Ms Jessica Tan, do you have a clarification to make?

Mr Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I had not meant to speak on this Bill. I am very supportive of the Bill.

But on hon Member Mr Louis Ng's point about equalisation of parental leave – as for in maternity and paternity leave – I totally agree with him that we should in-step move towards that, because the joint involvement of both parents is very important for child development and care.

But he was so adamant on this, so, I want to ask him this clarification because he kept talking about maternity leave and paternity leave and childcaring and child rearing, which is important.

I just want to ask him this clarification: does he recognise that maternity leave is not just about parenting and childcare? Maternity leave also involves the recovery of the mother and – in case he does not realise – nine months of carrying a child and then going through childbirth is quite tough. So, I hope that he will agree with me that as he advocates for this, he also advocates for time for the mother to recover. The father having more paternity leave is definitely welcome because then, he can also help to take care of the mother a little bit more as well.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. Deputy Speaker was smiling quite a bit, so it worried me for quite a while, but I knew she was going to put her hand up.

It is precisely because the mother needs to recover from childbirth that the father needs to be there. If the mother is recovering from childbirth, who is looking after the kid? Sometimes, of course, you can outsource it to the helper, but it is precisely that the mothers need to recover from childbirth, that is why we should give fathers the time to be there for the mother and for the children.

I had raised this in my Adjournment Motion as well for extending parental leave for those with multiples – twins as well as pre-term babies. Again, for the same reason – as the mothers recover from giving birth to twins or pre-term babies, the fathers need to be there to spend time with the mothers and also look after the children. So, it is not a zero sum; it is not an either or. I am hoping, again, that we equalise so that both parents can be there for each other and for the children as well.

You are both of the same page. Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Mr Speaker, as a father of four, I am deeply appreciative of the Government's efforts to support parents through this Bill. Although my children are now older and I do not think I will revisit that phase again, I am heartened to see that these changes will benefit future generations of parents.

When my children were born, I was fortunate to be on leave, as I was pursuing my studies, first my degree, then after that my PhD. This allowed me be fully present during those formative years, allowing my wife to recuperate while I looked after the children together with her – something that I am grateful for to this day. I did not have to worry about missing and catching up on work although I did have exams and I had multiple assignments to submit as well as reports. But nothing beats the stigma of taking leave and thinking that your colleagues will take the heavy burden of your work.

This Bill by expanding parental leave and supporting working parents will provide similar opportunities for countless families in Singapore. It re-affirms our commitment to a society where parents have the time they need to support their children during the crucial early years. I am grateful that we are moving tin this direction and I look forward t seeing the positive impact these changes will bring to all Singaporean families.

The Bill reflects our steadfast commitment to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment for Singapore. It is part of our broader vision to encourage family formation and build a society where parents, regardless of their work situation, can balance family life with professional responsibilities.

The proposed amendments introduce key updates to the existing framework, aimed at increasing support for working parents, expanding options for parental leave and extending coverage to diverse family structures.

Notably, the introduction of the SPL scheme marks a significant step forward in promoting more equitable caregiving roles for mothers and fathers. We are seeing a growing desire for shared responsibilities in parenting, as we heard earlier, and this Bill empowers both parents to play a proactive role in their child's formative years.

Furthermore, this amendment Bill recognises Singapore's changing work environment. With the rise in self-employment and concurrent employment arrangements, it is essential that our family support policies adapt. Thus, this Bill provides income loss compensation for self-employed parents and accommodates unique scenarios like dual employment, ensuring no family is left behind.

Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I wish to share some key concerns raised by my constituents. One primary concern among SMEs is the potential financial and operational burden these changes may introduce.

SMEs face unique challenges in maintaining workforce continuity, especially with increased leave entitlements. To support SMEs in fulfilling these commitments, I ask that the Government consider several measures, including subsidised administrative support, a dedicated helpline or advisory service, and a streamlined reimbursement process for parental leave.

Additionally, regular check-ins and a feedback mechanism with SME representatives could help identify implementation challenges early, while temporary financial assistance during the transition period would ease initial burdens. Training sessions or resource kits would also be valuable, helping smaller businesses understand and implement family-friendly policies effectively. These measures would enable SMEs to meet their family support obligations without undue strain, balancing their business needs with their contributions to a more family-friendly Singapore.

Second, Sir, is about addressing workplace stigma associated with parental leave, like I mentioned earlier in my introduction. Another concern that several parents have shared is the lingering stigma or perception of workplace penalties for those who take extended parental leave. Despite our progress in building family-friendly workplaces, many parents still feel apprehensive about using their leave entitlements due to fears about career impact. This is especially true for new fathers, who may worry that taking shared leave could signal less commitment to their roles, and for mothers, who may fear that extended leave could limit career opportunities.

While I support the Government's emphasis on protections for employees and penalties for non-compliance, I also hope that we, as a society, can foster a cultural shift that normalises caregiving for both parents.

To address this stigma, I suggest that the Government work closely with NTUC and community organisations such as Dads for Life and Mums for Life to promote a positive culture around parenting. These organisations have been instrumental in encouraging active parenting, and by partnering with them, we can amplify messages that normalise parental leave for both mothers and fathers. Together, they could develop public campaigns, resources and workplace programmes that highlight the benefits of shared caregiving, fostering a culture where parental responsibilities are seen as integral to a balanced life.

Sir, I would also like to suggest that the Government consider increasing the number of childcare leave days for parents. At present, the six-day childcare leave entitlement is helpful, yet it may fall short, for parents with multiple children or for those who face frequent health or school-related demands. An increase in childcare leave would greatly support families with greater caregiving responsibilities. Sufficient leave reduces stress on parents, benefiting their mental health and allowing them to be more present and engaged with their children.

Early childhood is a vital stage of development and a supportive environment promotes mental well-being for both parents and children. One approach could be a tiered system that increases leave days based on the number of children, or a pool of flexible family leave days that parents could use as needed. Expanding childcare leave would further reinforce Singapore's family-friendly framework and support the well-being of all children. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, this Bill aims to strengthen support for families. The proposed amendments will introduce a shared parental leave scheme, provide financial assistance to self-employed parents and offer flexibility to families in different employment situations.

However, I would like to highlight several concerns from the community.

Firstly, the potential financial burden faced by SMEs in meeting these new demands, especially in terms of costs and administration. Additionally, I also urge us to address workplace stigma against parents who take extended leave to care for their children.

Recently, M3@Jalan Besar launched the Malay Men's Mental Health Peer Support Group (3MH) a peer support group specifically designed to support the mental health of men in the Malay/Muslim community. Initiatives like this are crucial to ensure that fathers also receive the emotional and mental support that they need for the sake of their families’ well-being. By providing a more comprehensive support, we can build a more family-friendly work culture and ensure the mental well-being of parents and children.

Overall, this Bill is a positive step towards building a more caring society that support families in Singapore.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the Bill represents a significant step forward in building a more supportive and inclusive Singapore for our families. By enhancing parental leave options, expanding eligibility and providing greater financial security for parents, especially those in self-employment or dual employment, we are not only supporting individual families, but also reinforcing the values that underpin our society.

As we look to the future, our policies must continue to evolve with the changing needs of our families and workplaces. By promoting family well-being, mental health and inclusivity, these amendments support stronger family bonds and a more resilient society. These changes will foster stronger family bonds, encourage shared caregiving responsibilities and ultimately, contribute to a more resilient and cohesive society. Notwithstanding the concerns raised, I support the Bill.

Minister of State Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. It is encouraging that we all agree it is important that we continue to strive towards building an environment that values and supports families and children. Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised.

Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government referred to the parental leave provisions in other countries when designing the new SPL scheme. As I mentioned earlier, the enhancements were developed after studying international practices, and extensive feedback and consultations with parents and the tripartite partners, so that we arrive at a scheme design that best fits our local context.

Members have asked about the eligibility of different groups of parents and the scheme parameters. Mr Mark Lee asked whether parents with non-traditional work arrangements, such as newly hired employees, will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. Broadly speaking, working parents who are eligible for the existing parental leave schemes, such as GPML and GPPL will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. One of the eligibility criteria is that the employee should serve the employer for a continuous period of at least three months before the child's birth, to be entitled to take this paid leave with the employer.

Working parents who do not meet the minimum employment period of three months, such as those whose babies are born shortly after joining the company, may qualify for the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme instead if they have worked at least 90 days in the last 12 months. This is a cash benefit-equivalent scheme, similar to the existing GPML and GPPL schemes where parents will receive the cash benefit directly from the Government in lieu of paid leave and can use the cash benefits to make suitable work and caregiving arrangements.

Progressive employers who would like to grant the new SPL to an employee, whose child is born shortly after joining the company and does not meet the minimum employment period of three months, can be reimbursed by the Government if the employee has met all other eligibility criteria. The leave that is voluntarily granted by the employer should also follow the conditions of the new SPL scheme, such as being taken within 12 months of the child's birth.

Ms Hany Soh asked if there is flexibility to the new requirement for employees to provide at least four weeks' notice before commencing parental leave in instances of pre-mature births. I would like to assure the Member that we understand that these events are unpredictable, and employees will not be penalised when there is sufficient cause for not giving notice.

Mr Mark Lee also asked if operational constraints would serve as reasonable cause for an employer to delay the granting of the new SPL scheme. I wish to highlight that the consumption period for the new SPL is 12 months from the child's date of birth, and this provides a reasonable window within which the leave can be taken. The penalties will only apply when employers fail to demonstrate with reasonable cause that they could not grant parental leave at any time during the 12 months after the child's birth.

As demonstrated by the examples raised by Ms Hany Soh and Mr Mark Lee, this is indeed why it is important for employers and employees to have early conversations and plan ahead as soon as possible so that a suitable leave arrangement can be worked out to meet the needs of both parties. This could include taking the leave more flexibly in weeks, days, or half-days, as was mentioned by Ms Mariam Jaafar, over the 12 months, to avoid peak periods or periods of manpower shortage, or to meet changes in parents' caregiving circumstances.

Mr Louis Chua asked whether we can extend the consumption period for the new SPL scheme. When developing the new shared parental leave scheme in consultation with the tripartite partners, we had considered allowing parents more flexibility to take the new SPL over a longer period of two years. However, employers preferred a shorter consumption period to reduce the uncertainty on when employees may be absent from work, which could result in greater challenges in making manpower arrangements. We are always mindful that we have to balance employers' needs, even as we try our best to support new parents.

Taking indeed all these considerations, we decided on a consumption period of 12 months, which is also aligned with that for our maternity and paternity leave schemes.

Several Members called on greater support for self-employed persons and sought clarifications on the reimbursement of parental leave for those with multiple employers. Ms Jean See asked whether the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons could state upfront that if the contracted freelancer must absent herself due to pregnancy and childbirth, the service buyer should consider substitution options rather than to terminate the contract. The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons states that when a self-employed person enters into an agreement with a service-buyer, the parties’ obligations and how the agreement may be varied, among other things, should be set out clearly in writing.

I encourage self-employed persons and service buyers to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for absences due to pregnancy and childbirth. Prescribing that the service buyer must consider substitution options when a self-employed person absents herself due to pregnancy and childbirth may make it very rigid for service buyers who may have legitimate urgent business needs.

Ms Jean See also sought assurance that the Government will not condone pregnancy discrimination if a freelancer approaches the TAFEP or the Small Claims Tribunal about losing a contract or contracted gig after disclosing her pregnancy status to the client.

I wish to assure Ms See that in the final report of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the Committee recommended including additional guidelines in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) to provide greater clarity that corporate service buyers and intermediaries should not discriminate based on characteristics that are not related to the job. MOM will work with the tripartite partners to include these additional guidelines in the TGFEP.

Ms Jean See also asked if GPML can be paid to eligible freelancers when the maternity leave commences and not after the ninth week of the maternity leave period. I wish to clarify that under the Employment Act and CDCA, the first eight weeks of maternity leave for the mother’s first two child orders are paid for by the employer and the Government reimburses for the last eight weeks. Freelancers are considered self-employed and the same approach is adopted for self-employed persons. The first eight weeks of maternity leave for the first two child orders are also paid for by the self-employed person, while the Government pays for the lost income for the ninth to 16th week of maternity leave.

To ensure accountability for the use of public funds, paying on a reimbursement basis is a safeguard to ensure that the leave is taken as intended before payment is released. However, we do understand that cash flow may be an important consideration for freelancers and self-employed persons. To mitigate this, self-employed persons are encouraged to submit their claims accurately as soon as possible. Claim submissions that are accurate and complete will typically be reimbursed within 10 working days. Self-employed persons can also claim reimbursement for any portion of Government-paid leave that has been taken even when there is still remaining leave to be consumed. This means self-employed persons can submit claims between the ninth and 16th week of maternity leave for the first two child orders and need not wait for the period of eight weeks to have passed before claiming for reimbursement.

Ms Jean See and Mr Mark Lee asked how the reimbursement limit will apply for parents who have multiple employments, such as those who hold multiple jobs, or are both an employee and a self-employed person. Such parents will be able to take parental leave with each employer as well as take time-off as a self-employed person. For example, for the new SPL, the total amount that the Government may reimburse the parent’s employers for paid leave given to the parent and pay directly to the parent as a self-employed person will be capped at $2,500 per week.

If the total reimbursement across multiple employments exceeds $2,500 per week, the Government will reimburse the parent’s employers first, as employers would have already paid for their employee’s leave, before considering claims by the parent as a self-employed person.

Where there are multiple employers and the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit, the reimbursement for each employer will be further determined based on the proportion of the employer’s claim out of the total claim amount submitted by all employers.

I would like to assure the Member that this group of employees is very small, at less than 1% of claims. We encourage employees to inform their employers before consuming the leave, if they have multiple employers and are likely to exceed the reimbursement limit. The Bill provides for employers to recover the difference directly from their employees, if the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit.

I wish to assure Mr Mark Lee and Mr Melvin Yong that these details will be covered in the guidelines which MSF will provide on its website.

To Mr Mark Lee’s question on the computation of income for self-employed persons, it is based on the income set out in the individual’s Notice of Assessment and should therefore cover any seasonal variations within a year.

Let me now move to suggestions on how we can encourage the take-up of parental leave schemes.

Mr Louis Ng asked how we can encourage fathers, especially low-income fathers, to take more paternity leave. Ms Hany Soh also suggested incentivising fathers to take more leave by introducing additional bonuses, either in the form of payouts or additional leave to couples if the father takes paternity leave or shares a certain portion of the new SPL scheme. Mr Louis Chua suggested making the reimbursement for a portion of paternity leave contingent on fathers taking a minimum number of weeks of leave.

First, this is why we are introducing new employment protection for fathers taking GPPL. Mothers are currently protected against dismissals when they are on maternity leave. By extending the same protection to fathers who are on paternity leave, we want to send a strong signal to employers that it is important for them to also support their male employees to take parental leave, besides their female employees. We hope that this protection will provide fathers with the assurance and peace of mind to go ahead to use their paternity leave entitlement. The same protection will also be extended to employees taking adoption leave.

I agree with Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh that we must continue to strengthen protection against discrimination of women with childbearing intentions and parents at the workplace and the upcoming Workplace Fairness Bill will address this.

On the new protections, Mr Desmond Choo asked to increase the penalty for employers who are first-time offenders, from the current fine not exceeding $5,000 to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The current penalties under the CDCA are in line with other employment offences for statutory leave provisions in the Employment Act and we will take the Member’s feedback into consideration when reviewing the penalties. It is also important to understand the spirit of the law, which is to encourage a supportive workplace environment for families.

In response to Mr Louis Ng's point on incentivising fathers to take paternity leave and shared parental leave, not only are we offering fathers protection from dismissal, we are also paying for both types of leave in full up to $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month.

Members have provided useful suggestions, and we will continue to review our parental leave schemes and study how we can design them better to encourage utilisation.

This brings me to my second point that beyond legislation and Government support, workplace culture and societal norms are key factors that influence whether parents use their parental leave entitlements. I echo Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal, who highlighted that a shift in policy cannot by itself drive cultural change. Encouraging greater paternal involvement and shared parental responsibilities require mindset shifts in our society. Workplaces with supportive supervisors and coworkers can make a huge difference to assure fathers to go ahead and take leave to bond with and care for their newborns. Therefore, the Government has been, and will continue to work with tripartite partners and community partners such as Families for Life Council and Centre for Fathering to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplaces.

I urge supervisors to be supportive when their employees apply for paternity leave and hope that co-workers will be understanding and help to cover their colleagues who take time off work to care for their children. I also call on parents to be ready to extend similar support when they return to work, should their colleagues also need to take time off from work to tend to their families.

As Ms Mariam Jaafar highlighted, we will continue to track our progress and the take up of our parental leave schemes. MSF published the "Family Trends Report" in July 2024, which provides key annual updates on Singapore’s family trends as we work towards achieving a Singapore Made for Families. The report includes the utilisation trends of Government-paid Leave Schemes. The National Population and Talent Division also regularly conducts the Marriage and Parenthood Survey to understand perceptions toward marriage and parenthood, including that of parental caregiving roles and the actual division of childcare duties at home between men and women.

Several Members have also called for further increases in parental leave provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked about further increasing paternity leave to eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave, so that we avoid entrenching gender stereotypes.

Maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, given that mothers need time to recuperate physically after childbirth, a point which was emphasised by Member Ms Jessica Tan earlier. Although the duration of maternity and paternity leave differs, the Government has been mindful about the importance of encouraging shared parental responsibility. And you can see, from the progressive rounds of enhancements in recent years, that they have focused mainly on increasing paternity leave.

Mr Louis Chua, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal suggested increasing Childcare Leave, including to tier it according to the number of children or combining it into a pool of family leave. To Mr Louis Chua’s suggestion to increase Childcare Leave from six to eight days in view of the additional preschool closure days, I would like to clarify that there has been a net increase of 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days as the Member had thought. Previously, all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays.

We fully recognise that caring for a child is a long-term commitment and that working parents must continue to manage their work and caregiving responsibilities even after the first year of the child’s life.

Currently, each working parent whose youngest child is below seven years old is entitled to six days of Childcare Leave per year. A working couple would therefore have a total of 12 days of Childcare Leave on top of their annual leave provisions, which they can use for preschool closure days and other childcare purposes. At the start of this year, we also doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent in the child’s first two years.

Any further enhancements to our leave schemes will require us to strike a fine balance between the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. We also need to provide employers with some time to adjust to the significant increases in overall parental leave provisions with the introduction of the new SPL scheme. Nevertheless, we will continue to regularly review our leave policies in consultation with parents and the tripartite partners.

Beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage other sustainable ways that support parents and other caregivers in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as FWAs. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Workplace Arrangement Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024 and the mandatory guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs. We should focus on building confidence and capabilities among companies to manage flexible workplace arrangements effectively, instead of relying on legislation alone. We thank the NTUC's efforts on this front.

Even as some Members call for even more leave provisions, other Members have highlighted the potential challenges that businesses may face in managing the extended absences of employees. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Hazel Poa, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have called for better support to help companies, especially SMEs, with manpower and operational constraints.

We fully understand that employers are concerned about the impact of the parental leave enhancements on their business and manpower arrangements. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we have therefore worked closely with tripartite partners and employer representatives, to design the parental leave enhancements in a way that best mitigates some of the challenges that employers may face.

Indeed, one key approach is that most of Singapore's parental leave provisions are paid by the Government and at a generous level of $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month. This fully covers the wages of the majority of employees on leave. Employers can use the wage savings to mitigate the operational impact of their employees going on leave. This includes, hiring and training temporary workers, providing additional remuneration to recognise the effort of colleagues covering for the employees on leave and supporting any overlapping periods for handovers when re-integrating returning employees.

On the Government's reimbursement to employers, I would like to assure Dr Wan Rizal that we are committed to ensuring timely reimbursements and streamlining the claim processes. For example, in response to feedback, we have since allowed claims for childcare leave to be submitted in batches, instead of individually, to reduce the administrative burden on employers. We will continue to review and improve our reimbursement processes to support employers in providing parental leave.

For the longer term, we encourage employers to take this opportunity to strengthen their manpower planning capabilities and make operational and system adjustments. After all, given the demographic challenges of a declining birth rate and an ageing workforce, mature economies and societies like ours must increasingly find ways to effectively navigate manpower constraints in future and manage a more flexible workforce well. Employers can tap on existing grants and resources, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to improve business productivity and automation and implement FWAs or use SkillsFuture Credits for their HR professionals to obtain the Institute for Human Resources Professionals' certifications and be equipped with progressive people practices.

Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the Government can consider extending the Shared Parental Benefits to couples whose babies are expected to be born in the first-quarter of 2025. I seek Members' understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement, to ensure a smooth implementation process for all stakeholders involved. This start date applies to both the SPL scheme as well as its cash benefit-equivalent Shared Parental Benefits scheme.

Ms Hazel Poa spoke about other concerns that we must also address to build a conducive environment for families. In the infographic I distributed earlier, Members will see how the Government has put in place a comprehensive suite of support measures across various domains, such as housing, healthcare and education, and we will continue to review our measures to address the needs of parents.

In particular, we recognise that parents may be concerned about the cost of raising children, as several Members have highlighted. We recently enhanced the Baby Bonus cash gift and Government contributions to the CDA, last year, to support parents in defraying the cost of child-raising.

Ms Hany Soh asked if we could further enhance the CDA to cover optional enrichment programmes and family outings. The CDA is intended to help parents defray healthcare and educational costs and we have scoped the use of the CDA accordingly. We regularly review the uses of CDA and will take Ms Soh's feedback into consideration. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in his National Day Rally speech, had also said that the Government is looking into ways to provide more support to larger families with three or more children, such as the resident, whom Ms Hany Soh mentioned.

Mr Melvin Yong suggested further healthcare support for mothers, such as through providing universal maternity insurance for all mothers-to-be, including those with pre-existing conditions to allay worries about unexpected pregnancy complications. I wish to highlight that as a universal health insurance scheme, MediShield Life covers all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, including mothers-to-be with pre-existing conditions, for life. They can be assured that MediShield Life covers the treatment of serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications.

For general maternity expenses, the Government provides subsidies of up to 80% and allows the use MediSave through the MediSave Maternity Package. Expectant mothers may choose to purchase maternity insurance policies for added coverage. Such maternity insurance plans are optional private products, where the benefits and terms and conditions are determined by insurers.

Sir, let me now conclude. I am grateful for the views shared by the Members and thank them for their various suggestions. The current amendments covered in this Bill are part of the Government's commitment to better provide working parents with greater caregiving support, especially in their child's early years when the care needs are the greatest. We hope that both mothers and fathers will use the enhanced leave provisions well, to bond with their children and share the parenthood journey together.

We must also recognise that these schemes do not operate in isolation and that parenthood continues beyond infancy. We will, therefore, need to press on with our whole-of-society effort to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Are there any clarifications for the Minister of State Sun Xueling? I do not see any.

I still recall that when I became a Member of Parliament in 2006, GPML was significantly lower than what it is now. As for paternity leave, there was none. So, we have made much progress since.

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