Hansard, Wednesday, 5 February 2025

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what are the projected economic and job creation benefits and which sectors will benefit from the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); (b) whether the Government is concerned that some sectors will be adversely affected and certain investments and firms will relocate to JS-SEZ; and (c) whether there are Government incentive schemes such as productivity grants or investment incentives that can be extended to Singapore companies investing in the JS-SEZ.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) seeks to capitalise on the complementary strengths of Singapore and Johor to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness and to create good jobs for Singaporeans. Businesses across sectors including manufacturing, logistics and digital economy can benefit from the improved cross-border flow of goods and people, and ease of doing business in the JS-SEZ.

Many Singapore-based companies already have twinning operations in Singapore and Johor. Firms could benefit from siting some of their operations in Johor to take advantage of the resources there, whilst focusing headquarters and research functions in Singapore, where we have relative strengths. For instance, South Korea's SPC Group, the parent company of Paris Baguette, operates its regional headquarters and innovation centre in Singapore, while its regional production base is in Johor.

We can also jointly attract new investments to the JS-SEZ, which may establish operations in Singapore or tap on the services provided by Singapore. For example, Agrocorp, an agri-commodities and food ingredient firm headquartered in Singapore, recently expanded its downstream capabilities in plant protein extraction with a new plant with its Japanese partner in Johor. This plant will use protein extraction technology developed by Agrocorp and the Singapore Institute of Technology. These investments in Johor create value for the Singapore economy as our firms grow.

I caught up with the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) recently and they told me that over 100 Singapore firms will be joining the SBF business mission to the JS-SEZ later this month. So, there is also considerable investment interest there.

In that vein, we will continue to support businesses in Singapore through existing enterprise support schemes. Eligible Singapore companies investing in the JS-SEZ can seek support from schemes such as the Market Readiness Assistance Grant and Enterprise Financing Scheme administered by Enterprise Singapore. Malaysia has also announced an incentive package for the JS-SEZ, including special corporate and income tax rates for qualifying investments, and intend to announce more details when ready.

Mr Saktiandi.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have a few supplementary questions. First, in relation to the Parliamentary Question that I had filed, I would still like to get the Minister of State's response whether the Government is concerned that some specific sectors will be adversely affected, whether certain investments or companies and firms will likely relocate to the JS-SEZ as a result of the JS-SEZ, and whether there are any projections of job creation numbers that the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has in relation to the JS-SEZ within the first phase and future phases.

Second, the Minister of State mentioned about Malaysia introducing some incentives. I have read that the Malaysian Investment Development Authority's incentives cover sectors such as manufacturing, chemicals, global services hub, integrated tourism projects and smart logistics. These are also some projects that Singapore wants to cover. There are also incentives for knowledge workers. Will there be mitigation measures to make sure that some of the investments that were intended to come into Singapore will not be affected.

Lastly, I have got some feedback about concerns from some sectors including the transport association where I am an advisor to. These are concerns about whether there is some impact on the transport and logistics sectors and how they might be affected by Malaysian logistics coming into Singapore.

Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his questions. Indeed, these are views that we have also gotten on the ground in our frequent interactions with businesses across different sectors. I have met SBF very regularly, including last week when a lot of the same views that have been shared by the Member were also shared by SBF. I was also recently in Johor, visiting the zone, meeting with Malaysian leaders. So, the discussions are ongoing. More details will be released. And we are monitoring all the impact that the JS-SEZ will have on both sides.

I wanted to take a step back and look at it from a bigger perspective and what the JS-SEZ has to offer. If we look at the global economic landscape, it is increasingly uncertain, it is dynamic, it is ever-changing. The global competition as we have seen over the last couple of weeks has intensified for talent, for trade and also for investments. So, it is imperative that if Singapore wants to be competitive, we need to be more nimble, we need to be more innovative, we need to enhance our competitive game. If executed well, the JS-SEZ will give us that additional competitive edge. It will give us the opportunity and in fact, it would give us the impetus to build on our inherent strengths. These inherent strengths are not that easy to replicate. These have been grown over decades. They are quite uniquely Singaporean. And they give Singapore that competitive edge.

These traits are inherent. For example, the strong rule of law, regulatory and political stability, innovative mindset, talent, research and development, connectivity and a strong financial centre.

First, it gives us the opportunity and impetus to build on where we are already strong, but it also gives us that impetus to make sure that what we already have, we must strengthen so that we continually have that competitive edge.

Second, the JS-SEZ will also give us the opportunity to leverage on Johor's strengths to overcome our inherent weaknesses. The weaknesses or disadvantages are well-known to everybody – it is our land, it is our manpower, it is our natural resources. So, it gives us the opportunity to build on our strengths and also to leverage the SEZ's strengths to be able to increase our competitiveness.

What is the final objective for this? The final objective is to attract new companies, new investors that hitherto may not have considered Singapore as an investment destination or potentially even maybe, Singapore is a little bit lower on their list of places to invest. It gives businesses a value proposition that hitherto may not have been there in the first place but are now then attracted to this value proposition.

To the Member's question earlier on, as I mentioned in my original reply, there are already Singapore firms that are already there, they are sited there. In our discussions with many of the Singapore firms, they do intend to have operations on both sides. They are looking at the landscape and they will make those decisions in due time. But I think the value proposition, both for the SEZ as a whole, and the unique relative and complementary strengths for both Singapore and Johor, are quite evident.

2 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has assessed the potential impact of a foreign-based social media platform with significant local presence manipulating its algorithms with the effect of privileging or disadvantaging the social media reach of a particular candidate or group of candidates during a general election period or the run-up period thereof; (b) whether this constitutes foreign interference under existing laws; and (c) whether existing laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 are adequate to address this.

The Government is aware that social media platforms' algorithms may potentially be manipulated to skew the consumption of information by its user.

If algorithms are deliberately manipulated by foreign persons or entities, including social media companies, to affect our domestic politics, that would constitute foreign interference.

Various provisions under the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act 2021 (FICA) may be used to act against algorithmically driven online foreign interference, particularly hostile information campaigns driven by foreign actors to influence our elections.

If falsehoods against the public interest are communicated online during an election period, the Government may issue directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA), requiring the correct facts to be published. Additionally, all online election advertising during that period must abide by the relevant rules in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954, for transparency and accountability. The Returning Officer can direct social media platforms to disable access to or remove any online election advertising that violates these rules.

The Government will engage social media companies ahead of the upcoming General Elections to remind them of the need to comply with applicable laws, especially those concerning foreign interference.

Dr Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Does the Minister of State not agree that much of the substance of her answer and reference to the legislation look at issues of falsehoods, rather than manipulation of viewership and what people get to see?

So, can I ask the Minister of State, firstly, given that social media platforms and their algorithms control what citizens and voters see, what shows up in the feed, has the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) considered the following scenarios. For example, what if a foreign social media company deliberately manipulates the algorithm so that a particular candidate gets more coverage during a campaign? The candidate may not even be aware of this.

Secondly, what if a foreign social media company decides to again manipulate the algorithm so that a particular candidate which they think is going to win is supported even further, so that at a later date, they can claim credit for it and perhaps even undermine the democratic mandate of that candidate and the team?

These problems can affect Members of Parliament (MPs), parties and candidates on all sides, of all persuasions.

So, given this, can the Minister of State share how Singapore and Singaporeans can better protect ourselves and our democracy, so that foreign social media companies do not have a situation where they manipulate algorithms to affect the outcome of our democratic process, so that politics in Singapore remains for Singaporeans to decide?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. He has obviously given the matter much thought. I would like to come back to my main response, where I mentioned that the Government is aware that social media platforms' algorithms may potentially be manipulated to skew the consumption of information and that if algorithms are deliberately manipulated by foreign persons or entities, including social media companies, to affect our domestic politics, that will constitute foreign interference.

These two paragraphs that I have just shared do not rely on the information being falsehoods. What instead FICA is interested in is that there are activities conducted by foreign actors typically through covert or deceptive means that affect our domestic politics, in order to advance the foreign actors' own interests.

I would like to share an example. In 2024, the Government had issued FICA account restriction directions against a network of 95 social media accounts and also blocked 10 inauthentic websites that could potentially be used to mount hostile information campaigns against Singapore.

Beyond this, the Government also has in place several initiatives to help Singaporeans improve their information literacy skills.

We will continue to study the evolving online landscape and review if additional regulations for social media services are needed as part of ongoing efforts to enhance online safety in Singapore and strengthen our defences against foreign interference.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Can I ask, Mr Speaker, how will the Ministry independently ascertain whether algorithms have been manipulated for the reasons that are put in the Parliamentary Question?

I thank the Member his supplementary question. In and of itself, algorithms are not illegal. Many social media companies have algorithms for the purposes of pushing out their information.

They may use it because, first and foremost, the algorithms are proprietary and they use the algorithms because they want to be able to catch the eyeballs of consumers.

So, I would just like to make this point that algorithms, in and of itself, used by social media companies are not illegal. But what the FICA aims to do is that if the Minister is satisfied that the algorithms are being used by foreign entities, with a political end in mind, to influence domestic politics in Singapore, then he is empowered to issue pre-emptive measures.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, following on from the questions raised by both myself and the Leader of the Opposition, can I ask the Minister of State, would MHA be open to engaging with academia and researchers who conduct research into such matters? Can I perhaps draw the Minister of State's attention to how there is open source research by an Australian academic team – one at Queensland University of Technology, another at Monash University – which did a computational analysis of potential algorithmic bias on a major social media platform during a major election in another country, around the world, that happened quite recently, and that there are opportunities for academia to look at this, and can the Ministry, perhaps, look at examining collaborations with academia and experts, to study this further?

I thank the Member for his suggestion. Indeed, the Government is open to conversations and engagements, because this is an evolving threat landscape and we would desire to hear from academics, as well as social media companies, as to the trends they are seeing.

I would like to cite two examples that have happened and which we can also take reference from, which is that there was British Broadcasting Corporation study, which claimed that young voters in key electoral constituencies during the 2024 United Kingdom elections have been recommended false and satirical artificial intelligence generated videos depicting party leaders making comments that they actually did not make.

And also, in recent years, there have also been allegations of foreign interference in elections through social media platforms, most notably during the 2024 United States (US) elections, where it was alleged that a social media bot farm, comprising over 900 social media accounts, had spread disinformation in the US and abroad.

So, indeed, I think there are examples in the real world and my Ministry will be open to these engagements to understand further as to what other steps can be taken.

3 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the recent announcements by Meta to eliminate fact-checking and reduce content moderation efforts (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential impact on the spread of misinformation and harmful content on Meta’s platforms; (b) whether there are implications for Singapore’s digital ecosystem and the safety of online discourse; and (c) what measures will be introduced or enhanced to promote information integrity and responsible digital citizenship in Singapore, particularly when global technology companies adopt more lenient moderation policies.

Mr Speaker, social media has increasingly become the primary source of news and information for many Singaporean users online. A reliable fact-checking and content moderation system on social media platforms, therefore, serves as a crucial first line of defence against misinformation and harmful online content, allowing platforms to act early to detect, correct or filter out such material.

Meta has been assessed to be a social media platform with significant reach in Singapore. The Government is naturally concerned about the impact of its policies and practices on Singapore. We are therefore monitoring developments arising from the company's announcement to replace third party fact-checking with crowdsourced fact-checking and revise its hate speech policies across its platforms. Based on publicly available report, these changes will be limited to within the United States (US), at least in the near term. Nonetheless, we will assess their impact on Singapore, especially if the changes are also implemented here.

In the meantime, we will continue our existing approach to addressing misinformation and ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose. In terms of regulations, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) enables the Government to issue corrections against online falsehoods that are against the public interest. The Codes of Practice under POFMA also require the prescribed Internet intermediaries to put in place safeguards to promote credible online sources of information, enhance transparency in political advertising and prevent and counter the abuse of online accounts. In addition, our Code of Practice for Online Safety under the Broadcasting Act requires designated social media services, including Meta's platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, to have systems or processes to prevent Singapore users from accessing harmful content.

Beyond regulations, it is also important for Singaporeans to be able to protect themselves against risks in the online space. To this end, the Government has put in place public education programmes to equip Singaporeans with the skills to critically evaluate information and protect themselves against misinformation. As an example, the National Library Board's Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate (SURE) programme has developed resources and organised activities to equip Singaporeans to be discerning producers and consumers of information. As part of the Digital for Life movement and the Digital Skills for Life framework, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has also developed resources to equip Singaporeans to be safe, smart and kind online, including skills on identifying and taking action against false information.

We are also keeping up with efforts to leverage technology to respond to online harms. In May last year, we committed $50 million in funding over five years to the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety (CATOS), which will bring together government, industry, academics and civil society, to develop and deploy technological solutions to build a safer online ecosystem for Singapore users. Part of CATOS' work includes testing "Trust by Design" technologies, such as watermarking and content authentication, so as to enhance the authenticity of digital content.

The Government will continue to review our range of online safety efforts, to keep pace with a fast-changing social media landscape and ensure our Singaporeans can continue to access safe and trusted online spaces.

Mr Alex Yam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. I thank the Minister of State for her answer. While the current changes to Meta's moderation policy applies only to the US, has the Ministry done an assessment that if this becomes broad-based and company-wide across various jurisdictions, what is the impact on our local regulations, such as with POFMA and Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act? And has Meta reached out to the regulators, or has the Ministry, perhaps, spoken to Meta, to better understand the rationale behind these changes and how they intend to have responsible digital governance?

As we saw from the previous Parliamentary Question, there are, of course, many specific risk areas that are pertinent to us. We have been through COVID-19, impact on public health, social cohesion, which we covered in yesterday's debate, and of course, of pertinence to this year, elections in Singapore.

Meta's new policy in the US, somewhat, mirrors what X is doing, in terms of crowdsourcing moderation, but the Center for Countering Digital Hate, for example, looked at X – and platform's own owner, Elon Musk – many of his views, which are misleading on the US elections, and of course, his support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Reform UK outside of the US, has amassed almost two billion views. This is despite them having this so called crowdsourced or community nodes system. So, there is a great scope for damage to be done, should various social media platforms decide to go the same way. And I am asking if the Ministry is prepared for those eventualities.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. Firstly, I would like to highlight that the announcement is in its early days yet. In Singapore, we always take a collaborative approach with the social media platforms and we have always been in active engagement with them. With regards to this particular instance, we are in touch with Meta and we are working with them to understand the specifics and details of this policy and the implications to the US, as well as to the global larger population. We will continue to assess if there are areas of concerns and if there are areas where we need to enhance our regulations, to see if they will continue to meet their obligations under our existing regulations. So, that is one. We are already in touch, we are already assessing.

Two, I would also highlight that we have always been on the lookout for all the new trends and developments, especially during sensitive periods like the election, which is why the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill was passed recently, specifically looking into the integrity of information online during the election period. So, we will continue to keep an eye out for some of these developments.

Thirdly, though, I would like to highlight that we already have existing safeguards. We have been outcome-based in our approach; we know the outcome we want. There are a lot of technologies and capabilities and different mechanisms to protect users in the online space in many different areas of concerns, like the algorithms. So, we are looking into some of these. But as a start, our safeguards make sure that the platforms are on the same page, with regard to the outcomes we want to achieve, that there is a safe online space and there is a high integrity of the content that is put out. So, these are ongoing efforts and we will continue to enhance as we move on, on this.

4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health in relation to the Grow Well SG personalised health plan initiative for children (a) how many hours of contact time will each child or family expect to receive on a yearly basis to discuss and develop the plan; (b) what sort of personnel will be involved in developing the plans; and (c) what will be the anticipated additional manpower requirements to meaningfully roll-out the initiative through schools, broken down into the types of professions involved.

5 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what measures is the Ministry taking to disseminate information on Grow Well SG and the Guidance on Screen Use in Children effectively to parents and caregivers; (b) how does the Ministry plan to support parents in overcoming challenges related to the implementation of these guidelines; and (c) how does the Ministry monitor the effectiveness of the Guidance on Screen Use in Children given the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 together as they both touch on Grow Well SG please?

Please go ahead.

Besides leveraging mass media, the health guidelines including screen time for children, will be conveyed to parents via the annual health screening programme in mainstream schools to prepare children's health plans. Information is also available through Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Parents Gateway.

The annual screening starts with parents of Primary 1 to 3 students pre-filling a Lifestyle Questionnaire to reflect on their child's current lifestyle habits. During the school health screening, trained nurses and lifestyle coaches from the Health Promotion Board (HPB) will engage each student individually, review responses from the Lifestyle Questionnaire and offer suggestions to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

Ms He asked specifically about time duration. The entire process of screening and consultation for each child may take about 30 minutes. As to how much time a child or family will spend each year to discuss about health plan, it really depends. Three Ministries have worked together to strengthen the preventive care support for children under Grow Well SG, but it will be up to families to make full use of Grow Well SG.

I believe most parents want to be actively involved in building the health of their children. We will encourage parents to review their children's Health Plan, utilise the starter kit and resources on Parent Hub and Healthy 365, have discussions with their children and commit to adopt healthy habits.

Many parents may face challenges in meeting the updated guidelines on screen use. I got many queries during Chinese New Year. There are tips and best practices available on platforms, such as Parent Hub website and Digital for Life portal, as well as through Families for Life parenting programmes. Parents are also in various support groups. I hope they leverage these groups to share practices and provide support to each other. Compare less about how much tuition they have for their children, compare more about parenting tips and how to wean their children off excessive device time.

I believe the lifelong impact of healthy habits from young is more profound than the academic benefits of enrichment classes and tuition. As the implementation of the Health Plan largely taps on MOE and HPB's existing processes, we are not deploying additional manpower. That said, it changes the way they do things, with a stronger focus on preventive care for children, and involving parents to develop and follow up on health plans.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about monitoring results. The annual Lifestyle Questionnaire provided to parents as part of the Health Plans, will contain self-reported data on lifestyle habits of their children. Through the results, we will see if Grow Well SG is gradually shifting the health habits, including screen time, of our young.

It takes a village to raise a child. Building healthy habits in our children is a long-term and whole-of-society endeavour. Under Grow Well SG, the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides updated health advisories and timely resources; our schools provide the most appropriate platform to educate children and parents about health habits; HPB supports the schools in developing health plans for children; its Healthy 365 app offers healthy lifestyle programmes for children, which are good alternatives to screen time, and Parenting for Wellness toolbox by MOE, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and HPB includes resources on topics, such as managing screen use. All these are important resources in support for parents, who know they are the ultimate educator and guardian for their children.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you to the Minister for the reply. I just have one further supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister mentioned in his reply that trained nurses and lifestyle coaches will primarily be the ones carrying out the interaction and implementation of the personalised plan for children. I believe the Minister also further mentioned that they will not be recruiting any new personnel in order to carry this out.

My question is, given that lifestyle coaches and nurses are in the traditional areas where there might be a bit of a manpower crunch or where personnel and staff members could be under quite heavy workload, I would just like to know whether the Minister can share further details of how they plan to add to the workload, if I can use this phrase, or how to make sure that the personnel who would be taking on these additional roles will not be unduly stressed by the additional workload in carrying out this new plan.

HPB has about a hundred dedicated staff, mostly trained nurses and lifestyle coaches, who are dedicated to engaging the schools and they have been doing so for some years. So, it is a dedicated piece of work. They work very hard, but I think with Grow Well SG, there is a shift in orientation, and also, to build in a system of developing health plans for children. So, the activities do not change.

For years they have been going down to school doing health screening, talking to the kids about lifestyle habits, but now, we deliberately develop a Health Plan for children with clearer guidelines, especially on screen time and then through the school, engage the parents.

So, it very much involves a change in the way we do things and make it more systemised and hopefully more effective. As to whether it adds more work, more stress, maybe it does to some extent, but I think the staff actually are very motivated and very excited by this. They see this as a potential breakthrough and I think if there is more work, they are quite willing to work harder for this, because the outcome and the meaning is now deeper.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. My supplementary questions pertain to the guidance on screen use in children. It provides comprehensive recommendations and I thank the Minister for sharing that there are various platforms available to share resources with parents.

The first supplementary question is what tailored support systems are in place to assist parents from diverse backgrounds in overcoming some of the challenges in following these guidelines. And number two, given the rapidly evolving digital landscape, how does the Ministry ensure that the guidance and the guidelines remain relevant?

The second question first. We will continue to monitor the evidence. I think there are local studies and international studies on the impact of life habits on children. As and when we see new findings, we will update the guidelines from time to time. But essentially, we are taking an evidence-based approach to Grow Well SG.

As for tailored support systems, indeed, I think there needs to be more support for parents. I do know there is a range of practices on the ground in every home. There are children; while these are guidelines; children who exceed or do not exceed the guidelines, there is a range of impact on them. So, it is a very diverse space.

But I think, as agencies with all the expertise in education and in clinical science, we have a duty when we know something is happening, because of digitalisation of childhood and we see the evidence, I think we have a duty to put out the information and recommend guidelines to parents and to schools, so that we can bring up our children better.

I was saying over Chinese New Year, I met so many parents with so many children and when they see me, they will tell their children, "This is the uncle who prevents you from using screen time. Go and talk to him." So, I get an earful of that!

Many parents are indeed struggling a bit. They know they need to wean the kid off, especially during meal times; they wonder how.

So, we will discuss with MSF. There are online resources. I think we need to improve them. MOH, MOE and MSF will continue to discuss this. This is a policy platform. We launched this, but this is not the end. I think this is the start. From here, we do need to develop this further, including the online resources. So, what Mr Yip Hon Weng has asked for, I think this is something we will have to work on. Ultimately, parents need practical step-by-step guidelines for them to improve their parenting skills.

6 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) when does the Government plan to review the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) race model; and (b) what is the form that such a review will take.

Sir, Singapore's approach to multi-racialism has been to recognise our differences, while actively building mutual respect and fostering understanding between the different racial groups in the community.

The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework is part of this approach. Individuals can register their race based on lineage, and there are currently over 200 different races that Singaporeans are registered under. But for the purposes of policy administration, these races are categorised into four groups based on the size of the communities: Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others.

So, the CMIO framework does not prescribe one's racial identity, but helps us to administer race-based policies and programmes that promote social cohesion, identify those who need help and safeguard the rights of minorities.

Let me name a few examples. The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) draws from the CMIO framework to ensure a good mix of races in our public housing estates. Race also features in some of our political structures, such as the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system, to ensure that minorities are represented in Parliament. To promote community building, the Government works with self-help groups to uplift low-income households and the less privileged within the various racial communities. It has also allowed the Government to monitor the outcomes of the various groups and provide more targeted interventions. These will be more difficult to do without the CMIO framework in place.

It has been said by some that the CMIO framework is overly simplistic and rigid in our increasingly complex and heterogenous society. There is some truth to this but nonetheless, race remains a key identifier for many individuals. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study in 2021 found that 87%, nearly nine in 10, of Singapore residents considered race important to their identity. A 2021 CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations also found that over 60% of Singapore residents thought that the CMIO policy helped to preserve racial harmony and should be retained. If we eliminated the framework, we may well get worse outcomes as a result.

And the evidence overseas does tend to suggest this. Let us look at France. France banned the collection of race-based data since 1978. You have to ask whether that has removed the issue of race from political debate. Racial tensions remain and, in fact, France has seen a surge in race-related offences in recent years.

Sir, I do not want to draw a simple, straight-line conclusion from France banning collection of race-based data to its racial situation today. But it is one point of reference amongst several such points in a multifaceted and complex issue.

Our view is that the lack of race-based data prevents measuring and understanding the difficulties that different races face in different areas. And it prevents effective intervention to resolve those issues. Our model of multiculturalism, multi-racialism, with the data and framework we have, has worked quite well for us so far.

But as Minister Edwin Tong said, we do keep in mind the issue, review periodically, ask ourselves about the CMIO framework, amongst other issues, and see whether it continues to be relevant.

The CMIO framework has been adjusted over the years too – for example, to allow registration of double-barrelled races. But we have been cautious about moving away from the framework. It has worked well for us and has helped us to forge a more harmonious set of race relations in our society today.

Sir, this has been explained a number of times. In fact, I touched on it yesterday too. So, I am not quite sure the context of Mr Leong's question. And so, perhaps through you, I can ask Mr Leong to perhaps explain the rationale or whether there is any clarification that he needs from what I have said.

Mr Leong.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his clarification. I had originally directed this Parliamentary Question at Minister Edwin Tong actually, because he made comments at the IPS conference that we should be constantly reviewing the CMIO model. So, I just wanted to clarify whether the Government is thinking of a change and whether a review, a bigger review is being undertaken and what that review will be.

I am satisfied with the clarifications of the Minister and I have actually no further comments on that.

Sir, picking up from what Mr Leong has said, I realise that the question arises from what Mr Edwin Tong has said.

Perhaps we have very different perspectives from Mr Leong on CMIO and its implications, for example, on the EIP. And I think that those different perspectives are clear when, for example, you see some of the things that Mr Leong has said in the past, for example, on Housing and Development Board (HDB) living, if you look at Mr Leong's Facebook post of February 2023, and I quote, he says that "Singaporeans are not condemned to living in HDB flat[s]".

Mr Leong has also made comments in this House which are racist and he has quite freely admitted to that too. So, if I can read out from the Hansard of 14 September 2021. I asked him, "Sir, through you, does Mr Leong accept that his and his party's statements on CECA having been interpreted by some of PSP members as being racist, may well be interpreted by Singaporeans as racist as well?" And since there was no answer, I had to repeat the question. I asked him again, "Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is, 'You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone'. My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view."

And I had to repeat it in a different way and asked again, "Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point."

And Mr Leong was good enough to say, "There will be some people who will think that there is racial undertone [to his statements], yes". [Please refer to "Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy", Official Report, 14 September 2021, Vol 95, Issue 38, Motions section.]

And I will hand out these, Sir. But the point I will make arising from his question is this. Sir, if you look at his comments, the 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and if you combine that with his racist comments – Mr Leong may not put much value in our multiracial approach; he may not put value in our ethnic integration in our housing estates, but the EIP, for example, is a key plank of our policy to ensure that people live together, are integrated and we put a lot of value in making sure our housing estates are well managed because we care for Singaporeans. And the CMIO is a key plank of those policies. I hope that clarifies, Sir.

And if I can, with your leave, hand over, just for the record, the copies, and for Mr Leong to refresh his memory, through the Clerk. One for yourself, Sir, and one for Mr Leong.

Can someone collect that and pass it to me and to Mr Leong? [A set of documents was handed to Mr Speaker and Mr Leong Mun Wai.] Mr Leong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put on record that the Progress Singapore Party supports the EIP that we have for the HDB flats. What we take issue with is that the EIP has caused economic disadvantages. There is an economic cost to the minorities. So, we have recommended in this Parliament that we should compensate the minorities for that economic cost they have incurred. So, that is all we have said. We are not against the EIP at all.

Sir, I note that Mr Leong does not deny saying that 80% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats are condemned and that his comments were racist.

7 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education with reference to the latest Government survey on household expenditure which found that families in Singapore spent $1.8 billion on private tuition in 2023, an increase from previous years, what measures are being taken to address the potential impact that rising tuition expenditure has on educational equity, particularly for students from lower-income households.

8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education in view of the disparity in spending on private tuition between households of different income quintiles (a) whether the Ministry foresees a widening of social inequality as higher-income families gain disproportionate access to educational advantages; (b) whether the Ministry can share its assessment of the long-term implication of this trend, particularly on social mobility; and (c) whether any policies are being considered to mitigate these effects.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Based on findings from the Household Expenditure Survey 2023 conducted by the Department of Statistics (DOS), the overall growth in tuition expenditure across all households was similar to the growth in overall household income from all sources. It was also similar to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for enrichment and supplementary courses.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises that the reasons for taking up tuition are varied. While there are some students who genuinely need more dedicated help in coping with their studies, there are others who take tuition even though they are coping well. Excessive reliance on tuition can diminish students’ joy of learning and take time away from their holistic development. It can even be detrimental when students struggle to cope with the additional demands of tuition.

MOE has introduced policy changes to shift away from an over-emphasis on academic results and broaden the definition of success. But these moves will not be as effective if mindsets do not shift. We must shift our focus from putting our children through excessive competition against others based solely on academic results, to giving more time and space for holistic development of our children and also helping them to maximise their individual talents and strengths, so that they can be the best versions of themselves.

As Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, the data from DOS also shows a disparity in tuition expenditure between households of different income quintiles. This is consistent with global trends, where parents who are better endowed will use their resources and networks to support their children’s development. They sign their children up for more, or more expensive enrichment and tuition, hoping that this will help their children in their studies. MOE is not in a position to intervene in such personal decisions.

But regardless of a student’s socio-economic background, MOE will continue to make sure that our education system provides sufficient opportunities for all students to reach their fullest potential, regardless of their background and this is even more important for students from lower-income households.

To this end, MOE has devoted significant resources to support students with higher needs. For instance, our schools provide specialised academic intervention for primary and secondary school students who need more support to build their literacy and numeracy foundation through the Learning Support Programme and the Learning Support for Mathematics. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Education", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Schools also have partnerships with volunteers and self-help groups that provide affordable academic support. One example is the Collaborative Tuition Programme, which provides students, particularly those from lower-income households, with subsidised tuition.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 has affirmed our efforts. Our students from lower-income families out-performed the OECD average in the core domains of reading, mathematics and science, as well as in creative thinking.

Mr Speaker, MOE cannot advance social mobility on our own. A whole-of-society effort is needed to share our resources and networks with those who are less well-endowed, broaden our definitions of success, reduce academic stress and recognise the contributions of those with different skills and talents.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I am glad to hear that we are doing things to change the mindset of this perceived idea of the necessity of tuition. Beyond financial concerns, is MOE studying the impact of this tuition culture on students' well-being and stress levels? Such information could be helpful for us to push further a change in this mindset.

My next question is really on how I have heard about the financial support for the lower-income families, but I do also note that there are families who are in the middle-income who feel that they need support for their children. Are there measures by MOE to address these issues and concerns by such families?

MOE is certainly concerned as well about stress that can be brought onto students because of excessive reliance on tuition, especially if the tuition does not help students in improving their learning and understanding of the subjects that they are studying but instead, take away precious time for them to grow and develop themselves holistically. So, certainly, we will be keen to undertake studies and also research with partners in this field.

On the subject of support for students from middle-income families, we do have broad-based support. In fact, we have increased the amount of bursary that is provided to our students, even for those from middle-income households. And our education system, in general, provides support for students, even for those from middle-income households.

I would like to say that actually the more important thing for us is to understand why there is demand for tuition from students and their parents. I think, tackling that is the crux of the matter and for that, we seek the support of parents and the community in helping shape the mindsets about over-emphasis on academic results and broadening the definition of success for our students.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I have two supplementary questions. Has the Ministry conducted or considered conducting longitudinal studies to track the long-term outcomes of students of various income backgrounds, particularly in relation to their access to private tuition and subsequently social mobility?

Secondly, are there efforts to build confidence in our public education system's ability to meet diverse learning needs without external supplications, such as private tuition?

In line with the Government's key priority of sustaining social mobility and mitigating inequality, MOE monitors the education progress of students from all income brackets across the key life stages. Similar to other countries, we have observed a correlation between socio-economic status and educational outcomes. Nonetheless, in some areas, the gaps have narrowed over time – for instance, among students from lower socio-economic status backgrounds, nine in 10 students progress to post-secondary education today, compared to five in 10 around two decades earlier.

On the hon Member's second question on improving confidence in our education system, I think parents generally believe that our schools are providing quality education to our students. But what I think is happening, at the same time, is the notion of competition, of getting into good schools and good courses, and it is perhaps undervaluing the unique talents and interests of individual students. And I think that is something that we want to continue to work on and we seek the support of parents and the community in this.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, last month on the first day of school for Primary 1 students, it was 2 January, I was outside a primary school at my constituency and got to meet some parents there. As I was chatting with some of the parents, I saw a couple distributing flyers around us and I was curious to find out what they were distributing. And I soon found out that they are distributing tuition flyers.

I was very troubled with that and I offered my views to the couple who were distributing the tuition flyers and said that they should not be doing this on the first day of school for Primary 1 students. We do not want to create such unnecessary competition and stresses to our parents and the students on the first day for Primary 1 students. I told them that, perhaps later, if the students do have some weaker subjects and areas they need to improve on, well, perhaps they may need some tuition, but I still believe the school is capable of helping the weaker students. The couple left after I said all those things.

Can I ask the Minister of State whether there are any standing instructions or would MOE come out with some standing instructions to advise tuition centres not to do such tuition sales outside schools, especially on the first day of school for Primary 1 students?

Well done, Mr Liang. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his supplementary question. We have observed some tuition centres employing undesirable advertising practices that appeal to parents' anxieties and fear of missing out. We do not support such practices. We think that it unduly induces parents to sign their children up for tuition and that is not healthy. Our schools certainly do not support such practices. We are studying how we could discourage tuition centres from doing this. We are reviewing our processes.

Last supplementary question. Ms Carrie Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to address Minister of State Gan and thank her for her clarification. I have also encountered, just in January, a couple of instances where parents have shared that they have observed that their Primary 1 child, in the third week of school, has been identified to be weaker in a particular subject and hence, been designated to a smaller group with the additional support for the particular subject.

And while I understand that MOE is trying to give more support to students at an earlier age, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what kind of signal is MOE sending to parents and children, where we are rushing to identify their weaknesses or strengths at such an early stage in their primary school journey? The premise is that we are trying to get the students to perform better or to catch up and underlying that premise is a sense of competition.

Does MOE have plans to review its pace of curriculum to see whether it is necessary that we need to cram so much information and knowledge into a young child's life at such an early stage, and to review the whole entire premise of why it is that we are pushing our students to perform and to meet certain expectations of what kind of level of mathematics or literary skills they must have, and how we are benchmarking this? What is the ultimate purpose for this intensified learning pace in Singapore?

I thank Ms Carrie Tan for the supplementary question. I think it is important that we recognise that learning is for life and that it does not help if we rush through the learning only in the first few years of a child's life. It has to be a continuous journey. Secondly, we also recognise that it is important for our children to start well, even in preschool, to have some foundations in reading, communication and life skills, importantly.

That is why in our schools, if we identify that certain children seem to be weaker and falling behind in basic literacy or numeracy skills, teachers, out of care and concern, will want to bring this to the awareness of parents and work together with them to support the learning of our students. We understand that, sometimes, some households may not have the resources or abilities, and that is why we have specialised academic intervention programmes for primary school students who need more support in foundational skills.

These programmes include the Reading Remediation Programme and Learning Support for Mathematics, and we have seen good outcomes. More importantly, in building confidence of our students especially those from lower-income households when they go through these programmes. These programmes typically have fewer students and special additional resources, and they are done with consent from and also in partnership with the parents. It is not in any way intended to ask the parents to send their children for more tuition. If anything, it is to raise awareness of the parents, so that more can be done early to support the learning and to set our children up well for the longer term.

9 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health with the rise of flu-like human metapneumovirus (HMPV) cases in China (a) how does the Government ensure that cross-border transmission of HMPV will not pose public health concerns in Singapore; (b) whether the subsidised flu vaccination under Healthier SG is sufficient for the prevention of the spread of HMPV to seniors; and (c) what is being done to protect children, especially those aged 14 and below who are amongst those most affected by HMPV.

40 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) how many cases of human metapneumovirus (HMPV) have been detected to date; (b) which are the age groups most severely affected by HMPV; (c) whether there are any fatalities due to HMPV; and (d) what measures have been implemented to reduce the number of infections in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in Question No 40 by Ms Joan Pereira on human metapneumovirus (HMPV) in today's Order Paper.

Sir, HMPV is a respiratory virus that has been prevalent globally, including in Asia, for many years. The symptoms are similar to a common cold. Patients typically recover quite uneventfully. HMPV surges are common during the colder months in temperate regions. There have been significant surges in some parts of Asia this winter.

In Singapore, based on our ongoing surveillance for acute respiratory diseases, we also have observed an increase in HMPV activity during the year-end period, similar to previous years. This has started to subside. There are currently no vaccines for HMPV and the influenza vaccine does not provide protection against HMPV infection.

Similar to other respiratory infections, the advice to the public and especially medically vulnerable persons, such as young children, the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions, is to take preventive measures, such as the practice of good personal hygiene, limiting social contacts when sick and seeing a doctor promptly if symptoms worsen.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. When I raised this Parliamentary Question after reading about the HMPV cases rising in China in early January, I would never have expected that my own mom will be hospitalised due to HMPV for three days just before our Chinese New Year reunion dinner. I am grateful that her symptoms were picked up by an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist for a consultation that is actually unrelated to flu. The good news is that she made it out from the hospital to join us for the reunion dinner.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions on this. One is that I used to receive from the Ministry of Health (MOH), SMSes to citizens, like myself, a reminder to enrol on the Healthier SG, a reminder to get the vaccine booster for COVID-19 when cases rose. And the last SMS that I received would have been around May. I wonder if MOH can consider sending similar SMS when there is a new flu variant or a flu that is increasing in cases overseas, so that citizens can be more aware of what are the protections that need to be done?

My second supplementary question is that, under Healthier SG, the general practitioner shared with me that MOH's fully subsidised annual flu vaccine are only given to the higher-risk groups under five and above 65, with respiratory-related chronic diseases. Those who are 40 to 65, for example, with high cholesterol, will not get a free flu vaccine.

So, just a couple of days ago, it was reported in the news that a high-profile, 48-year-old Taiwanese celebrity died unexpectedly from a flu complication when holidaying in Japan. So, I wonder if MOH can review the age criteria for the free annual flu vaccine and also include respiratory chronic diseases that is in remission, such as those who are on Healthier SG and did not report about a chronic disease that is in remission, like childhood asthma.

Sir, I thank Ms Ng Ling Ling for the suggestions. For the second question, indeed, we do regularly review the criteria for national vaccination programmes and for programmes under Healthier SG that are subsidised. In general, the approach that we take is that we do want to focus on those interventions which have some evidence that they are going to have a significant effect on the health outcomes downstream. Something like a flu vaccine is something that you need to do on a regular basis. It is not something that you do once and then you are done for life. It has to be topped up every year.

And so, the considerations are different compared to, for example, a vaccination like measles, mumps and rubella, where, maybe, you do it once in your lifetime and then it has a long effect across your life. The short answer to her question, we will always be reviewing the criteria that we use for these types of programmes.

She also had a suggestion about alerts for flu variants. In general, when we are considering what are the things to put an SMS alert or some kind of alert out to the population, it is where there is a specific action that they need to take, such as going and getting a vaccination for the new season's variants of influenza, where there is a vaccine.

For respiratory diseases where there is no vaccine, whether it is a variant or different variant or whatever the species of virus is, the advice is the same. It is the same throughout the year, which is: to practise good personal hygiene; do not go and mix with people when you are sick; and if symptoms worsen, seek medical care. So, we do have to be judicious about when we send out alerts, so that there is something specific in terms of the action that the citizens can take, rather than just providing information.

10 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what programmes are in place to help nudge community attitudes towards the adoption of the guidelines on healthy family boundaries as the accepted norm without criminalising or criticising parents who may currently hold alternative views.

11 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what programmes are in place to assist those who work with parents, families, or children in the community, public, or private sectors to better understand, follow and promote the guidelines on healthy family boundaries.

12 Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Ministry assess whether behaviours that are inconsistent with the guidelines on healthy family boundaries are not simply poor parenting but are potentially child abuse.

I thank the Member for the question. This matter has already been addressed in Question Nos 59 and 60 for written answers to questions for oral answer not answered by the end of Question Time for the 7 January 2025 Sitting. I would like to refer the Member to the written reply for further details.

Minister of State Sun, your response covers the three questions that Assoc Prof Razwana has raised?

Yes, indeed. I apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir, for not asking for your permission earlier. Indeed, my answer will correspond to Question Nos 10, 11 and 12 in the Order Paper today.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

I would just like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. I think this is with regard to the objective of the guidelines. There are some concerns, in terms of whether the families, especially those who are working with children, are aware of such guidelines, in terms of whether this is going to be something that may cause criminalisation and all that.

Sir, I would like to ask if there will be constant reminders to the public with regard to those, especially, working with children, clarifying the objective and the purpose in achieving what is the guideline or why are we having this guideline? So, that is my first question.

My second one is, would there be any consideration to include physical discipline as part of the guidelines as well? Not just healthy boundaries, but also physical discipline.

I thank the Member for her two supplementary questions. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) had initiated the development of the Practitioners' Resource Guide on the Guidelines on Healthy Family Boundaries. And the background to this is that in the course of child protection work, MSF and professionals have come across parenting practices that, while not illegal, can place children in uncomfortable situations.

That said, MSF recognises that every family is unique and some may face special circumstances and therefore, the guidelines are thus not intended to be rules to be enforced or prescriptive in nature across all parenting contexts, but rather to serve as general principles to help professionals working with diverse family situations.

On the second question that she had, the guidelines currently do not include physical discipline elements. There have been various surveys that show that many parents in Singapore still use certain methods of physical discipline on their children. MSF recognises this and acknowledges that, ultimately, at the end of the day, parents have the right to decide on how they would want to discipline their children. But that said, if the behaviour crosses the line and goes into child abuse – and we have professionals who will look into case-specific details to be able to come to a conclusion on that. And if that is the case, then Child Protective Services will not hesitate to step in to protect the child.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry –

13 To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Government can install seats within long underground tunnels in MRT stations to provide respite to seniors and vulnerable individuals with mobility challenges.

Question No 13.

The Ministry of Transport agrees with Mr Henry Kwek's suggestion. We have been installing seats in some longer underground walkways based on commuter feedback, such as at Marine Terrace, Beauty World and Bukit Panjang stations. We plan to extend this to other stations. For the upcoming Jurong Region line and Cross Island line, the Land Transport Authority has also planned for seats in longer walkways, both above and underground, to provide better comfort and convenience for commuters.

14 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Singapore is on track to meet the targets under the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to (i) reduce the amount of waste to landfill per capita per day by 20% by 2026 and (ii) reach 1.5 gigawatt-peak of solar energy deployment to meet 2 per cent of 2025 projected electricity demands; and (b) what is the current amount of (i) waste to landfill per capita per day and (ii) electricity demands met by solar energy deployment.

Under the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we had set targets to reduce the amount of waste sent to the Semakau Landfill by 20% by 2026 and 30% by 2030, on a per capita per day basis, from our baseline in 2018.

While our domestic waste generated per capita and non-domestic waste generated per dollar gross domestic product have decreased over the past decade, our waste-to-landfill per capita per day remains about the same as the pre-pandemic baseline in 2018. This is largely because recycling rates have dropped due to challenges, such as higher freight costs, import restrictions by foreign countries and lower demand for recycled materials.

We will continue to strengthen our efforts and work with stakeholders to reduce waste, close the waste loop and extend the lifespan of Semakau Landfill. These include working with the industry to roll out the beverage container return scheme in 2026 and exploring the use of landfilled mixed materials as reclamation fill.

On solar energy, we are on track to meeting our 2025 target of 1.5 gigawatt-peak of deployment. As of June 2024, we have achieved 1.35 gigawatt-peak of deployment, which can meet around 2% of Singapore's annual electricity demand.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the comprehensive reply. We understand there are challenges in meeting the waste-to-landfill target and I have two supplementary questions. Given that solar panels are getting better and cheaper, over the years, will the Government consider encouraging the installation of solar panels even more?

For example, would the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment (MSE) work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, as well as the Ministry of National Development to mandate all new commercial buildings of a certain size and houses of a certain size to install solar panels; and also mandate commercial buildings and also housing of a certain size to install solar panels when they go through additions and alterations. This is the first supplementary question.

The second supplementary question is, given that the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement one more time, what is the impact on the Singapore Green Plan and whether Government is reviewing the Singapore Green Plan 2030 and beyond.

For the industrial sectors, since 2017, JTC has installed the Solar Roof Programme and that aims to accelerate the installation of solar panels on industrial properties' rooftops. This programme commenced with the solarisation of JTC's own building rooftops and has since expanded to encompass non-JTC buildings, with a focus on privately leased industrial properties since 2021. This programme requires zero upfront capital outlay and operational costs from the industrialists, making solar adoption easy and accessible. MSE will continue to work with our other industries and agencies to promote the use of cleaner energy.

As for the private residential sector, currently, there are no plans for demand aggregation.

On Mr Ang's point about the impact on global efforts to contain emissions with the new term of the Trump administration, indeed, we are observing. We do see challenges ahead, but Singapore will continue to work with like-minded countries and persevere with these targets and efforts to curb global emissions. It is something where we look forward to the public's and the industries' support to do their part. With that, we can then encourage more countries to adhere to our commitments.

15 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the take-up rate of the Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass (ONE Pass) since 2 January 2024; (b) which sectors are these ONE Pass holders employed in; (c) how many of these ONE Pass holders are new entrants to Singapore and granted the ONE Pass not from a conversion of an existing employment pass; and (d) what are some of the key improvements that the Ministry is considering to better utilise ONE Pass and improve employment for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, about 3,000 Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Passes were issued in 2024, of which about one in six were new entrants. The conversion of existing work pass holders who meet the ONE Pass criteria also helps us to anchor talent in Singapore.

The top three sectors that the ONE Pass holders were employed in were financial and insurance services, information and communications, and professional services.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is working with other sector agencies to increase the outreach to global talent and raise the awareness of the ONE Pass. We also encourage ONE Pass holders to participate in local programmes to mentor, to network and to exchange insights with current and future generations of local leaders, such as the Singapore Leaders Network.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, can I ask the Minister, how specifically has MOM been measuring the skills transfer from ONE Pass holders to Singaporeans and the hiring of more Singaporean professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) for every ONE Pass that is issued and what have the outcomes of this been since January 2024?

Secondly, has the Ministry conducted any audits or independent assessments on the economic impact of the ONE Pass since its launch and what have the key findings been since it has been launched?

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We work collectively as an ecosystem, so MOM, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and other economic agencies monitor how Singapore performs at a macro level, and this includes the competitiveness of our Singapore economy, as well as how it translates into good employment outcomes for our locals. At the upcoming Committee of Supply, when MOM has the opportunity, we will give a balanced scorecard update as to how the performance has been.

The one point that I would like to also alert the Member to is that, when it comes to top global talent – the proverbial rainmakers, the ones that can bring deals, the super magnets for talent – they will reinforce our competitiveness as a hub for global talent, and we can never have enough.

In terms of a specific target or key performance indicator, you are not running a business where you can set the return on investment. I think we should be thinking in terms of a measure of what kind of a return on social equity that we would want. And in that sense, we will work across our entire ecosystem with all the different Government Ministries.

This programme only started two years ago. But we have already started an annual notification for the existing ONE Pass holders in September last year – so about three and a half, four months back. We will be reviewing the data that we collect and will also be evaluating their contributions to Singapore.

And I want to once again reinforce, the impact of ONE Pass holders goes beyond the individual contributions and also the immediate tangible output that can be measured. Because for the longer-term sustainable ecosystem that we endeavour to build and to succeed, we need to continue to ensure that our only resource – and that of the highest form of human resource – our talent, continues to be here, to be well anchored here. And then, I think we will continue to succeed in making Singapore attractive to leading firms and also investors. I hope that addresses the Member's point.

Mr Neil Parekh.

I want to thank the Minister for his answer. The numbers are not surprising that the majority have been conversions from other classes because we just initiated the programme. However, the real success of this programme will be determined by how many new people we give that visa to in terms of real talent. What tweaks does the Minister think we need to make in the programme to attract new talent?

I thank Mr Neil Parekh for his supplementary question. I am glad he acknowledges the fact that the programme is very new. Given the fact that it is effectively the second year where the ONE Pass has started, and if you look at the year-on-year increase in new applicants coming in, I think that actually the uptake has been quite promising, the caveat is that we are starting off from a relatively lower base.

But what we have done importantly is, our economic agencies, academia and research institutes have gone out to scour the world in terms of identifying the types of talent we need to sustain our growth industries, whether it is in forefront, cutting edge research in deep tech, in infocomm or professional services. Thus far, the type of talent that we have been getting, they are the top 5% of the entire ecosystem. So, you can imagine that it is a very targeted, almost akin to a form of a headhunting exercise. And we would require the different sector leads and the experts to go after this group of global talent.

So, it is not about tweaking the ONE Pass to get big numbers to come in. It is about really getting a very differentiated, a very well curated programme to target the best of the best to join us. I hope that gives you the context.

Mr Giam.

Sir, just to follow up on my earlier question, the Minister said earlier that the Ministry encourages ONE Pass holders to participate in local professional activities. Beyond just encouraging them, does the Ministry formally require ONE Pass holders to keep track of and report their professional activities that directly involve mentoring and training Singaporean PMETs?

I have also shared in my supplementary question reply that we will be sending up notification letters. In terms of understanding the different segments of the ONE Pass holders that reside in Singapore, it would then allow us to be a lot more targeted in leveraging on their expertise, their networks and also skillsets to be able to work closely and to transfer those skillsets to mentor our locals.

Given that today, it has really been about two years into the programme, as I have said, the biggest group of ONE Pass holders are in the financial services, infocomms and professional services. Some of the programmes will be curated in those kind of areas for them to be able to come up with the capability transfer programmes. Rather than for us to mandate that they have to do that, we would prefer to work with a more encouraging tone, getting them to inspire our successive generations of Singaporeans to think outside of the box. I hope that gives you that context.

16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what steps are being taken to regulate and ensure the safe use of ketamine as a treatment course for severe depression in Singapore; (b) how is the effectiveness of such a treatment being monitored; and (c) what safeguards are in place to prevent any potential misuse of the controlled drug.

17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) what evidence supports the efficacy and safety of ketamine as treatment for severe depression compared to other therapies; (b) whether there are plans to monitor long-term outcomes for patients using this treatment; and (c) what regulatory frameworks will be put in place to govern the distribution and use of ketamine for medical purpose while ensuring tight control to prevent diversion for recreational use.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 16 and 17 on today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Sir, ketamine in the form of a nasal spray was approved in October 2020 by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). It is to be administered together with other oral anti-depressant therapy for the treatment of depression.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that the use of ketamine nasal spray resulted in improvements in symptoms of major depression with mild side effects and minimal addictive potential. Overall, the benefits of ketamine nasal spray outweigh its risks.

There are several safeguards in place to ensure the safe use of ketamine for severe depression. It is classified as a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, which means that the product must be kept under lock and key with stringent records of the product inventory. Further, it can only be supplied to hospitals and clinics providing specialist services for psychiatry, and prescribed for use by a registered psychiatrist. It is administered strictly under nursing supervision with resuscitation equipment and doctors on standby. Patients are continuously monitored during and after the treatment for adverse effects before they leave the clinical setting. Specialists also review patients regularly to assess treatment effectiveness.

Dr Wan Rizal. Keep it short because we are running out of time.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I can hear that ketamine is indeed effective. So, how can we extend this usage of ketamine, knowing that it is actually quite costly, to make it affordable for patients across the board?

Senior Minister of State Janil. Keep it short, too, because Mr Yip has a supplementary question to ask.

Sir, I thank Dr Wan Rizal for the supplementary question. The use of ketamine is not a substitute for all the other treatments that are available for depression and other psychiatric treatment. It should only be used when indicated and for those situations where the other treatments are not effective. So, we will continue to study its effectiveness, analyse the cost benefit analysis and make sure it is available for those patients who need it.

Mr Yip.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Considering the potential stigma and misconceptions associated with ketamine due to its history as a recreational drug, what initiatives will the Ministry undertake to educate the public and healthcare professionals about its therapeutic use in depression? And how will these efforts help in mitigating societal concerns and promoting informed acceptance?

Sir, the number of patients that could potentially benefit from this is relatively small. The education and counselling is done for those patients and their families on a one-to-one basis by the clinical providers, and I think that is probably the correct approach for now.

There are many drugs with serious side effects or potential abuse and misuse, where use in a controlled setting is possible. This is something that we have been doing for, for example, opioid agents, anesthetic agents and many other controlled drugs and substances, where there is a public protection and it is a drug of abuse outside this controlled setting, and then, appropriate counselling for the patient and the family when there is an indication and there is a benefit.

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

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

Mr Speaker, I move*, "That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole of society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families."

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the name of Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. (proc text)]

In 2022, I filed an Adjournment Motion titled "Celebrating SG Families: Embracing Parenthood through Live, Work and Play". In my speech, I acknowledged that much effort has been made by the Government throughout the years in the preservation and strengthening of family ties, since it is the fabric of our nation.

This year, we see our national plan, "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" (MFF 2025), which builds on the momentum of the Year of Celebrating SG Families in 2022.

I quote extracts from Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat's foreword on this national plan: "Family has always been at the heart of our social compact. We achieved this as a society, as a whole, is deeply committed to supporting families. But there are greater challenges that families face, such as greater caregiving needs as our population ages rapidly, greater demands at our workplaces, higher cost of living pressures and more. So, we must explore new ways to support our families. This is a key national priority under the Forward Singapore exercise to refresh our social compact. MFF 2025 is our plan for creating a Singapore that values and supports family well-being."

Indeed, over the past five years since the launch of MFF 2025, as a young parent myself, I am delighted to see and have benefited from many bolder changes in the policies that were rolled out by the Government in this aspect. Many innovative ideas and suggestions, calling for more versatile changes, such as the flexible Shared Parental Leave, were also adopted along the way.

To this end, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's 2025 Chinese New Year message reinforces the Government's commitment in supporting families, and I quote: "Families are the bedrock of our society. They nurture our values, provide emotional support and inspire us to dream big. In today's fast-paced and competitive world, balancing work and family life has become harder. Yet, families remain at the heart of what matters most to us. I am encouraged that many Singaporeans continue to prioritise marriage, parenthood and family. The Government is committed to supporting families at every stage of life. For young couples, we are ramping up the supply of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and making public housing more affordable. We are enhancing leave arrangements, including through a new Shared Parental Leave scheme. We are also investing significantly in schools, especially preschools, so that every child, regardless of background, gets a good start in life."

In 2023, my husband and I welcomed our second bundle of joy. But in that same year, our nation's total fertility rate (TFR) fell to 0.

97. This is a historic low, notwithstanding the Government's continuous efforts in supporting families.

On the marriage front, there were 24,355 citizen marriages in 2023, which was a decline of 1.7% from the preceding year. According to the Population in Brief 2024, the average number of citizen marriages per year in the last five years was 22,800, which is lower than the preceding five years of 24,000. These are worrying trends which present, in Minister Indranee Rajah's words, "serious implications" for our country's future.

This Motion, led by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Zhulkarnain and I, is a continuous effort by us to review and update policies, and a continuation of our commitment to Singaporeans as well as rallying a call by this House to the whole of society to build a "Singapore Made for Families".

I had acknowledged in my speech on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill (CDCA Bill) in November last year that prospective parents would have varying concerns and reasons militating against or for delaying starting a family. In the People's Action Party (PAP) Women's Wing, we have been investigating the reasons underlying these phenomena, not least by engaging our constituents individually and through various platforms and forums. Our research group had conducted several rounds of surveys, with the most recent involving over 1,000 married individuals, where the policy group collaborated with Friendzone to organise a series of heart-to-heart focused group discussions with youths aged between 20 and 40 years on topics, such as dating, relationship, marriage and parenthood.

I welcome my Parliamentary colleagues who will come forward to speak on this Motion, to join me in sharing the issues faced and perceived by Singaporeans that may impede or delay marriage and parenthood and share some possible solutions that we have distilled through our respective engagements.

One of the common strands of feedback I have received from Singaporeans who aspire towards marriage and eventual parenthood, is the challenge they face in finding the right partner. This could be due to a lack of socialising opportunities or social spaces, being occupied with work or caretaking obligations at home, amongst other reasons. In this regard, some Singaporeans have shared their hope for the return of the Singapore Social Development Network (SDN) or some other form of Government-led and encouraged social interaction platform with the objective of leading to marriage.

Granted, the present-day social and dating landscape is markedly different from when the Social Development Unit (SDU) was set up in 1984, before I was born, and to which the SDN traces its roots, the advent of technology and shifting socialising and dating norms have been growing acceptance or even popularity of online dating.

According to a 2021 National Population and Talent Division survey, the proportion of singles who met through online platforms and started dating grew more than four-fold, from 7% in 2012 to 29% in 2021. The same survey also found a significant increase in acceptance of meeting one's prospective partner on dating sites or apps. Could we, therefore, synthesise the purport of SDN with technology and Singaporeans' current dating mindsets, to produce a solution?

To this end, we could perhaps draw some inspiration from China's state-sponsored matchmaking efforts. In the city of Guixi in China's Jiangxi province, an app known as "Palm Guixi" was launched to function as a matchmaking platform. The app matches users based on their background information and also assists to organise blind dates.

In fact, following one of the PAP Women's Wing’s collaborations with Friendzone focus group discussions that I had attended, one of the attendees, Jasper, shared with me that he has had a similar idea for an app, where singles provide answers to a set of questions which will be fed into a matching algorithm that matches singles based on their personal priorities amongst other attributes, such as desired age group. Achieving a match would not, however, be the end-all and be-all, as the app could, and correctly should, facilitate follow-throughs, such as by recommending or helping to book dates at restaurants or other activities, based on the matched couple's shared interests.

Such a Government-led app would be distinguished from other dating apps, not least because it would likely provide prospective participants with assurance on trustworthiness and reliability, a point shared by another attendee, Christopher, who, also after the session, wrote to me to share that the SDU, or its current incarnation, can further evolve and serve as a platform that works with public and private agencies, including professional matchmaking or dating agencies, to organise events and create safe social spaces for young adults to bond over common interests. I concur with Christopher, creating opportunities to encourage the young to learn and play together, perhaps through sports, such as pickleball, would be a good follow-through on the app's achievements.

Once a couple has been formed, we hope that they would share a blissful and everlasting relationship, and who will, together, go on to attain the milestones of marriage and starting a family. I quote an extract from Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech at the launch of the National Family Festival on 25 May 2024: "I firmly believe that the true measure of success in life is not based on one's status or material possessions. Instead, the richest treasures are the moments we share with our family members and loved ones – these relationships are our legacies and the truest reflections of our lives' worth. So, let us all pledge to cherish and nurture our family bonds. Let us work together to build a "Singapore Made for Families", where we can create many happy memories with our families and where everyone can enjoy an enriching family life here in this Garden City we call home."

I could not have said it better myself. The concept of a "home" embodies so much more than acquiring a "house". Though admittedly, many Singaporeans feel that one of the first few steps, if not the first, is to acquire and get a place of their own.

Since August 2022, Housing and Development Board (HDB) has shared with us that more flats have been prioritised for first-timer families: a 15% increase for 3-room BTO flats in non-mature estates; a 10% increase for 4-room and larger BTO flats in non-mature estates; and 95% of 3-room and larger BTO flats in mature estates. For first-time home buyers, they receive at least two ballot chances as opposed to the one ballot chance for second-time families. HDB has also allocated the majority of 3-room and larger HDB flats for them.

In cases where the first-timer families have a child aged 18 and below, as well as for first-timer married couples who are aged 40 and below, these families have been receiving greater priority since August 2023. An additional ballot is given to these families in addition to the two ballot chances given to first-timer families.

There are also other schemes designed to increase the chances of getting a house for eligible families, such as the Family and Parenthood Priority Scheme, Married Child Priority Scheme and Third Child Priority Scheme.

With regard to housing grants, up to $80,000 for new flats or up to $160,000 for resale flats with even higher amounts for lower-income families are available and these are in addition to the subsidies applied to new flats. Especially, if looked at against the backdrop of Singapore's housing demand and supply, the Government's housing policy is laudable. However, the mindset of the Government and this House, must always be the relentless pursuit of improvements.

At my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) in the PAP Woodgrove branch, I frequently receive requests for assistance from residents who aspire to start their families but are understandably anxious due to the waiting times and costs involved in getting a house, which to their minds, is the essential first step in building a home. On this note, I seek clarification from the Government as to what other plans and policies, in respect of housing for young couples and growing families, could still be in the pipeline.

I shared during the 2023 Budget Statement's debate about several of my Woodgrove residents, who commented that as young couples with limited savings, they have opted out of resale flats as an option because the Cash Over Valuation (COV) component is often in the high range, in the region of $30,000 to $50,000, which has to be paid out in cash as it cannot be covered by housing loans or Central Provident Fund (CPF). Similar feedback continues to be heard today whenever I probe many of my residents who come to see me about appealing to HDB to increase their chances of securing a Sale of Balance flat and why they do not wish to consider purchasing from the open market.

I, therefore, hope that HDB can review the current measures to continue to ease the COV situation that young couples face or allow for more flexibility in allowing housing loans or CPF savings to be used for the payment of such COV component.

Also, would it possible for families to seek a lower and/or deferred housing loan repayment rate from HDB for the first few years of their child's birth? This could go a great length to ease part of the financial burdens and pressure on new parents, whose primary focus should rightly be on their newborn. Furthermore and/or alternatively, the same arrangement should also be considered to be extended to large young families, until the youngest child enters primary school education.

We must not only actually do better in terms of policy-making, but also do our best to keep Singaporeans informed, in order to provide assurance and certainty, which would be essential to Singaporeans' family planning.

This brings me to my next topic – welcoming a new child to the family.

Child-bearing and child-raising are, in my view, the noblest of pursuits in life. Children are the element that completes a family unit. The critical message that this House and the Government ought to convey to every Singaporean, is that none of you – whether as a single parent or as a married couple – would ever feel alone in this rewarding and fulfilling journey.

The typical Singaporean who is aspiring to become a parent would invariably ask him or herself, "How am I going to cope with a newborn on top of my work?", "Would I have to drastically change my lifestyle to accommodate my baby?", "Will my quality of life drop if I have kids?", "what is the quality of life that I would be able to provide my child with?", amongst other questions. These were also the questions that I pondered on when I was deciding whether to have more kids.

To varying degrees in a myriad of ways, the lives of both moms and dads are changed forever whenever a child joins the family. My Parliamentary colleague Mr Zhulkarnain will be sharing more in the aspect for the challenges that many fathers encounter during this journey later in his speech.

This House recognises the challenges of starting and expanding a family, and so does the Government, as evidenced by its constant improvements to its policies. For example, I shared earlier, the Baby Bonus Scheme comprising the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits is provided as soon as the child is born. The Baby Bonus Scheme was most recently enhanced in 2023.

There is also the MediSave Grant for Newborns, which sees to it that a CPF MediSave account is opened for each newborn and the grant is credited automatically. This grant provides support for each child's healthcare expenses, including MediShield premiums, recommended childhood vaccinations, hospitalisations and approved outpatient treatments.

Adding to the comprehensive coverage is the MediShield Life Coverage for Newborns and Fully-Subsidised Nationally-Recommended Childhood Vaccinations and Developmental Screenings. As our children grow, we also get to utilise education subsidies totaling up to $180,000.

Most recently, through the CDCA Bill passed by this House in November last year, enhancements were made to the Parental Leave. Government-Paid Paternity Leave has been doubled to four weeks and is applicable to the fathers of children born on or after 1 April this year, as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of application to adopt a child is on or after 1 April 2025.

There is also the new Shared Parental Leave, which will entitle working parents who are eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave and Adoption Leave, to Shared Parental Leave. By default, each parent will be allocated half the entitlement totaling three weeks from 1 April 2025, which is slated to be increased to five weeks per parent from 1 April next year. There is also a built-in mechanism to allow for flexibility based on each family’s needs and taking into account the parents' employers' operational requirements.

Mr Speaker, I have so far attempted to consolidate the various support measures that this House and the Government have provided to parents and prospective parents, albeit not exhaustively. But soon-to-be, as well as new parents would still be saddled with so much, and be under constant and immense pressure. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be constantly aware and keep track of this policy developments made to assist them on their own.

To this end, I reiterate a suggestion I had made during the debate on Budget Statement in 2021, to call for the introduction of a "Mommy's Milestone Booklet".

This booklet would be akin to a baby's health booklet but instead, would help to track the expecting mother's physical and emotional development. It would also contain helpful information regarding necessary preparations for each stage of pregnancy, parenting best practices and a list of support systems available to all parents at least for the first years of their journey into parenthood, along with a checklist of vaccinations required for expecting mothers, recommended estimated dates to sign up for prenatal classes, a checklist of items to prepare for the arrival of the baby, tips on how to spot signs of labour and how to spot signs of post-natal depression.

This booklet could be similar to the Families for Life Parenting, a one-stop portal for parenting resources, but personalised to each family's needs and with relevant information conveyed to the parents-to-be by professionals at each milestone basis.

Like many parents with young families, I appreciate the Government's enhancement of the Baby Bonus in 2023. However, during my interactions with many young parents in Woodgrove, many of them shared their view and their hope that the Government can explore increasing the cash gift component and the release of funds even before the child is born as they have to incur many expenses on things, such as prenatal check-ups, purchase of baby essentials in preparation for the arrival of the baby. As such, I implore the Government to consider releasing the Baby Bonus once the expecting mother clears her first trimester.

Another suggestion which has been frequently brought up by young parents, particularly those who are staying in BTO flats, concerns the challenges they face in securing a preschool spot for their toddlers. This has been a problem which my Woodgrove residents in the Champions Court and Champions Green area have been encountering. In this regard, I hope that HDB and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) can work together to review and improve its current system to shortlist the Anchor Operators that will be serving the estate at the earliest opportunity, even while the BTO project is still under construction and to get the appointed Anchor Operator to set up and be ready to operate once HDB begins its key collection exercise. To cushion the operating costs of the Anchor Operators during this period, HDB can consider offering rent-free or higher subsidised rent rate until the enrolment rate achieves a certain desired number. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the recent dialogues organised by PAP's Women's Wing, several participants provided feedback and suggestions to me.

As this year is Singapore's 60th birthday, they asked if the Government could consider providing more cash incentives from this year onwards, to encourage and assist Singaporeans in achieving important family-building milestones.

One participant suggested that we could call this a Kickstart Fund.

As we all know, even though the Government already provides many grants, subsidies and assistance for marriage, home ownership and parenthood, there are still many expenses that require cash payment. Without sufficient savings and stable income, many Singaporeans, even when they meet the right partner, will think twice about having a baby immediately after marriage.

Therefore, I hope this Kickstart Fund can help Singaporeans when they embark on important life milestones and ease their financial burden, for example, wedding expenses, new home renovation costs, prenatal check-ups and various postpartum confinement expenses, and so on.

Mr Speaker, the old saying "raise children for the purpose of being looked after in old age" may seem less relevant today. For many young couples, it might be seen as a long-term burden, a process that is mixed with moments of joy, and mental and financial stress.

Overall, when building a family-friendly Singapore, I hope the Government can understand why Singaporeans are afraid of having children. We should continue to listen to the people's concerns and as time and lifestyle evolves, be bold in introducing novel, yet practical measures to support Singaporeans in building their beautiful families.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I am heartened by the Government's commitment and continuing efforts to cultivate an environment that supports Singaporeans in starting and raising a family.

I look forward to my Parliamentary colleagues' speeches as well as a fruitful debate on this Motion.

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

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member Ms Hany Soh for moving this Motion. When Ms Hany Soh approached me to sponsor this Motion, I fully and readily supported it.

I have four children of my own, ranging from toddlers to teenagers. So, this means, for the past 16 years, I have experienced various stages of their childhood and hence, these eye bags as well.

I was blessed with my extended family support in this parenting journey and it helped a lot. So, I strongly believe in strengthening support for our family units in Singapore. I raised this in my maiden Parliamentary speech when I likened our nation building to Lego bricks: creating a myriad of structures from different shapes, sizes and colours and that our nation is strong only when each of our basic building block, the family unit, is strong. In my speech, I am focusing on support for fathers as partners in raising a family.

Research consistently highlights the critical role fathers play in child development. In 2020, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) reported that children with actively involved fathers showed better emotional resilience and social skills. Additionally, a 2019 study by the National University of Singapore (NUS) found that fathers who spent more time with their children contributed to higher levels of family satisfaction and lower rates of marital conflict.

However, traditional gender roles and workplace cultures often limit fathers' ability to participate fully in child-raising. Globally, fathers face challenges, such as stigma around taking paternity leave, lack of flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and societal expectations that prioritise mothers as primary caregivers.

We need to change that mindset of child caregiving amongst men, amongst society to encourage more to have children and raise a family. To do so, we need to implement changes both at work and at home.

Singapore has made strides in improving paternity leave policies with fathers currently entitled to two weeks of paid leave, increasing to four weeks from April this year. However, the uptake remains low with only 44% of eligible fathers fully utilising their leave in 2020, citing workload, stigma and unsupportive workplace cultures.

Globally, as well, paternity leave uptake is similarly low, with only about 34% of countries offering it and even fewer enforcing it as mandatory. Studies show that mandatory paternity leave increases father involvement by 25%, suggesting that Singapore could benefit from extending and mandating such policies as well.

Challenges include employers' resistance and operational concerns. To address these, employers can offer FWAs, which has been shown to boost employee retention and satisfaction by 30%. Incentives, like tax breaks or increased foreign manpower quotas, could encourage businesses to adopt family-friendly policies.

These measures could also apply to childcare leave, which currently offers six days for children under seven years, and two days extended childcare leave for those aged seven to 12. To better caregiving needs, the Government can streamline and consolidate childcare leave for all children up to the age of 12, consider a uniformed eight days of childcare leave across-the-board for children up to 12 and allow higher leave entitlement for parents with two or more children. For instance, those with two or more children, can be eligible for 10 days of childcare leave. This covers key milestones in our children's lives, like entrance to kindergarten, Primary 1 registration and the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), not to mention, other important events in their lives, like medical appointments and birthdays.

These changes, aligned with the 2023 PAP's Women's Wing and Young PAP joint paper, which advocates for expanded leave provisions and employer support for caregiving roles. Additionally, stronger enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is needed to protect fathers taking leave or requesting FWAs as countries with robust protections see a 20% increase in fathers' involvement.

Beyond the workplace, Mr Speaker, we also need to change the perspectives of men in caregiving within our society. In many societies, including Singapore, caregiving is still seen as primarily a mother's role. An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) 2020 study found that 60% of fathers felt societal pressure to prioritise work over family. A 2021 global survey revealed that 63% of men in Asia Pacific countries felt that society views them as less masculine if they take on caregiving roles.

Changing societal and workplace mindsets is crucial to encourage greater father involvement. This includes redefining masculinity, in promoting the idea that caregiving is a strength, not a weakness, and that involved fatherhood is a key aspect of our modern world.

We also need to normalise shared parenting by encouraging both parents to take equal responsibility for child-raising.

In this regard, I welcome the Government's move towards implementing six weeks of shared parenting. This signifies a move towards recognising that the role of caregiving for children does not fall on the shoulders of mothers alone, but it is a shared responsibility of both parents together. How the couple shares that load or childcare leave, is left to them.

However, we can incentivise equitable sharing of such parenting leave by drawing from the lessons learnt in other jurisdictions. We can encourage shared leave by introducing financial incentives, such as tax breaks or childcare subsidies, for families where both parents take equal childcare leave. In Sweden, its "Daddy Month" policy, which reserves a portion of parental leave exclusively for fathers, has been highly effective.

That being said, government policies alone will not change mindsets on child caregiving. For parents, there are many other things that we ourselves can do to make the most of our time we spend with our children. Families can create structured plans to divide caregiving responsibilities equitably. For example, fathers can take on specific roles, such as bedtime routines, read your story books before bedtime, school drop-offs in the morning, to build consistent involvement daily with their children.

Couples should practise open communication and align their expectations about caregiving roles. A 2020 MSF study found that couples who communicated openly about parenting roles reported stronger relationships and better child outcomes.

At the community level, we can launch campaigns to normalise father involvement and challenge stereotypes through the involvement of "Dads for Life" or the vernacular "Bapa Sepanjang Hayat” movement to reach out to more workplaces and increase community engagement. Fathers who participated in community programmes such as these, reported higher levels of confidence and involvement.

We can establish "Dad Hubs" in neighbourhoods to provide parenting resources and support. In this regard, at Keat Hong, we have been organising, for many years, annual talks and workshops for men on Breaking the Patriarchal Mindset in families, supported by MSF and organised by Casa Raudha Women Home. This is to normalise caregiving and help end domestic violence in our communities. Bapa Sepanjang Hayat also organises talent competition shows with Keat Hong Community Centre where fathers take to the stage with their children, and showcase their singing and musical talents together. What I find most touching was how they struggled and ultimately bonded in the journey during the preparation and audition for the competition.

Mr Speaker, in summary, my proposals are as follows.

Firstly, consider making paternity leave mandatory and reward companies or businesses with tax incentives or increased short term foreign manpower quota for certain sectors. Secondly, expand childcare leave further to raise the age to 12 years to cover almost all primary school children. Thirdly, higher childcare leave entitlement for parents with two or more children. Fourthly, increased legal protection for fathers who take leave or request FWAs against discrimination based on our existing legislative framework. Fifthly, encourage couples to share parental leave equitably. Sixthly, proper planning and communication within families on sharing of duties and responsibilities on parenting. Lastly, increased support through engagement and resources provided in the community for fathers. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Motion moved by the hon Member Hany Soh. It aims to support Singaporeans in starting and raising families. When she first suggested that we move this Motion together, I readily supported it because I believe that parents play a crucial role in their children's education, especially the involvement of fathers in their children's lives. With the Government's family-friendly policies in all aspects of family life, such as education, housing and childcare, we can provide an environment that will better enable and support our young couples to start families and have children. This is crucial in order to build the next generation that can continue to strive for the overall prosperity and progress of our nation.

We have a large number of young parents in Keat Hong. Many couples are both working and at the same time, they strive hard to raise children who are still in school.

During my house visits and interactions at preschool events in Keat Hong, I heard their concerns about the challenges of raising young children. There are also some young couples without children who are worried about the cost of supporting and raising children in Singapore.

In fact, in Keat Hong, I met many multi-generational families, where the elderly parents lamented that their grown-up children have settled down, but are not ready to have children. Thus, they did not yet have the chance to cuddle a grandchild and be called "grandfather" or "grandmother".

As for our young couples, they are worried about the challenges of starting a family and educating and raising children. I want to dispel the notion that raising children is only about money. Instead, it involves establishing a comprehensive ecosystem, which includes childcare in nurseries or kindergartens, a home environment that is conducive to family life, a family-friendly workplace and also parenting support and guidance for our families.

In this respect, the Government's M3 initiative has reached out to many young couples via the Bersamamu programme and through the Matematika classes, which help parents and their preschool children prepare for primary school. In fact, MENDAKI’s tuition classes provide high quality and very affordable tuition for our children. Thus, there are various ways to manage the costs involved in supporting families and educating children, aside from the various Baby Bonus, subsidies, and tax rebates provided by the Government.

Apart from Government policies, we need initiatives that involve all parties, not just women, but men as well. Therefore, the involvement of fathers in raising their children is not only beneficial for the child and family, but also for society as a whole.

Every year in Keat Hong, we organise various programmes to support fathers in their parenting journey, in collaboration with Government agencies and community partners. For example, at M³@Chua Chu Kang, we have a series of programmes under the "Nakhoda Bahtera", or Ship Captain, initiative, touching on issues related to men and fathers, like leadership, parenting and men's health.

We also organise bowling events with fathers through Dads for Life and talent time competitions.

Since 2020, we have also been co-organising with MSF and Casa Raudha Women Home, a series of workshops and seminars for fathers and young men, to eradicate patriarchal thinking and end domestic violence.

By addressing cultural, workplace and Government policy barriers, Singapore can take the lead in promoting shared parenting and redefining the role of parents.

As Malay/Muslims, we also believe that children are not just a sacred trust bestowed upon us, but they are also a divine gift that brings blessings and prosperity for the family. Therefore, I call upon all young couples to cherish every aspect of marriage and raising children. As for the fathers, your sacrifices can never be fully repaid, but the reward will be apparent when the child that you raised and educated becomes a valuable and worthy individual in the eyes of society and the world, which is a testament of the efforts taken and to you who raised the child.

A verse of pantun or Malay quatrain:

On the mountain, taro grows

Tigers and deer, its slopes they climb

A father's love forever flows

Endlessly through the stream of time

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, fathers' involvement in child-raising is not only beneficial for children and families, but also for society as a whole. However, we fathers suffer sometimes what is called "dad guilt" in our experience in fatherhood. We may be too busy with our careers, balancing between duties and responsibilities. Let me share a story.

My work as a disputes lawyer in international arbitration and my pro bono work in the community space meant that I am often travelling and takes me away from home. My eldest daughter, when she was very young, was very often curious what I do. Whenever I leave for my pro bono work, she will ask me, "Ayah, where are you going?" I did not have time to go into the details. So, I would just say, "I am going to help some people." This went on for a few occasions.

And then, one day, she stopped me at the door and asked me again, "Ayah, where are you going?", and I replied again, "To help some people." And then, she said something to me which I remember to this day. She said, "Help me". And those words broke my heart. I realised that in all my busyness, I had neglected the attention to my child. And on that day, I brought her and her young sisters – she was like six years old then – to Casa Raudah, a women and children shelter home at which I was volunteering, to see first-hand what I do away from home and what I do during that time that I am away from her.

At the end of the day, she understood. She saw first-hand the other girls in the home and she said to me, "Ayah, help more people then."

Just like how children want to be in our lives, we fathers must involve our children actively in our lives. This is the crux of parenting. By addressing cultural workplace and policy barriers, Singapore can lead the way in promoting shared parenting and redefining the roles of fathers, ultimately changing mindsets and empowering fathers to take an active role in parenting, which will strengthen families and contribute to a more equitable society for decades as building blocks.

Our families make up Singapore. Hence, let us build a "Singapore Made for Families". I support this Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, it felt like it was not too long ago when I spoke on this topic of how we can better support Singaporeans in starting and raising families, even though this is a topic I have regularly visited throughout my term in Parliament. Specifically, it was just about three months ago when I shared my thoughts on paternity leave, Shared Parental Leave, FWAs, childcare leave provisions during the debate on the CDCA Bill in November last year.

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, let me briefly recap some of the key points on these specific policy measures that I have been raising not just as a Member of Parliament reflecting the views of our residents, but also my personal experience as a father of two young boys, trying to raise a family in Singapore.

To begin with, the Motion before us seeks to calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a "Singapore Made for Families". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies.

However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record low TFR of 0.97 that is before us. And we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results, if we do not make a serious effort to reimagine our approach to tackling this issue. Three years on after the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?

On specific policy measures, let me first start by reiterating the point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House.

The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which came into effect back in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs "properly". Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs.

On 30 November 2024, a Straits Times article reported that according to data from Blackbox Research's platform SensingSG, which polls 1,500 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) aged 18 and up every three months, 27% of respondents still enjoy hybrid work arrangements, down seven percentage points year-on-year.

Ironically, despite the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines in December, Blackbox Research's head of strategy expects to see a continued gradual decline in remote and hybrid working in 2025.

In the same article, KPMG's CEO Outlook, which polled 1,325 CEOs between July and August, highlighted that 83% of bosses expect a full return to office within the next three years, up from 64% in 2023. Even in the United States (US), President Donald Trump has basically signed an executive order demanding all federal employees end their remote work arrangements and return to the office on a full-time basis or lose their jobs.

While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work-from-home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may be more appropriate, the point remains that I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.

Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October 2024 to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs. This would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments.

FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions. If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis?

In my speech in November last year, I shared that parents would need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to ECDA, could be up to eight working days a year, an increase from six days a year previously. I acknowledge that I had misspoken on this and Minister of State Sun Xueling clarified in her closing speech that there has been a net increase of only 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days, as all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays.

Does this not further prove my point that the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone when our children fall sick?

Moreover, it seems that many preschools now have eight designated closure days and still have half-day closures on the eves of selected public holidays, anyway.

Even though Minister of State Sun further shared that a working couple would have a total of 12 days of childcare leave on top of their annual leave provisions, are we not splitting hairs a little here? Yes, the manpower and operational needs of employers need to be taken into consideration, but should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, then perhaps, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution.

Beyond the provision of FWAs and childcare leave, let us also take a moment to examine the lived realities of young Singaporean families: searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market; giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living; stressing about the rising cost of living; facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child's early years. The physical, emotional and mental toll of a society where parents are hard at work is very real. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real.

According to an IPS' survey shared at the Singapore Perspectives conference on 29 January 2024, on Singaporeans' attitudes and views toward issues, such as family, well-being and work, seven in 10 of Singaporeans in the youngest group aged 21 to 34 feel it is not necessary to get married and have children. Across all age groups surveyed, the main reasons among this include a career focus, lacking time and energy and being deterred by the high stress and costs of doing so. The survey also highlights the trend of reluctance and disinterest among young women's views on marriage and parenthood, where respondents are worried about burning out from juggling caregiving responsibilities and work demands, without equal support from their partners.

Individual choice aside, this is a society that places much higher emphasis on work over family. We are also often reminded in this House, by the Government and some Members of Parliament (MPs), of the pushback from employers whenever we try to do better for our families, such as the impact of the parental leave enhancements on businesses and their manpower arrangements.

Adults of working age, including young Singaporeans parents or parents-to-be, are viewed as labour contributing to the output of this economy. A parent that chooses to prioritise caregiving over a return to the workforce is an economic trade-off for Singapore, a role that does not contribute to gross domestic product (GDP). Our hyper-competitive economy pressures and expects new parents to return to the workforce, to pursue career growth and maximise earnings in a cycle where Singaporeans need to increase their earning ability in order to maintain living standards in an environment of rising costs.

The measures we have today revolve heavily around financial support. Besides the enhanced parental leave provision and infant care leave, this includes Baby Bonuses, Government contributions to child development accounts, child relief and childcare subsidies for working mothers and foreign domestic worker levy relief, again for working mothers. I recognise that these have provided significant relief and helped many Singaporeans build and raise families over the years. However, we also know that generations of Singaporean children were primarily cared for through a mix of grandparents, domestic helpers and professional childcare, as their parents from the baby boomer generation generally prioritised work to earn a decent living. Even for myself, I cannot imagine how my family can cope without a combination of help from full-day childcare, a domestic helper and my mother-in-law.

We recognise that raising and nurturing a family is a lifelong journey, taking love, time and continual effort. Being a parent and caring for your child is a privilege and responsibility. However, the existing frame does not seem to encourage this. Instead, it prioritises the outsourcing of caregiving and incentivising parents, especially mothers, to return back to the workforce quickly. MSF's Social Compact wants families to be pillars of support and for families to be individually responsible. However, there is a fundamental disjunct between this and parents not having time or being empowered to prioritise childcare responsibilities.

When we provide childcare subsidies, tax reliefs and foreign domestic worker levy reliefs for working mothers only, we are saying, "We want you back in the workforce". While this is ultimately dependent on parents' individual choice and we want to ensure that mothers are fully empowered to take charge of their own careers, parents should feel that they are empowered to make a choice to prioritise caregiving in the early years if they choose to do so.

If we truly believe in a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to expand and shift our frame from one that advocates for parents to outsource caregiving starting from as young as two months for infant care due to return to work demands, to a frame that champions parenthood. We should be saying, "We want you to be proud of being a parent", and how we can rethink flexibility at work in the critical first years of a child growing up, so that parents are able to dedicate more time to directly care for their children. Allow me now to say a few words in Mandarin, Sir.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today’s Motion calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a "Singapore Made for Families". There is nothing objectionable to this statement and any government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies.

However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record-low total fertility rate of 0.97 that is before us. To achieve extraordinary results, we must make greater efforts and reimagine our approach. Three years on after the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?

Searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market. Giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living. Stressing about the rising cost of living. Facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child’s early years. These are real predicaments that many parents are facing. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real.

A "Singapore Made for Families" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their children’s formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to rethink our starting point and reimagine our policies.

We must reimagine the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. The key lies in how we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", a society that values parenthood deeply. That is the question we should be pondering.

(In English): Mr Speaker, beyond policies, we need to question the value that we place on work and the economy against that of parenthood and caregiving. A "Singapore Made for Families" should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their child's formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a "Singapore Made for Families", we need to rethink our starting point and re-imagine our policies.

Re-imagining the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family and championing parenthood. How can we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to build a "Singapore Made for Families" to one that champions parenthood? That is the question we should be pondering.

Ms Hany Soh.

Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a clarification to Mr Louis Chua. While I understand the context of his speech, but it is not clear from his speech whether he is in support of my Motion. So, I want to take this opportunity to seek his confirmation on that. Because I perceive that he is supporting my Motion, based on what I heard, especially in his Chinese speech, but I wish to seek his confirmation.

Yes, at this point, we do support the Motion.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's TFR has been falling for many years. Last year, Elon Musk declared that Singapore is going extinct with our low birth rate. We do not need Elon Musk to point out that our low birth rate is a problem.

During his first National Day Rally speech in 2004, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had already pointed out that the low TFR was, I quote, "a very serious problem for us". At that time, Singapore's TFR was 1.

26. It has since hit a new low of 0.97 in 2023.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) stands firm behind families and family values. We understand that many Singaporeans desire to get married and have children, and we support these aspirations. However, it is ultimately a personal decision whether to get married and have children, and we respect these decisions too. Women are not duty bound to have children and neither should singles be ashamed or treated differently because they are not married.

I have a quote on my Facebook page since I entered politics in 2020, "Politics decide how a society looks like and society conditions what a person can do or cannot do. We seek to establish the right kind of politics in our country so that all Singaporeans can perform to his full potential."

I believe that each person makes the best possible life decisions for himself or herself under the socio-economic circumstances created by the Government and the society. Accordingly, I also believe that the low TFR we see today is a result of the socio-economic circumstances that have been created by our Government's policies over the years. Despite decades of policies, like the Baby Bonus scheme, increased parental leave and financial support for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), our TFR has continued to fall.

PSP believes that this shows that these policies are not enough to resolve deeper societal issues that are discouraging Singaporeans from having children. As the birth rate continues to fall, the Government has largely relied on immigration to make up for the population shortfall. This is not ideal.

We strongly believe that the Government should not continue to rely on immigration as a solution to our nation's low TFR. Instead, we have a duty to create conditions of economic and financial security so that Singaporeans can be optimistic about the future and feel confident about raising a child and build a society that is conducive for Singaporeans to start and raise families.

Older Members of this House will recall that during the 1980s and 1990s, good job opportunities were plentiful in Singapore. HDB flat prices were affordable even for single income families. There was strong wage growth. "明天会更好" or "Tomorrow Will Be Better", was a popular Chinese song in the late 1980s. It captured the spirit of those times. It was common to have two children or even three children and we were confident that our children will have better lives than us.

Today, with the rise of the gig economy, falling wage growth and resale HDB prices increasing faster than wages, Singaporeans are worried about their financial security. Many Singaporeans look at the million-dollar HDB flats in almost every town and wonder whether their children will be able to afford a decently sized HDB flat in the future. The majority of married couples need dual incomes to afford the cost of living in Singapore.

Many young Singaporeans are also very worried about the impact of climate change.

Many Singaporeans no longer have the confidence that the next generation would have better lives than ours. PSP believes that we need to reset and re-imagine our socio-economic policies so that we can bring back confidence in the future.

We have previously proposed many alternative policies in this House with that aim and we will do so again today.

Firstly, we must ensure better job security and financial stability for Singaporeans. I have spoken extensively about rebalancing our foreign manpower policies to create better opportunities for Singaporeans. Family formation will be delayed if our university and polytechnic graduates are taking longer to find well-paying permanent jobs and also finding it harder to keep these jobs. We need better policies to improve the job security of Singaporeans.

While the Government has put in many measures since the loss of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in 2011, such as Fair Consideration Framework, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) and adjustments to the minimum qualifying salary, many Singaporeans are still concerned about job security. We will not be able to increase TFR without allaying the concerns of Singaporeans about job security and work-life balance.

Secondly, we must slow down the increase in the cost of living, especially the cost of housing. For housing, PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme, which reduces the price of BTO flats by removing the cost of land for owner-occupied flats. PSP has also proposed the Millennial Apartments Scheme, which aims to provide young Singaporeans with a quality rental option while they are waiting for a new flat. We are confident that these two schemes, taken together, will reduce the cost of housing for Singaporeans and allow young Singaporeans to get their own home as quickly as possible once they are ready to set up a family.

Thirdly, we must further defray the cost of prenatal gynaecologist visits, childbirth and postpartum medical checks. PSP believes that maternity and child-bearing medical fees should be fully claimable from MediSave without limit. Given our low TFR, there is little concern about overusing MediSave for such fees. Female Singaporeans should have full autonomy over how much MediSave they want to use.

Most mothers in Singapore, regardless of race, also practice confinement, which helps the mother heal physically from childbirth and adjust to a life with a newborn, which can be very challenging and even lead to postpartum depression for some mothers. But with basic confinement packages at $3,000 to $5,000 now, the cost of confinement care can be expensive. To help mothers defray this cost, PSP proposes a new $3,000 Healthier Mother Cash Gift, paid to every mother upon the birth of each child.

Fourth, we must strengthen workplace support for caregiving of children. PSP acknowledges that the Government has put in place a wide range of support programmes for parents and introduced new forms of support, such as paternity leave. However, to allow parents to spend more quality time with their children and enjoy parenting, we should have bolder policies. We should create conditions such that Singaporean families can thrive with just one-and-a-half income instead of two incomes. This means that families should be able to afford the cost of living with one full-time working parent and another parent working flexi-time.

In this regard, we can do more to encourage job-sharing and the adoption of FWAs. The Government has introduced the job-sharing incentive to support companies. In creating FWAs or job-sharing arrangements for their employees. Under the current scheme, each company receives up to $35,000, depending on the number of employees that have adopted FWAs or job-sharing. But this is not attractive enough for employers, especially given the availability of foreign labour.

PSP proposes an enhanced job-sharing incentive. We propose to allow companies to claim from the Government 20% of the wages, capped at $8,000 per month, paid to any flexi-time workers with children, on condition that these money are used to employ more full-time or flexi-time workers. We hope that this will incentivise more employers to create flexi-time jobs and help workers to better balance their work and family commitment.

Fifth, we should recognise the great unpaid contributions of homemakers and full-time caregivers of young children. Many parents, especially mothers, choose to sacrifice their careers to bring up their children. Grandparents also help full-time working parents with caregiving duties and bringing the grandchildren to school, minding them after school and cooking for them.

PSP proposes that the Government pay a $1,250 monthly allowance to one parent or grandparent who is registered as full-time caregiver of a Singapore Citizen child from birth until age seven.

I first mentioned such a monthly allowance in my Budget speech in 2023. Those who claim this allowance would no longer be eligible for Government subsidies for full-day childcare and infant care programmes. Part-time care caregivers or babysitters, like myself, would also not qualify.

Under this scheme, a 35-year-old full-time homemaker, for example, would receive $1,000 in cash and $462.50 in CPF contributions, while a 75-year-old grandparent would receive $1,156 in cash and $156 in CPF contributions. This allowance is expected to be a game-changer, as it will provide real and effective support for full-time homemakers and caregivers.

Our sixth and last policy suggestion is to reduce education pressure on families to promote happier family lives. Tuition is now a $1.8 billion industry. Most preschoolers are sent to tuition or expensive kindergartens to get a head start in life. This kind of pressure is taking a toll on young children and we cannot afford the negative effects it has on their mental health. I have heard many young Singaporeans who are choosing not to have children because they do not want them to face this kind of suffering.

To encourage more Singaporeans to have children, we must do more to reduce the pressures currently faced by the young in our education system. We reiterate our suggestion to offer an option of not having to take the PSLE. Members of the House from all parties have made this suggestion before. This will allow children to be happier and parents to enjoy happier family lives.

Let us imagine how enjoyable family life in Singapore would be if Singaporeans have stable jobs, can afford the cost of living with one-and-a-half incomes, can easily get a house to form a family whenever they are ready and can spend quality time with children who are free from exam pressures. Grandparents can spend time taking care of their grandchildren with a caregiving allowance from the Government, instead of working in old age. I am confident that more Singaporeans will be willing to have children if we can create such an environment for families.

The low TFR is an existential problem which should be tackled as a national emergency. If our current birth rate persists, there will only be 12 great-grandchildren for every Singaporeans born today. There is little point in increasing the Reserves if we do not have a future generation to leave the Reserves to. We should use our hard-earned savings to invest in our people and re-imagine our socio-economic policies, so that more Singaporeans will consider parenthood a meaningful and attainable journey.

Sir, in conclusion, PSP believes that we will not be able to reverse the decline in our TFR by simply reviewing and updating our current policies. We already know that these policies are ineffective and that is why, we are facing a national emergency today. What we urgently need, is to re-imagine some new policies and mobilise the whole of Government, and whole of society, to create an environment that is conducive for families and raising children. PSP has provided some new ideas as a starting point and hope that this will develop into a national action plan.

As such, Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion. May I hand over a copy of the amendment to you?

Yes, please let me have a copy of the amendment. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Sir, the PSP's amendment —

Hold on, Mr Leong. Let me just look through.

Okay, the amendment submitted by Mr Leong Mun Wai is in order. Do you have copies available for Members? We will get these distributed to Members. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]

Alright. Mr Leong, please move your amendment.

Sir, the PSP's amendment is, in the original Motion, "in line 2, to delete 'continued review and updating', and insert 're-imagination'."

Sir, the Cambridge dictionary defines "re-imagine" as "to have a new idea about the way something should be".

We hope Members will support PSP's amendment. Not everyone may agree with our new ideas, but we hope that Members will agree that we need new ideas to better support families. PSP invites all Singaporeans to join us in our journey to re-imagine our policies and build a better Singapore, together. For country, for people.

There is one amendment proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai to the Motion: "In line 2, to delete the words 'continued review and updating' and insert 're-imagination'.".

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?

[(proc text) All Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question, "the amendment as moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai", proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Faishal Manap.

Sir, my speech would be in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the phrase "Family is the pillar of society" aptly suits the Motion tabled before us. This phrase means that families, as the smallest units in a society, play an important role and have an impact in shaping values and strengthening any society.

Therefore, Sir, when there are efforts that help improve family life, such efforts are very much welcome and must be given full support.

My colleagues and I from the Workers' Party have given various suggestions as well as underlined the importance of having more family-friendly government schemes and policies, coupled with less pressure and more happiness, in order to further improve family life in Singapore, which will thereby further strengthen Singaporean families, thus forming a more prosperous, strong and cohesive society.

Sir, among the matters I have raised in this House include Paternity Leave and Family Care leave. I have done so during my first term. In addition, I have, on many occasions, raised in this House the concerns and grievances of segments of Singaporeans who are still burdened with challenges and hardships of family life that made them feel marginalised and neglected.

In today's debate, I would like to once again focus on two groups of Singaporean families facing challenges, in the hope that their concerns and feedback will receive due attention.

Sir, firstly, I wish to once again, raise the issue of wives or husbands who are undergoing divorce and are very worried about finding a place to live for themselves and their children, because their matrimonial home needs to be sold under Court order. Due to this concern, these individuals who are about to become single parents will apply to get rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme. Usually, for such cases, HDB will tell the applicants to wait until their divorce case is settled in order for it to be evaluated and processed.

Sir, Members of this House would have often been approached by individuals in such situations during their MPS. I acknowledge that HDB will do its best when considering applications and appeals from these soon-to-be single parents. However, I feel that the existing system or process can still be improved and refined.

What I would like to suggest for such situations is for HDB to join hands and work closely with social agencies such as Family Service Centres to conduct a more in-depth analysis and establish a scoring system to measure and assess applicants' difficulties, and whether they are in dire need of shelter. If the results of the analysis show that an applicant’s situation is serious, does not have close family support and also does not have a place to live in and so on, HDB can give "in-principle approval" even though the divorce has not been officially finalised. This will at least provide some form of assurance to the applicants and also can alleviate the pressure that they face. At the same time, this proposed process can reduce the waiting time to get rental flats for these applicants. More importantly, a more in-depth and thorough evaluation process like this can address situations where cases are overlooked or had "fallen through the cracks".

Sir, the next group concerns Singaporeans who have repeatedly been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain a Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) for their life partners, as well as their family members, be it biological children or stepchildren who are foreign nationals. This group often laments that they cannot live together as a family because they are often separated due to their inability to obtain LTVPs for their partners and other family members. There are also reports of couples who are burdened with this challenge and had to divorce due to the intense pressure of having to always live separately because they were unable to obtain LTVPs.

Sir, based on my observations from appeal cases handled during MPS, it appears that LTVP+ applications that are frequently rejected, seem to be from applicants whose Singaporean partners are in financially vulnerable positions or are of advanced age.

Sir, the ICA website states: "ICA takes into account factors such as the individual's family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile and length of residency, to assess the applicant's ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate into our society, as well as his or her commitment to sinking roots."

Sir, I acknowledge the importance and necessity of these factors. However, at the same time, I do wonder how an applicant would be able to fulfil the factors set out by ICA?

This situation is akin to the question "which comes first, the chicken or egg?". How would ICA be able to assess factors like economic contributions, length of residency, the applicant’s ability to contribute to Singapore and integrate in our society, as well as the applicant’s commitment to sink roots, as stated in ICA’s website, when the applicants themselves have little chance to try and fulfil those factors because they are in Singapore for a limited time as short-term visit pass holders?

Sir, similar to my earlier suggestion regarding HDB rental flat applications by wives or husbands undergoing divorce, ICA can also work with Family Service Centres to conduct a more in-depth analysis and establish a scoring system to measure and assess the applicant’s difficulty. By having a more thorough evaluation process, this will help ICA make more accurate and better assessment.

It is my understanding that ICA's current process only accepts appeals via email and e-forms, without any face-to-face sessions. I believe that this approach may be insufficient to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the problems or challenges that are faced by those submitting appeals for rejected applications.

Sir, it is my view that approving LTVP+ for Singaporean couples in financially vulnerable positions would enable their foreign spouses to seek employment. This will potentially increase household income and therefore alleviate any financial burden.

For elderly applicants requiring care, in addition to their partners having the opportunity to work and increase their income, the presence of their partners by their side for an extended period is very much needed, to provide companionship in their twilight years, and for those who have health issues, their partners can be there and provide the best care.

Sir, on the contrary, the implication of not approving LTVP+ applications for both these groups is that their lives will become more challenging and it will further complicate their lives.

I would like to request that ICA exercise greater flexibility to applicants who are facing the two situations that I mentioned.

Sir, in conclusion, I hope that the points I have raised in this speech will be given due attention and implemented by the relevant Government agencies.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Mr Speaker, I was born in the early 1970s, just seven years after our nation's Independence, to a typical Chinese family in Singapore then. I had the joy of growing up in a big extended family. My parents' HDB flat was near my aunt's flat and my grandmother's HDB shophouse, where other uncles and aunties lived in. I had a very happy childhood, playing with my cousins every day after school, as my mom and aunties would help in my grandmother's shop and the children would congregate there after school for homework and play, before returning to our respective homes each night. I grew up thinking that everyone has a family like mine and will desire such a family like mine. For this speech, I checked and noted that the Singapore's TFR was 2.98 when I was born in 1972.

To prepare for this speech, I interviewed four groups of my Jalan Kayu residents and personal friends: first, singles who desire to marry but have not found the right person to marry yet; second, singles who desire to marry and have found the right person but have not married yet; third, young married couples who desire children but have none yet; and fourthly, young married couples who desire children and have them.

Firstly, for my residents who are single and desire to marry but have not found the right person yet, I assure them that they are a majority and need not feel left out. According to the findings of the IPS pre-conference poll shared at the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January 2024, young Singaporeans are less likely to think it is necessary to marry and have children, but most still aspire to do so. The survey was done to get a sense of Singaporeans' attitudes and views towards issues like family, well-being and work. It found that our young Singaporeans are experiencing higher levels of loneliness.

A representative sample of about 2,400 Singapore residents were also polled by IPS between November and December 2023 in three age groups: the youngest, 21- to 34-year-olds; the middle, 35- to 49-year-olds; and the older, 50- to 64-year-olds. In this poll, 70% of the youngest group think it is not necessary to get married, 58% of the middle group and 50% of the older group feel the same. Despite this, 68% of the youngest unmarried respondents, between 21 and 34 years, old foresee themselves getting married. Across all age groups, the top two reasons for not dating or getting married are that they have not met the right person yet and that they prefer to remain single.

In my 2023 Budget and Committee of Supply speeches, I urge the Government to go more upstream and enable more resources for social interactions among our young people. I cited then the Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2021, which found 80% of young single respondents intending to get married, but 50% of them were not dating, with 38% of this group having not dated before. Among those who were not currently dating, 58% of them expressed having a limited social circle and 57% of them not having many opportunities to meet potential partners.

Although there has been a growing acceptance for online dating apps, 80% of the surveyed respondents prefer meeting potential partners through more organic and face-to-face settings. I suggested then that a community approach may be more suitable for the Government to encourage more organic social mingling and urged the Government to be open to investing more to help singles expand their social circle and actively encourage our singles to mingle in social settings.

Armed with the survey data and my experience when I was a civil servant in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Office for Healthcare Transformation in piloting projects to achieve proof of concept and proof of value outcomes in hopes that the Government will consider mainstream funding support, I went about researching what I could pilot for my Jalan Kayu young residents. Around then, I met Friendzone SG at an April 2023 conversation session for young people in Jalan Kayu funded by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information's (MDDI's) Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) department.

Friendzone is a ground-up social enterprise started in 2018 by a young Singaporean who believes in building friendships, teams and communities one conversation at a time. Remembering how my own marriage, which reached its 21st anniversary last Friday, was built on the foundation of friendship, I thought that would be a good starting point and connected Friendzone to my young leaders in Jalan Kayu Youth Network (YN) to explore collaborations.

Knowing that as a social enterprise, Friendzone needed funding for materials and time to carefully plan, outreach and facilitate each conversation session, I raised the matter with our Jalan Kayu Citizen Consultative Committee. I was touched by the swift and unanimous support from long-serving grassroots leaders, many in their 50s and 60s, who readily agreed to utilising our Citizen Consultative Committee funds to pilot two Friendzone sessions. Our resourceful Jalan Kayu YN further stretched the Citizen Consultative Committee budget to do four sessions, from 2023 to 2024, by negotiating for discounted grassroot rates and collaborating with other YNs in Ang Mo Kio GRC, sourcing for National Youth Council's (NYC's) inter-generation engagement grants, People's Association (PA) GRC dialogue grants for youth and co-funding with other YNs to do more sessions for more young people to benefit.

One of the four sessions was on 7 July 2024 at our annual Jalan Kayu Day last year, where Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong was the guest-of-honour and interacted with our young residents at the Friendzone conversations on the topic of friendship and relationships. My hope is that the Government can consider one stream of funding support for every constituency to be able to conduct such sessions, without each MP, like me, having to worry about raising funds to start and sustain the platform. Our YNs can also focus on organising such collaborations and outreach rather than navigating different Government grants to carry out what they find useful.

With a good start since 2023, I will further deepen the support for Jalan Kayu young people by piloting, in the next few months, a next step Y-Connect programme, with small donations raised from donors who share my belief. JK Y-Connect will facilitate learning on topics, such as dating etiquettes, healthy dating mindset and behaviours, positive ways to find the "right partner" through self-discovery and discovery of potential partners in a fun, unintimidating and authentic way. I hope that Jalan Kayu young residents can have Friendzone-type of platforms to just make friends over conversations and topics of their interest, as well as the upcoming Y-Connect for those who would like to explore more dating.

Next, for my residents who are single, desire to marry and have found the right person but have not yet married. The IPS pre-conference poll in January 2024, which I cited earlier, also identified cost of living as the top of the list of social issues that young Singaporeans are most concerned about. Several of my young residents who fall into this group shared with me that they are still saving up for their dream wedding as hotel banquet costs have risen substantially post-COVID-19 pandemic and partially due to global geopolitical and economic factors, which are beyond their controls and they feel somewhat helpless about.

When I visited Seoul in 2013 on a study trip while I was a public servant in the National Council of Social Service, I was impressed by a briefing from the equivalent of our MSF on an idea initiated by their Mayor Oh Se-Hoon, who was first elected in 2006 and is the incumbent Seoul Mayor today. The initiative was to open a new, state-of-the-art architecture designed and built city hall, with a large basement comprising a citizen's plaza, a gallery, an exhibition hall and an event hall for booking and use by Seoul citizens for diverse purposes.

To commemorate the opening of this new city hall in a special way then, the city of Seoul's government hosted a "First New City Hall Wedding" call. The Seoul government accepted applications from Seoul citizens to become the first couple to wed at the event hall. They publicised that the new event hall was about 700 square metres in size, could accommodate about 150 guests at a booking fee then of just about 100,000 won to 200,000 won, which is about $95 to $190.

The bride and groom would be required to receive premarital education before the wedding. The "First New City Hall Wedding" call also offered several talented local professionals who donated their services, including a master of ceremony, congratulatory singers, photographers and so on. The couple could also receive assistance from a socially responsible wedding company consigned by the government agency. However, it is up to the couple to use the wedding company at their own cost.

After this unusual call to commemorate the opening of the new city hall, which saw overwhelming applications, the Seoul government continued to make the event hall available for wedding ceremonies weekly for Seoul citizens. For those curious, I assure you that the event hall was nothing short of a dream wedding venue that are alike those seen in many beautiful K-drama weddings, when I visited in 2013. I hope for a chance to visit again when I travel to Seoul.

Can our Government consider piloting a similar initiative, with funding support to iconic, historical and beautiful public institutions like the National Gallery or the Old Parliament House, just to name a few, to host a similar programme for our young people desiring to get married? I am sure that cost-conscious young Singaporeans with a hope for a dream wedding, alike any young couples around the world, will appreciate a similar programme to make their wedding plans less of a financial burden, but more of a real bliss.

Moving on to the group of young married couples who desire children but have not had any yet. The representative 2023 poll by IPS, which I mentioned earlier, also saw 67% of the youngest respondents, between 21 and 34, without children hoping to have kids. A researcher in that poll said that the young worry about the cost of housing. High cost and stress emerged as the top reasons for not wanting to have children across all age groups.

I can understand these concerns. While the number of young married couples still waiting for a successful ballot for a new, affordable BTO flat, whom I see at my weekly MPS has eased from the high number during and right after the COVID-19 pandemic crunch, I empathise with these young couples who are still disappointed to get no queue number or a queue number far exceeding the available units in each BTO or Sales of Balance flats application exercise.

While I fully understand the reasons and principles of fairness upheld by the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the HDB for the current ballot system, I wonder if MND can consider piloting a hybrid system of queue plus ballot for first-timer couples who have failed after one to two tries. The hybrid system can help not to delay their obtaining of a new flat much longer, in both non-mature and mature estates. For mature estates, there can be additional criteria, like proximity to parents or parent-in-laws who have been living in the mature estate for a considerable number of years and the young couples are looking to them for childcare support or need to care for their ageing parents.

Lastly, I had the joy of interviewing two couples in their mid-30s to early-40s, with four children each. Each of these couples are also working individuals and with senior parents in their 60s and 70s to care for. I shared with them that they are defying the odds of shrinking family sizes and falling TFR, experienced not just in Singapore but in all major highly-developed urban cities and countries. I asked them what their "secret sauces" are.

A common theme that emerged from these couples is a strong marriage bond and personal sacrifices as husbands and wives for each other over the years of courtship, marriage and parenthood. Each one stepping up and stepping down in career pursuits and other life aspirations over the course of achieving a common goal of building a big, happy family filled with laughers and, many times, cries of children.

It reminds me of a Bible verse, Ecclesiastes 4:9-12: "Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift the other. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm." Even when I started drafting this speech on the second day of Chinese New Year, a young friend happily announced to me the arrival of his third child, a beautiful daughter named Caroline, which filled me with such joy and inspirations to complete this speech while shuttling from house visits for Chinese New Year and events with family and residents.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please. 俗话说得好，有国才有家，有家才有我. Back in English, the phrase means a home thrives on the foundation of a good country, and one thrives on the foundation of a good home. While Singapore's TFR has fallen to another record low of 0.97 in 2023, 51 years after I was born, the residents and friends whom I have interviewed for this speech, especially the last group, made me realised that we do not have lost generations who do not want marriage or parenthood. We just have many good policies and initiatives still to be implemented and good stories still to be told.

It gives me hope for this homeland, this nation, this Singapore, that we all love and the people in this land who are the most precious, both when we first achieved Independence in 1965, as it is today in 2025, as we celebrate SG60 as one nation and one people. As we celebrate SG60 with pride and new hopes, surely, the best is yet to come with daughters and sons of a better age in writing new history and uplifting records, including our TFR, for Singapore. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Motion. I have recently been blessed with the chance to become a mother and the arrival of our little boy has brought new perspectives as well as solidified previous beliefs. One such belief is from the old phrase, "It takes a village to raise a child."

I would like to take a moment to express my deep respect and appreciation for all parents and caregivers who raise children; from infant carers and early childhood educators who look after children when mummies and daddies go to work; foreign domestic workers who share the load of keeping a home neat and tidy; grandparents who go through a sequel of raising the grandchildren later in life; friends who happily babysit our children for a few hours; well-wishers who offer encouraging words; doctors and nurses who bring them into this world and care for them when they are sick, it does indeed take a kampung and I am very grateful for mine.

Sir, there are families with children, families without, families who do not want any, and families who do. It is not our place to impose our personal preferences on others, but from a statistical perspective, encouraging more families to have children is indeed critical to Singapore's future.

Our TFR fell below one for the first time in 2023. This is not just a concern economically in our ageing society, due to a shrinking local workforce which demands supplementary talent as we strive to remain competitive in a turbulent world, but also socially, as demographic changes affect the composition and fabric of our society. It also results in more Singaporeans being sandwiched, with the old age support ratio projected to decrease to 2.7 in 2030. The caregiving burden will grow, and in family units where there are single children, this typically falls upon them.

However, this pressing need at the country level may not find resonance at a personal level with Singaporeans for many reasons. Coming out of the Chinese New Year period, I am sure many around my age are asked some permutation of the famous trinity of questions. One, when are you getting married? Two, when are you having a baby? And the third, no matter how recently you have given birth, when are you having a second one?

I answered the first question, "When are you getting married?", after I turned 28, just 1.5 years shy of the median age of first marriages in Singapore for brides in 2023. For grooms, this is 31, also in line with the global trend of later marriages. But peak fertility age is in the earlier part of our 20s. For those who are graduating from Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs), 20s is often a time of "chiong-ing", pursuing career, supporting older parents, saving up for that BTO. For many, it is also the first time out of formal education, where the world seems less linear, opportunities abound and experiences like travel open up more. So, for many youths today, the picture of marriage and family where men go out to work and women stay at home to raise children is outdated and less enticing.

According to a 2020 Singapore Population Census, the percentage of couples with both parents working is 52.5%. In particular, as women today see unprecedented levels of self-autonomy and financial independence, they desire a shared partnership instead of reinforced gender roles. However, a study which polled more than 22,000 people in eight countries, found that Singaporeans do not place as much emphasis on egalitarian gender relationships in a marriage as people in other countries, such as Spain or Norway.

One of the principal investigators in Singapore, Prof Yong, said that "Singaporeans seem to think that women who work and do most of the domestic duties at home are not any worse off than if both husband and wife share the domestic duties equally when they are both in the workforce". Many wives tell me they disagree.

Despite much progress over the years, women still find themselves carrying an unequal mental load and face bias in workplace and society, for example, in terms of sexist comments and being the default parent. And so, a rising number of women choose to stay single, prioritising freedom and the ability to invest in their career, hobby and other pursuits.

While moves have been made in recent time to nudge equality in family life, for example, through Shared Parental Leave, ultimately, it will take time for mindsets to shift. Society must also change its views on men who choose to stay home at work or work more flexible roles, appreciate those who are active fathers alongside their partners and give them space to participate meaningfully in the raising of children. We are all responsible for the gender stories that we live and tell, and these affect our social identities, from how we advertise to the way we value care work, how we interact with each other at home in terms of chores, careless stereotypes and how we speak to girls and boys from a young age. Society must do better to challenge these stereotypes.

Which leads me to the second question, "When are you having a baby?" At our wedding, my husband shared that how he knew we were right for each other was that it was the first time he could see himself starting a family. I, too, could envision him, not just as a good husband, but as a great daddy. Intentional and thoughtful about the kind of values we would hope to impart to our kids, but also aware of just how much it takes to try and raise them accordingly. But for six years, as much as we wanted, we could not answer the second question, for a variety of personal reasons. Every year which passed would see more questions, reinforced this time with "don't wait so long" and "you're not getting any younger, you know". Auntie, trust me, I knew. As I neared 35, the reminder that my biological clock was ticking loomed over me, as did reminders that I was born with a fixed number of eggs, which were depleting, both in quality and quantity, as the months went by.

While some may choose to stay single or childfree, not enough is said for those who long for children of their own but are unable to become a parent. This could be due to health reasons, whether physical or mental, anxieties or traumas from their own childhood, a lack of information or a lack of financial resources to seek help early. Defined by World Health Organization as a couple's inability to conceive after one year, infertility currently affects about 15% of couples in Singapore. While questions often focus on the woman, causes of infertility are actually relatively split evenly between male and female factors.

Sir, it starts with awareness. I would like to ask what fertility health education programmes are available, whether in schools at the appropriate age or in the community, for youths to have better awareness of fertility health. It is one thing to encourage people to have children, but even more important for people to be empowered with information to make their own informed decisions. These topics can also be included as part of marriage preparation programmes, such that young couples can discuss things like fertility screening, having children and financial considerations early. Female and male infertility can be a sensitive issue and it would be helpful for couples to have the option of facilitated discussions by experts.

Fertility treatments can also be taxing both emotionally and financially. While elective egg freezing is not a guarantee for babies later in life. I am glad that we have moved on permitting this as of 2023, including raising the age limit from 35 to 37, so as to cater for women to have more options. Various hospital websites state that the cost can range from $7,000 to $15,000, amounts that would make most of us think carefully before pursuing this. Beyond that, there is also the time off from work required, the check-up, the injections, the careful counting, the restrictions on diet and lifestyle. My favourite is the advice "try not to stress" in an already very stressful situation. To quote a Reddit user, egg freezing is an amazing innovation, but it is so far from cost free.

I would like to ask if the Government can consider supporting fertility screening and elective egg freezing through permitting MediSave withdrawal subsidies or co-funding, subject to the assisted reproductive treatment limit of $15,000 in a lifetime. A Straits Time article published that KK Women's and Children's Hospital has recorded more than 40% increase in IVF cases between 2014 and 2023, and that hospitals are ramping up capacity to support assisted reproductive treatments.

I am glad that we are doing more to help Singaporeans fulfil their dreams of having children for those who choose to do so and hope that more will come forward to support each other on this journey. To this end, I am grateful for platforms such as Fertility SG, a non-profit started by IVF warriors, which provides a safe space for men and women who wish to find out more about fertility health and assisted reproduction. It is important that this information and support is available to people from all walks of life.

Sir, while the process of trying to conceive itself can often feel lonely and helpless, many new moms and dads after conceiving also struggle with the transition to parenthood. Modern parenting can be overwhelming with society's expectations and our own, from Instagram posts on expensive gender reveal parties, pregnancy and baby photo shoots, breastfeeding, milk supply woes, the never-ending list of things to purchase for our little ones, to advice from well-meaning strangers. The list goes on.

We have read cases of postpartum depression affecting marriages and cases which have also ended in the tragic loss of life. It could be helpful if there was an automated process where parents receive an email or SMS after registering their child's birth or before leaving the hospital, where parents could consider and consent to have their contact information shared so as to join community circles near their homes, perhaps at the nearest community club or other organisations. Hospitals can also provide bite size information to spot signs of postnatal depression via text if parents consent; and this can also be provided upon discharge after delivery.

Sir, for the third and final question, "When are you having a second one?" I would like to talk about the space to raise families. Over the last few years, I have come across residents who have tried very hard to start their own journey into familyhood, or who wish to grow their families but housing remains a challenge. The recent October 2024 sales exercise revealed that the median application rate for first-time families was 2.6, with the Central Trio at Ang Mo Kio being 4.1.

For many, the desire to have a home starts from having a house. Even though the Government has introduced a slew of measures, such as first-timer priority and the family and parenthood priority scheme, for those who live in estates such as Ang Mo Kio, new sales launches are few and far between due to the lack of land parcels to build on. Young residents who have lived here all their life often lament the inability to secure housing near their parents who they wish to stay near to for caregiving purposes. For longevity, couples also tend to prefer at least a 4-room flat to cater for a bedroom for themselves, a combination of one or two children, a caregiver, such as a helper or their parents, and living space to cater to work-from-home arrangements.

While resale flats are an option, a quick search on the HDB website of resale flat prices in the last six months in Ang Mo Kio for 4-room flats range from $455,000 to above $1 million. I recognise that the Government has taken steps to cool the market and that this is, ultimately, a case of "willing buyer, willing seller", but this can be very daunting for young couples. I would like to ask whether median income of Singaporeans has kept pace with the average cost of resale flats and if the Government can explore different ways of supporting young couples who wish to live near their parents beyond the proximity grant.

Also, given that grandparents often play an important caregiving role in raising children, could the Government also consider building more 3Gen units in such towns so that families have the option of staying together under one roof? It would also be helpful if elderly who do not have much savings are able to continue receiving certain subsidies or reliefs, which they would have otherwise enjoyed if they are still staying in their own flats, should they choose to move into these 3Gen units with their children.

Finally, on the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme. I am grateful for this option, which has grown in popularity in recent years and been a lifeline for families, married couples, applicants under the fiancé-fiancée scheme and divorced or widowed parents with children, the latter being a family unit, often going through much pain and changes. I also note that the Government has ramped up supply dramatically, with the intention to double the amount of available units to 4,000 this year. While this also means that redevelopment into potential new BTO housing is halted, for example, in the case of Tanglin Halt, I know that many are relieved that they are able to secure this interim housing while awaiting their keys.

Under this scheme, the Government considers families with greater needs first, couples with at least one child, including expectant parents, get priority in the allocation of flats. While many understand this, a young couple shared with me their disappointment in failing to secure a unit despite multiple applications. Although they are married, they continue to live separately with their respective parents due to space constraints and the expensive private rental market. This too, can be a barrier to starting a family.

Sir, does the Government expect the increased flat supply to be able to meet needs based on the existing application pool? Could the Government also share how the take up rate of the Open Market vouchers has been since its launch in July 2024 and what is the proportion of the average 4-room and 3-room flat unit rental cost that is subsidised by the Open Market vouchers?

Sir, watching our son's little fingers curled around mine fill my heart with a love like I have never known before. Success for me has been redefined somewhat and can be as simple as having 10 minutes in between work to hold him and feed him, or watching him interact with his daddy and his grandparents. As we build a "Singapore Made for Families", I am grateful that we already have several of the key building blocks in place: safe streets, well planned towns, with homes and with childcare options, decisive shifts on paid parental leave, good education system and more. We must continue to support families of all shapes and sizes, to assure Singaporeans that the Government and society at large will walk alongside them in this journey.

To tie my speech back to Chinese New Year, amidst the well wishes of 早生贵子, or may you be blessed with a child soon, I wish you strength, patient and hope your hearts find peace.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion as amended by my colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai. PSP absolutely agrees that a whole-of-society approach is needed to build a Singapore that is made for families. However, PSP believes that without new policy ideas or major policy shifts, we will not be able to adequately support the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, or reverse or stabilise the decline in TFR that we have seen over the last few decades.

That is why we have raised an amendment to the Motion today to call for a re-imagination of the current policies which, in our view, have not been enough.

For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. But for those who wish to have children, there are things the Government can do to lower the barriers and reduce the obstacles in their way.

One key concern of potential parents is the cost of raising children. If our young people are struggling with the cost of living, it will dissuade them from having children which will further add to their financial burden.

As the cost of living issue has been raised in this House many times before, I will today simply repeat the major calls PSP has made previously to reduce cost of living: one, reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) back to 7% and exempt basic necessities; two, pricing HDB flats without land cost, unless sold in resale market; three, manage property prices and rents, and in particular, reduce rents at hawker centres; and four, MediShield Life premiums to be paid by the Government.

Another area of concern is jobs. Young people are naturally concerned about whether having children would affect their jobs and career progression. My colleague, Mr Leong Mun Wai, has already spoken about job-sharing. I will speak on improving the attitude of employers towards their employees having children.

For employers, their manpower situation is adversely impacted when employees take maternity or paternity leave. There is, therefore, a potential conflict in the interest of society and the interest of employers. We need to implement measures to instead align the interest of employers to the interest of society. PSP urges the Government to introduce incentives for employers with family-friendly policies and environment.

While we exercise control over our dependence on foreign manpower at the national level, we can tilt the balance towards family-friendly employers, by giving them relatively higher access to foreign manpower. For example, one way is to give additional quota or COMPASS points.

To illustrate, we can reduce the quota for S Pass from 10% to, say, 9% for all employers and give additional quotas to employers with employees going on parental leave. If the total parental leave taken by the employees is 30 weeks, then the employer can be entitled to the additional quota for 60 weeks, to more than compensate them for the loss in manpower.

Employers may be incentivised to introduce policies and environment for better work life balance so that their employees have more time and energy to socialise, meet their better halves, form families and carry out parental duties. For Singaporeans to be more receptive to foreigners, Singaporeans must be able to see that the participation of foreigners in our economy improves their quality of life.

I will move on next to housing. PSP has proposed the Affordable Homes Scheme to deal with the high cost of housing, but another key impediment to raising our TFR is the long waiting time for a HDB flat, as has also been pointed out by the hon Member, Ms Nadia Samdin, just now. The waiting time under the BTO system plus the requirement to find a partner first before you can apply, can greatly delay Singaporeans' family formation.

Whilst the Government has started building flats with Shorter Waiting Time (SWT), the number of such flats at 2,000 to 4,000 units per year is way too low. The number of citizen marriages in 2023 is over 24,000. We urge the Government to more aggressively increase the supply of the SWT flats.

With young people prioritising career development and the long waiting time for housing, Singaporeans are getting married later and having children later. These delays can result in fertility issues, compounding the problem.

The struggle with infertility is a personal one for me. I tried to conceive naturally for 10 years after getting married to no avail. I sought medical treatment after that, but my body reacted badly to the medications. Thus, my husband and I decided to turn to adoption. It seems like yesterday when we brought our two sons home as infants, but they are already 18 and 17 now.

I therefore empathise deeply with couples who are struggling with infertility and going through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatments like IVF. Such treatments are often especially taxing for women, who may have to endure multiple rounds of medications, self-administered injections and hospital visits. PSP believes that as a society, we can do more to support couples going through ART.

Based on the latest available data, about 10,500 cycles of ART treatments were carried out in Singapore in 2022. This has increased 81% since 2013.

Currently, the Government provides up to 75% in co-funding for couples going through ART at public hospitals, who are under age 40 and have been assessed by a doctor to have met the clinical requirements for ART. The Government co-funds a maximum of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles. The last two co-funded cycles can be completed after age 40, as long as ART or intrauterine insemination procedures have been attempted before age 40.

Sir, before I proceed, I would like to share with the House the experience of Israel. Israel is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country that is still reproducing above the replacement rate. An OECD report in 2024 found that it has a TFR of 2.9, with Mexico and France in second place at 1.

8. Part of this is due to religious reasons as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have many children. But even secular women in Israel have a TFR of 2.0.

It is believed that part of the reason behind this is strong state support for assisted reproduction. Israel has the world's highest per capita rate of IVF procedures and fertility clinics. This is because the Israeli government provides full public funding for an unlimited number of IVF cycles for any Israeli woman under age 45 until she has two children with her current male partner. It is estimated that at least 2% of the Israeli health budget goes towards funding IVF treatments.

This is in stark contrast to our funding policies, which only provides up to 75% co-funding, with stricter age limits and co-funding limits based on the citizenship status of couples and the number of ART cycles.

Currently, only couples where both spouses are Singapore Citizens are eligible to receive the full 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures. The Government will only co-fund 55% if one spouse is a PR and 35% if one spouse is a foreigner.

Trans-national marriages now make up 36% of citizen marriages, as of 2023. PSP believes we can do more to support trans-national couples to start their fertility journey, especially since any child born out of such marriages will be a Singapore Citizen by birth. Thus, PSP proposes that all couples can receive up to 75% co-funding for assisted conception procedures, as long as one spouse is a Singapore Citizen.

Next, PSP believes that we can increase the number of ART cycles eligible for co-funding. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question by Mr Louis Ng in January 2024, Minister Ong Ye Kung, said that the current co-funding limit of three fresh and three frozen ART cycles strikes a balance between providing public-funded financial support to couples aspiring to be parents and ensuring the prudent use of public funds by taking into account clinical efficacy.

But given that our fertility rates are currently extremely low, we should rethink our approach towards rationing ART cycles and move closer to an Israeli approach to funding. Even if the Government provided the maximum $7,700 funding for all 10,500 ART cycles carried out in Singapore in 2022, the total cost to the Government would be less than $81 million. The Israeli experience suggests that this would be a worthwhile investment.

PSP believes that we should co-fund unlimited ART cycles for women under the age of 40, until they have two children who are Singapore Citizens. For women from age 40 to 45, we should co-fund three fresh and three frozen ART cycles.

Sir, the PAP Government has always prided itself on fiscal prudence. This has extended to the Government's financial support for couples facing fertility issues. If we really hope to stop our TFR from declining, or reverse the decline, we should re-think the balance between fiscal prudence and supporting couples with fertility issues.

Finally, I would like to touch on egg freezing. At the Committee of Supply last year, I called on the Government to consider some level of subsidies in public hospitals and allow the use of MediSave for egg freezing. Such financial support is already being extended in countries overseas. Conditions on subsidies can be imposed to prevent abuse. Unutilised frozen eggs can be donated to other couples or used for other purposes like research or education.

In a Parliamentary Question reply yesterday, Minister Ong Ye Kung said that our financing policies for egg freezing are designed on clinical grounds and from a population policy perspective, the Government does not want to inadvertently encourage young couples to delay their plans.

Sir, there are many factors involved in having children, including whether a suitable partner is found. Our young people should be given the freedom to decide on their life choices, including marriage and parenthood, based on their own personal circumstances, not pushed into it before they are ready. What we can do, is to provide an environment that can help them be ready earlier and support them in their efforts to become parents.

I urge the Government to reconsider our proposals. Women who choose to go through the pain and discomfort of egg freezing demonstrate strong parenthood aspirations. We should do more to support them, even if it means doing something unprecedented with regard to our health policy. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP believes that in the face of our country's continuous declining TFR over many years, it is not enough to merely continue reviewing and updating our policies to support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations.

We need to reimagine these policies to adequately support Singaporeans in building families and to reverse or stabilise the decades long trend of declining TFR. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment to the Motion today.

For those who do not wish to have children, we should respect their personal choice. However, for those who wish to have children, the Government can take more measures to pave the way for them.

Today, Mr Leong Mun Wai and I reiterated PSP's proposals to reduce the cost of living and housing cost. We also proposed that the Government should increase efforts to encourage employers to support employees with FWAs, allow family-friendly employers to receive relatively higher foreign worker quotas, provide subsidies for full-time parents or grandparents caring for young children, increase subsidies for ART treatment and better support women who choose to freeze their eggs.

We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals and reimagine current policies to address the issue of continuously declining birth rate.

(In English): We hope the Government will seriously consider our proposals to lower cost of living, provide employer incentives, more SWT flats and greater financial support for fertility treatments and egg freezing, to support Singaporeans in their parenthood aspirations. I hope all Members will support the amended Motion.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore's fertility rate has been low for a long time, which is a major problem that bothers us. Although the Government has taken many measures, there are still few results. However, we should not be discouraged. Instead, we should be determined and have the courage to continue to introduce more favourable measures to increase the fertility rate and change the declining trend in the birth rate.

The survey by our National Population and Talent Division shows that the main reason for married people not having children is the economic burden, which is 64% of the respondents. But the main concern of singles is that the cost of raising children is too high, which is 89%. Clearly, economic factors are still the main reason affecting fertility. Therefore, I suggest providing all-round economic support at all stages of a child's development.

We can increase the parenthood subsidies, increase the quantum of Baby Bonus and expand it to more families, and increase childcare subsidies.

The cost of commercial childcare centres is very high and the Government should increase funding for them, improving their quality and reduce the cost of childcare for parents.

Mencius once said, "For the order and stability of a country, it is necessary for its people to have a property of their own." We also pursue our home ownership policy in Singapore. I think the Government should create a housing policy that is more friendly to young couples. We know that birds will build their nests before they lay eggs. Young couples who are about to become parents would always want to buy a house for their new family before considering having children. It can be said that buying a house is a must for young couples! We must take care of the housing needs of these young couples, give them higher priority in the queue, increase their housing subsidies, lower the threshold for home ownership and shorten the waiting time. We can also increase the housing subsidies for young couples under a certain age, in order to encourage them to get married early.

We can shorten the waiting time for home buyers and start building HDB flats in advance, based on the number of first-time applicants and the average number of marriages yearly in recent years, therefore reducing the waiting time to about 18 months.

While waiting for a BTO flat, we can provide short-term subsidised rental flats for couples. We can also give priority to families with more children to move to larger HDB flats first, exempt them from the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) requirement and increase the number of subsidies.

(In English): Will HDB consider allowing couples to upgrade and exchange to bigger flats with more rooms when they have at least three babies, without requiring them to fulfil the MOP, and only need to top up the difference between their original purchase price and the bigger BTO flat upon exchange with HDB? The bigger flat also takes into consideration the family's need to accommodate a helper or grandparents to take care of the young ones.

Next, the size of our flats may be a contributing factor to low fertility. If we build more smaller flats based on the norm of smaller households, it may become an entrenched, self-fulfilling trend, where new households have fewer children to fit comfortably into the available flat sizes. Would the Government consider increasing the sizes of flats and the number of bigger flats with six rooms or more, and in tandem, increase the quantum of HDB subsidies with every child born, up to four children, specifically for the family with more than two children? These subsides should be claimable with the birth of each qualified child.

We must continue to expedite the building of HDB flats and the collection of keys. We should give allocation priority to first-timer couples, followed by families based on the number of children under the age of 18 in the household.

Declining fertility has been a challenging issue in many developed countries, even among those with generous Government support schemes, such as Sweden and Norway. Nonetheless, we must persist with initiatives to create and maintain a conducive environment to encourage Singaporeans to have and raise children.

I commend and endorse our Government's continuous efforts over the last few decades to build a "Singapore Made for Families". It is heartening to note that from April, the Government will pay for four weeks of mandatory paternity leave and an additional six weeks of mandatory Shared Parental Leave, with the latter increasing to 10 weeks from April next year. The assistance will ease the transition for the arrival of a new baby and nudge some parents to consider having more.

When the Prime Minister suggested more maternal and paternal leave, this was welcomed by couples but some also expressed concerns over the potential trade-offs, such as the loss of opportunities due to competition in jobs. Some in the corporates have also expressed concerns over the sharing of heavier loads among colleagues that may not be rewarded. On a positive note, it may also encourage employers to relook at the need to retain senior staff to give support to their colleagues with young family. This could potentially be a win-win situation for the job market and employment.

We need to factor in the growing trend of more singles across all age groups, with the most significant increase amongst those age 25 to 34. For many of them, marriage is no longer as much of a priority, but they are open to marriage if they meet suitable partners, as was mentioned by some of the Members here. We are also operating in an environment of greater caution due to the worrying number of scams, including on dating apps. Would the Government consider running a social networking agency and app, where participants and organised activities are screened and vetted? This framework could provide a safe and trusted space for busy singles to network and meet potential partners beyond their usual work and social circles.

For younger couples under the age of 30, they have less time to accumulate savings and this concern may lead them to postpone having children. I urge the Government to consider providing more subsidies for this group for pre-natal care and deliveries at our public hospitals. The Government may consider building confinement care facilities to support both parents and baby at subsidised and affordable rates in new towns and estates. Would the Ministry of Education (MOE) provide more places and lower fees in Government-supported preschools?

Finally, would the Government consider following Sweden's example, where grandparents are now eligible for government subsidies to babysit their grandchildren? More senior citizens today continue to work longer, some even past their retirement age. It may be quite a financial loss to them to babysit their grandchildren. The government subsidies may be helpful to certain families which prefer their grandparents to look after their grandchildren. I support the Motion.

Ms Jean See.

"Four seasons fill the measure of the year; there are four seasons in the mind of man." This excerpt from the poem "Sonnet. The Human Seasons" by 19th century English poet John Keats, likens human life to the passage of the four seasons. As we transition from the spring of childhood into the summer of youth and graduate into the autumn of middle age and the winter of old age, many of us count on our families to be there for us.

Indeed, over 90% of Singaporeans polled by the IPS for its global World Values Survey 2020, valued family as "very important", compared to less than 40% for other facets of life such as work, friends and leisure time.

While family mattered most to Singaporeans, the same IPS study shared that work was a higher priority for Singaporeans aged between 36 and 50 than other age groups, likely because this group of Singaporeans tend to be breadwinners who feel responsible for their family’s finances, care and well-being.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion put forth by Members Hany Soh and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim because the Motion urges a rational yet intuitive approach to refreshing and renewing Singapore's social compact, so that Singaporeans can be supported and strengthened to cherish and value their families, whether they be families with young children or three-generation households or singles living with ageing parents, through the uncertainty, adversity and challenge of the different phases we pass through in a lifetime.

The Motion calls for a Singapore social compact that can help these Singaporean breadwinners to balance the economics and emotions of working and caregiving, because doing so is integral to a "Singapore Made for Families". Then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also gave similar assurances when he said at the launch of the Forward Singapore exercise in June 2022, that "Singaporeans and Singaporean workers will always be at the centre of everything we do."

Such assurance matters because year 2025 is unfolding in a world that is increasingly driven by technology and often times delicate, uncontrollable, unpredictable and impossible to comprehend. Allow me to share about three groups of Singaporean breadwinners who must show courage as they brave a new wave of technological disruption that could upend livelihoods and intensify the challenge in raising their families. What could be strengthened in our social compact so that these Singaporean workers can rise above new areas of adversity, challenge and uncertainty and be a pillar of strength and support for their families?

First, platform workers. During the debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, I pointed out that some became platform workers because platform work allowed them to earn a living despite their limitations. For instance, some platform delivery members from the National Trade Unions Congress' (NTUC's) National Delivery Champions Association are single parents and the main caregivers to their young school-going children. Because these platform delivery workers are careful to only accept platform jobs that they can fulfil when their children are at school, they worry that they could be deprioritised in job allocation and/or fares by biases learnt or internalised by platform algorithms. Such action by the platform algorithms would hurt such platform workers' livelihoods and compel these workers to unfairly choose between work and caregiving.

Given the rise in algorithmic management of workers, it is timely for a refreshed social compact to include safeguards that protect workers against exploitative algorithmic management practices that could arise when the business environment becomes complex and uncertain.

I would thus like to urge the Government to consider requiring companies that apply artificial intelligence (AI) to decisions affecting workers, such as ride hailing and delivery platform operators, to provide transparent disclosure of the safeguards, whistle-blowing avenues and recourse in place to uphold non-discriminatory and responsible use of AI for decision-making that impacts workers. I would also like to continue urging the Government to consider requiring these AI-centric companies to adopt the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) AI Verify governance framework that would guide companies to be transparent about their AI and build trust. Such moves would give greater assurance to breadwinners with precarious work, such as platform workers.

Second, creative freelancers. Nearly 70% of 4,000 global marketing and creative leaders, surveyed by Canva, a multinational graphic design platform, expressed concern over potential job loss across industries due to Generative AI (GenAI). GenAI and globalisation are reshaping the nature of creative work in Singapore. NTUC's Visual, Audio and Creative Content Professionals Association that represents freelance creative professionals, observed that companies are becoming more cost-conscious and have increasingly delegated tedious time-consuming tasks, such as localising and personalising creative concepts for marketing campaigns to AI.

To further save costs, these companies are also offshoring entry-level creative work activities to lower-cost countries. These forces have brought upheaval to the creative work value chain in Singapore and has affected a big swathe of local creative freelancers, some of whom had experienced up to a 30% drop in their income from creative work.

Given the increase in such external pressures on Singaporean freelance creative professionals, it is timely for a refreshed social compact to provide safe spaces for Singaporean creative professionals to unlearn and re-learn, so as level up their thinking and technology-adoption in tandem with the opening of new avenues to monetise creative talent.

I would thus like to urge the Government to take the lead in supporting the capability development of our local freelance creative professionals and the development of Singapore's creative industry, by requiring principal creative agencies engaged by Government Ministries or agencies for creative projects to prioritise engaging Singaporean creative freelancers or enterprises for specialised expertise needed.

This is similar in concept to how the UK's government procurement framework requires government departments to consider social value in awarding contracts. For instance, departments are guided to consider social value outcomes that have lasting impact to individuals, communities and the environment, such as "tackling economic inequality, including creating new businesses, jobs and skills" as well as "driving equal opportunity".

Likewise, having the Government take the lead in contracting and subcontracting Singaporean creatives for Government-commissioned projects would provide the safe space for these creative freelancers to apply new knowledge and technology that expand creative frontiers, capture new value and elevate the standing of Singaporean creatives.

Such move would pave the way for local creative freelancers to translate upskilling efforts into a differentiated creative portfolio. A differentiated creative portfolio matters because it can be a springboard for local freelance creatives to pitch beyond Singapore for higher value creative work and to command a premium for their expertise – both aspects critical to supporting Singaporean creative freelancers as breadwinners and pillars for their families.

Last, low-wage workers that technology could substitute. In July 2023, the McKinsey Global Institute published a report which found that many low-wage jobs in the food industry and in customer service in the US could be eliminated by GenAI by 2030. For instance, devices like smart kiosks have allowed eateries to operate a single site with fewer employees. The same study suggests that workers in lower-wage jobs are up to 14 times more likely to need to change occupations than those in highest-wage positions and most will need additional skills to do so successfully.

In Singapore, the 2023 edition of the Government's Jobs Transformation Map for food services sector highlighted the urgency to redesign food services jobs to make the sector attractive to Singaporeans. In response to lean staffing and technology advancements, redesigned food services jobs – whether service crew, kitchen assistant or outlet manager – would likely see a shift towards an increase in the scope and responsibilities of roles.

Given the faster pace of change and wider scale of technology adoption, a refreshed social compact must include measures to help low-wage Singaporean workers, who may be less literate in English language and digital skills, deal with the stresses and expectations arising from the increased scope and responsibilities of their job roles.

I would thus like to urge the Government and industry stakeholders to prioritise connecting low-wage workers with training that can help these vulnerable workers to pivot to the refreshed job scopes or to new career paths if their jobs will likely be replaced by automation. I would also like to urge employers to take a broader and longer-term view when making business plans; planning for the future must go beyond investing in automation and ought to extend into capability building and increasing accessibility to work to help these workers to balance work/life needs.

For instance, low-wage workers could be more willing to pivot if their employer had catered adequate training and the time to build these workers' competence in interacting with emerging technologies and changing customer demands. These workers could also be more prepared to stay on in the job if their employers offered flexi-work arrangements that could allow these workers to manage work around their needs at different life situations.