Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment No 2) Bill

Mdm Speaker, it seemed not so long ago that quite a few Members of Parliament and I had appealed for more support for fathers to be active in the child-raising process and where this show of support was manifested in the form of one week's legislated paid paternity leave in 2013. In fact, I recall speaking for this in Parliament for six consecutive years.

I am thus delighted that the Government has now decided to mandate the second week of Government-paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) to be effective from January next year. It is a double celebration for me, both as a Board Member of the Centre for Fathering and as the Government Parliamentary Committee chair for MSF.

Many new parents I know welcome the slew of measures as lending weight to nurture a generation of caring fathers and purging the traditional mindset of the woman as de-facto caregiver for newborns.

It is, indeed, good news that shared parental leave has increased from one to four weeks. However, it is still up to the mother whether to decide to share her maternity leave with the father. Placing the decision in the mother's hands seems like a mixed signal from the Government. When sharing leave is still left to parents to decide, I am not sure if the take-up rate by fathers will be as rapid as we would like. As is – I asked a Parliamentary Question on this a few months ago – I note that the number of paternity leave fully taken up by eligible fathers has not been as high as one would expect.

Perhaps, the next step is to consider independent leave for each parent.

I also welcome the amendments to extend maternity leave benefits to unwed mothers and unwed persons who wish to adopt. This is a very significant move and much welcomed by all single mothers. Indeed, it took some time coming but I am glad that through the persistent efforts of many Members of Parliament, including those who have retired, the Government has listened and answered our call.

Still, I am wondering if more can be done for this group of single unwed mothers with plans to improve other aspects of unwed mothers' lives, like entitling them to receive the $8,000 Baby Bonus Cash Gift, and allowing them to rent or, even better, own a roof over their heads from HDB. Is MSF supportive of improving housing options to this group, although I know this comes under MND's purview?

Imagine the stress of a pregnant, unwed mother having to deal with basic housing issues on her own, in an undignified manner and unable to feel a sense of security, nor provide a secure environment for her child once he or she is born.

Madam, if I may, I think after this large step of granting greater equality to single parents, this is perhaps the last step the Government ought to take with regard to parenting, for a while at least.

I have, for many times in the past, argued for the Government to do less and for the people to do more. In this, family life, children and how we define success, not just as parents, not just for our children, we need people, society and individuals to decide whether it is time to reset our highly competitive and academically-focused norms.

The Government can and should put in place Bills like the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill. We should give greater support to fathers. We should continue to give greater support for adoptive mothers. We should most certainly give even much more support for single unwed mothers.

But this is only half the story, and perhaps the easier half of child development. The Government cannot stop this ceaseless race, these endless comparisons that parents subject their children to. People accuse the Government of setting up high-stress exams; I say, it is neither the Government nor the schools which put the stress on children – it is the parents.

Parents blame the PSLE not because it is an exam, but I believe it is because it is a nation-wide exam – one that allows a child in Woodlands to compare himself against another in Chancery Lane, against another in Bishan. Once we take away the common points of comparison, the argument goes, we no longer have this frenzy. Perhaps so, the comparisons can actually stop right now. They stop when we, as parents, stop. When we look, as we should, at child development in a manner that takes into account their health, growth and well-being.

Mdm Speaker, this is what today's Bill was meant to be. It was tabled because we, the legislators, want to encourage young Singaporeans to have babies, to experience the joys of parenthood, to dream and love and cry over the little lives that come out of a happy union.

Today, we can amend the law to better fulfil these ambitions, but it will take many more tomorrows because we can change the world into a better place for the children of Singapore. To do that, we need more than just the law. We need to rethink what it means to be a parent, what it means to support our children's development. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, twice this year, we have amended this particular Act – perhaps two baby steps in the right direction towards a pro-children and pro-family society.

Having children is not an easy decision to make. Children complete us as families. As a father of two young sons, we wake up every morning feeling tired, dishevelled, covered with spittle and spilt milk. But amidst all of these is joy. Amidst all of these is a sense of fulfilment. And so, while it is not easy for complete families to raise children, it is perhaps even tougher for families that may not have the joy of being complete, through various circumstances, sometimes not of their own doing.

Unwed mothers, single fathers make courageous decisions to carry on with the pregnancy with all its attendant risks, pains and for single fathers to also take up the mantle to care for their children. These amendments that are proposed today help them in this journey.

There were people who have pointed out: will these moves encourage a journey away from the traditional model? But as I have mentioned earlier, it is already not an easy decision for them to make to carry on and have these children. They could easily have said, "End this. Have an abortion. Carry on with life". But they have made the difficult decision to carry on to bring the child to term and give the child a fighting chance.

I made a point earlier this year during the Budget debate that while all these benefits are useful, they are not the end-all and not the solution. There are still dramatic changes to the family model, not just in Singapore, but the world over. The way we live our lives, the way we work, our commitments, our own life expectations, our wants and our needs shape the way we view the family. And so, it takes a lot more than laws, as Mr Seah Kian Peng has mentioned. This is a long journey for us to get to this point to have these amendments put in place.

When I was younger, I perhaps shared the same views. I thought, "Why get married? You have the freedom. You make decisions on your own. You are unencumbered, you are free" – figuratively speaking. But then, perhaps, as fate would have it, love came along. We got married, settled down and have two wonderful young children. But time has also passed very quickly. My eldest son will be three years old very soon, and three years seem to have gone by so quickly. I think for all of us in this House, as well as many Singaporeans, we work long hours, and so, there are sometimes a lot of lost opportunities.

And so, I would like to make a case once again for single parents. They bear the burden of raising their children on their own. What we have put in place in terms of leave, in terms of Government-paid paternity benefits are useful, but there are still many hindrances in their way. They are solely responsible for the welfare of their children. We have not made moves in terms of the Baby Bonus, the cash quantum, and in terms of housing. While they have children, while they are parents, they do not qualify for parenthood tax benefits. While we do not want to encourage any move towards single parenthood, I do not think many of them made the decision on the fly, saying that, "Hmm, how about being a single parent?"

I hope the Government, although many of these are outside of the purview of MSF, will consider them for the sake of the children.

We have also talked a lot about how we can better improve care for children as they grow up. The Government must take the lead in this. The Government can change perceptions. We talked about childcare facilities. One question would be: how many Ministries or agencies currently actually provide childcare facilities within the workplaces? There are provisions under the law. But how many?

While we encourage private sector and other employers to do so, perhaps, as the Government, perhaps as a public organisation, we should take the lead in that area. Children are the focus of these amendments. And I hope that with these amendments, we will move towards a more compassionate, merciful society when it comes to viewing unwed mothers. They have it tough enough and, very often, they come from backgrounds that may not give them the advantages to raise their children single-handedly. They have multiple issues and, if we do not extend a further hand to them, their children may undergo similar circumstances in the future.

Mdm Speaker, I think what we are doing today is a big baby step in the right direction. But as with children growing up, there is a lot more angst to encounter and a lot of changes to adapt to. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments.

Madam, the Bill is a step in the right direction in recognition that parenthood is a joint responsibility of both fathers and mothers. It also acknowledges the growing role of fathers in smaller nuclear families. The Bill also addresses the perennial concerns of single mothers as it provides needed relief to them.

While I fully support the changes to the Bill, I also would like to seek clarifications on the following clauses stated in the Bill.

In section 9(8), 12AA, it is stated that employees who are terminated with just cause cease to be entitled to Adoptive Leave, Government Paid Maternity Leave and Government Paid Paternity Leave. Many workers, especially lower income workers, may not know this. If the employer were to dismiss a pregnant employee, should the employer be made to inform MOM as a default, instead of having the employee to lodge the complaint with MOM as these leave entitlements are associated with employment? In other words, can this be done by default? I know this comes under the purview of MOM, but education awareness can be a joint effort of both Ministries.

Some unscrupulous employers may find ways and means to shrug off their responsibilities under the Act and resort to easy ways of termination. This issue has been raised and addressed in the past. However, with the slowing economy, more can be done to protect the interest of these working mothers and fathers as well as pregnant women. These issues can be jointly addressed by both Ministries, too.

How are the benefits calculated for a woman who was employed or self-employed overseas if at the time of delivery of her child the mentioned woman is a resident in Singapore and ceased to be employed or self-employed overseas? What is the documentary proof required preventing abuse, that is, inflated claims? In the computation of claims, a weekly index is used limiting the claims to a maximum of six days whilst the self-employed, such as hawkers, operate seven days a week. Can the period be stretched to seven days on a case-to-case basis, based on appeal?

On recovery of payment, the Bill states the Government "may" instead of "shall" recover Government Paid Maternity Leave and Government Paid Maternity Benefit beyond statutory limits. What would be the circumstances where such payments would not be recovered? As such payments are classified as civil debts, what are the channels to recover these debts?

Pertaining to section 12E, what is the number of cases of shared parental leave being shared between spouses since its introduction? If the numbers are low, how best can we promote sharing of parental leave between fathers and mothers and realise the importance of joint parenting? The intention of shared parental leave certainly includes the responsibilities of not only mothers but fathers in raising children. As a society, there must be a more concerted effort to push for shared parenthood.

Madam, I strongly support this progressive Bill that is relevant to not only the current context of what family is and constitutes, but also for the future. Be it a single parent or dual-parent family nucleus, the Government has shown, that at the end of it all, it is the child's interest that is of paramount importance and that no child should be deprived, penalised or robbed of parental love through no fault of theirs. The various leave schemes for both natural and adoptive parents are a welcome one. With that, I thank the Minister for the changes and I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support this Bill and welcome the enhancement as it is a move in the right direction to support shared parenting. However, I urge that we pay attention to the consumption rate of paternity leave as only 40% of fathers used their one-week paternity leave in 2015. More needs to be done to help young fathers overcome mindset and workplace constraints to improve this consumption rate.

Besides enhancing leave schemes for young parents, the Government should consider caregivers of elderly and other dependants as well. It is suggested that we allow flexing of medical leave provided under the Employment Act for caregiving needs.

I have four points to make on unwed fathers, maternity protection, stay-at-home moms and foster parents.

First, unwed fathers. Enhancements have been made to grant fathers of adoptive children two weeks of paternity leave. While unwed mothers are now entitled to full maternity leave of 16 weeks, are there considerations made to allow unwed fathers to enjoy the same? While they may be few but, due to circumstances, there may be fathers who have to bear the responsibility of caring for the infant in the absence of the baby's mother.

Second, maternity protection. Female employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave are protected by law from being dismissed or retrenched. Can the protection be extended beyond pregnancy and maternity leave period so as to give security and assurance to mothers who return to work after childbirth? The transition back to work after maternity leave ends is not an easy period as they learn to cope with balancing demands of work and the needs of their babies. While they were away, their jobs may have been reallocated by employers and, upon their return, these mothers may face possibilities of re-deployment or even redundancy. As a result, these mothers may eventually be out of the workforce, whether by choice or not, and it becomes a lose-lose situation for both the mothers and our economy.

The International Labour Organization Maternity Protection Convention No 183 states that, "The standard also prohibits employers to terminate the employment of a woman during pregnancy or absence on maternity leave, or during a period following her return to work, except on grounds unrelated to pregnancy, childbirth and its consequences, or nursing. Women returning to work must be returned to the same position or an equivalent position paid at the same rate."

Third, stay-at-home mothers. Studies have shown that women choose to leave the workforce mainly due to family commitments and whether they are raising children or caring for elderly dependants, their contribution is invaluable to our society and nation's development. However, the work that these women are doing goes unpaid and they are relying on financial resources of their spouses and loved ones alone. Without financial independence, their retirement adequacy is questionable. Hence, it should be a priority to provide support and interventions to help these women in securing their retirement.

Two ways. Firstly, transiting PME women back to work. As the educational standards of the workforce rise and women choose to have children later, more and more who leave the workforce are PMEs in mid-career. This loss to the talent pool can be mitigated by enabling seamless transition of these women back to work. While many of their skills may have become outdated or irrelevant in the many years when they were at home, these PME women do possess skills and experience which can be transferable to new jobs. Various Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) targeted at mid-career PMEs can be enhanced to make the jobs more attractive to back-to-work PMEs, the women especially, in terms of pay, career prospects and flexibility in work arrangements.

At the same time, improving on the delivery mode for training and duration will entice more to make the commitment to embark on the PCP. Besides the Career Support Programme (CSP) and PCP, to give confidence to these women and also potential employers, I suggest the introduction of a Returnship Programme spanning four to six months to facilitate the matching of women jobseekers and employers. During the returnship period, women jobseekers are given guidance and training to update their skills, better understand the job and ascertain her suitability for the position. Upon successful completion of returnship, women jobseekers can embark on PCP for further training to make the career switch. This can all be done through an enhancement of the current CSP and PCP.

Second, income supplement. Besides granting CPF Cash Top Up Relief to encourage spouses and loved ones to voluntarily contribute to the CPF accounts of these stay-at-home moms, the Government should recognise the value of the unpaid work done by these women. Can the Government also regularly top up the accounts of these mothers directly?

On the Workfare Scheme, can mothers who are younger than 35 years old and a spouse having a higher than $70,000 assessable income who engage in part-time, temporary or freelance jobs be entitled to cash supplement, CPF contributions and training grants, too? This is to encourage mothers to stay connected with the job market and keep their skills updated while they are away, thus making an entire transition back to the workforce in future a much easier and smoother one.

Finally, extension of childcare leave to foster parents. Expansion of leave to single parents and adoptive parents is laudable. Perhaps, it is timely to also consider extension of childcare leave to foster parents fostering young children so that they can spend time helping the foster children to settle into their new home. The Fostering Scheme under MSF provides care arrangements for children who have been abandoned, neglected or ill-treated by their parents or guardians, or those whose parents or guardians are in ill-health and, therefore, unable to look after them.

Madam, I stand in support of this Bill, which is essentially about the most finite part of our relationship with our children. It is about the time we have with them, it is about the time we spend with them.

I fully and wholeheartedly applaud MSF for the amendments they are proposing in this Bill and for levelling the playing field for fathers, for adoptive parents and for single unwed parents. These amendments move us one huge step forward towards becoming a more inclusive society.

Parenthood has been one of the greatest joys in my life and it remains close to my heart to see that every parent in Singapore is able to watch their child speak their first words, walk their first steps and hold their hand every step of the way.

Ample research has shown that the bonds forged between parent and child in the earlier stage of his or her development is a one-time opportunity. Once the window closes, it closes forever.

Thus, this remains one of my highest priorities: contributing my thoughts and suggestions about parenthood.

With regard to this Bill, firstly, I firmly support the additional week of mandated Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the increment of Shared Parental Leave eligible to fathers. These changes send a strong signal of the Government's resolve to put family first.

The Minister had previously stated that in 2013, about 28% of fathers took the Government-Paid Paternity Leave; in 2014, it was about 36%. Can the Minister share what the percentages are for 2015 and, to date, for 2016, and most importantly, what steps the Ministry will be taking to increase the percentage of fathers taking the paternity leave?

Secondly, I applaud the Ministry for a radical shift in the support given to adoptive parents. This is reflective of a Government policy which keeps up with the times as adoption becomes more common.

While I applaud these changes, I would like to ask the Minister why adoptive parents are not given the same benefits as birth parents. Why does adoption leave only apply to children under 12 months old? Why do adoptive mothers who qualify for leave still get only 12 weeks of maternity leave compared to the full 18 weeks?

I understand that adoptive mothers do not require extra time to recuperate after childbirth, but it is still important to note that adoptive mothers – like birth mothers – require time to bond with their babies.

Could we further consider the age of the child to determine the length of parental leave accorded to adoptive parents, and consider giving adoptive mothers the full 18 weeks of maternity leave if they have adopted a new-born or a baby under a certain age?

Thirdly, I have met many unwed parents. I hear about the struggles they face, the risks they are exposed to. By introducing these changes, we are levelling the playing field for children born to unwed parents and reducing the disadvantages they face from birth.

However, can the Minister share what are the factors delaying the complete levelling of this playing field?

Lastly, Madam, I spoke at the Second Reading of the Child Development Co-Savings Bill in May this year and I spoke about my wish to have the power to turn back time.

In that speech, I said, "As much as I try to live a life without regret, there will always be regrets, always a wish that we could have done things better, always a wish that we could have spent more time with our loved ones. Time spent with our children is precious and should be cherished, the memories created will last forever and are priceless. We can't buy time and we can't turn back time. We can't get back the hours, the minutes and the seconds lost. But we can every day treasure and value the time we have with our children and our loved ones."

I did not mention this earlier but when I wrote that speech and, in particular, those few paragraphs, I was thinking about my late father who passed away last year and whom I miss dearly. He worked hard but he did not work hard for himself or purely for money. He never wore branded clothes or liked expensive things. But he worked hard for his family, his company and his staff members. He never really had time for family and he passed on before he retired, before he was about to have more time for family, especially his grandchildren.

There is a quote, which reads, "Spend time with those you love. One of these days you will either reply, "I'm glad I did," or "I wish I had"." For my father, I am sure his reply was: "I wish I had" and, with him, I wish I had, too, but I know that I cannot turn back time and I will have to live with that regret.

But for my children, I will make sure my reply is "I'm glad I did" and I hope everyone will ask yourselves this question as you embark on your parenthood journey and even those already on this journey.

I mentioned in my previous speeches that this journey has changed me and it continues to change me. My daughter remains the most stubborn person in my family, she continues to say "no" all the time, even though it is actually more "nos" now – to be exact, it is five "nos" at a go: "no, no, no, no, no". Probably more cute when she says it. But she has also learnt new words. Her favourite words are now: "Daddy, what is this?" or "Daddy, what is that?" I swear she even says this in her sleep. Every day is like an exam now! Thankfully, for parents these days, there is something called "Google"!

Madam, I hope Members in this House enjoy the stories I share about my daughter and about my parenthood journey because there is going to be more stories, as my daughter now graduates to become a big sister. I am happy to announce we are expecting our second child [Applause]. And that was a promise I made. But there was a one-for-one offer and so I am happy to announce we are also expecting our third child – we are having twins!

Just saying the word "twins" makes me feel tired already but we are extremely excited about welcoming our two little girls. I look forward to welcoming them into this world and to spending time with them. But I have to say that after these two little girls, this factory is closed.

On a more serious note, I am grateful for the amendments in this Bill, especially as a father, as it gives us more time to spend with our children. I am grateful that this sends a strong signal about the importance of spending time with your children, and I am hopeful that, in the future, when asked about the time spent with your children, everyone will reply, "I am glad I did".

Madam, let me end with a beautiful quote from Jen Hatmaker and it reads, "You will never have this day with your children again. Tomorrow they will be a little bigger than they are today. Today is a gift. Breathe and notice. Smell and touch them. Study their faces, their little feet and pay attention. Relish in the charms of the present. Enjoy today. It will be over before you know it". Madam, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. As a father of a young daughter, it is perhaps only appropriate that I declare my interest. But unlike my fellow Member Mr Louis Ng, I do not have good news to update. Neither will I promise.

This Bill is very timely, especially during a time when our young mothers and fathers face tremendous constraints in managing work and family. There are two important messages in this Bill. One, families need greater support and we can help fathers to play a larger role in caring for their children. Two, every Singaporean child is important and must be given every chance to fulfil his or her potential. Let me take this in turn on how we can enhance them.

As my fellow Labour Member of Parliament, Mr Zainal Sapari, often reminds us, the younger Members of Parliament – he is a wonderful father to six lovely children, so he has every right to do so – that to be in your children's memories tomorrow, you have to be in their lives today. This Bill does include support and provision and time for parents to rightfully fulfil what he has advised us.

It is trite knowledge that our younger Singaporeans are finding it increasingly difficult to raise a family and have a meaningful career. Furthermore, they believe strongly in shared parenting. In fact, gender stereotypes on child-caring is evolving. It is already archaic to think that only women must bear the primary care-giving role. Legislating a second week of paternity leave and allowing for shared parental leave of up to four weeks cater for such demand and change. Fathers play an important role in a child's life, especially in the early years, with substantial downstream social and cognitive benefits.

The proposed provisions are also in line with an evolving change in gender-based family stereotypes and redefinition of traditional roles at home. While I am glad for these provisions, I am cautious for the eventual consumption of the additional week of paternity leave or shared parental leave. Only 40% of our fathers used their one week of paid paternity leave last year. This shows that our families might face structural problems. Common anecdotally-evidenced gaps include the lack of support from employers, especially smaller companies which might genuinely face operational constraints. Fathers with reservist duties are also hesitant to take leave. In fact, some employers have commented it is difficult to support two types of national service. Both employers and employees need help for this to be effective.

I still maintain that it is only right that we send a strong signal of support through legislation. But we will need to study its implementation. I would like to urge the Ministry to study in-depth the constraints faced by companies and fathers, and establish ways to improve the leave consumption rate. Mdm Speaker, let me continue in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : Mdm Speaker, I fully agree that we should legislate to give fathers an additional week of paternity leave. Nowadays, more and more young Singaporeans believe that both parents should be involved in taking care of the children. The traditional concept of mothers being the primary caregiver of children is also changing gradually.

However, during the first year of a newborn, the mother still plays the primary role. Hence, we need to help mothers ease the dual responsibilities of caring for her child as well as managing her career. This additional week of paternity leave will help fathers to play a more active role in taking care of the children and help reduce the burden on the mothers.

For first-time fathers, this is indeed timely by giving them the opportunity to lay a solid foundation for an ideal family. This measure also reflects Singaporeans' changing mindset with regard to what a good marriage and family should be like.

However, we cannot just legislate without considering the effectiveness. The take-up rate of paternity leave is still very low. I urge the Government to encourage more businesses to support their staff utilising paternity leave. If the Government wants to help our young families more comprehensively, can we also legislate that mothers can enjoy the statutory right to ask for flexible working arrangements during the first year of childbirth?

(In English): Mdm Speaker, let me continue in English. I am also very encouraged by the move to extend greater support for unwed mothers by extending full Government-paid maternity leave to all qualifying mothers, regardless of their marital status. We do acknowledge the value of a traditional family structure of a married couple with children. Yet, in reality, not all families come in the same form or structure. The child has no control of this. And he or she deserves every chance at a full life and fulfilling his or her potential.

Therefore, I support the extension of CDA to children born to unwed mothers. This is a big move towards greater inclusiveness. It will promote savings and help their mothers defray the cost of childcare or other needs.

Madam, while these measures have narrowed the gap between the entitlements of what a married woman with a child would get and that of an unwed mother, there are still areas where unwed mothers are not extended the same treatment.

First, as my fellow Member of Parliament, Mr Seah Kian Peng, has mentioned, the Baby Bonus scheme is still not extended to children of unwed mothers. Could the Government consider extending this to them, in full or in part, as this will go a long way in helping unwed mothers cope with the costs of raising a child, especially when they have to do so without the support of a spouse?

Next is tax relief. I also urge the Government to extend the following tax reliefs to unwed mothers: Working Mother's Child Relief, Grandparent Care-giver Relief, Foreign Maid Levy Relief and the Parenthood Tax Rebate.

This is because the money saved could go towards the needs of the child and, if we are to fully embrace the mantra "Every Child Matters", then we should treat them equally by not denying their parents access to these reliefs.

Unwed mothers and their child are still not regarded as a complete "family nucleus" and they are thus excluded from many of HDB's public schemes. They can only buy their HDB flats if they are 35 years old and above under the Singles Scheme. This means they have to rent a place if they are not able to live with their family or relatives. Rental units can be costly. Sometimes, family members are not able to accommodate them due to space constraints. Could the Government reconsider this fundamental need for lodging as these unwed mothers are often younger, and allow a concession in consideration of their plight and circumstances to purchase a HDB flat even before the mother turns 35?

We can always and certainly should do more but, today, this Bill is an important marker and milestone of progress in supporting our families. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I thank all Members for supporting the Bill. To recap, the key amendments are based on enhancements which were announced earlier at my Ministry's and NPTD's Committee of Supply debates in April this year.

I am glad that Members, such as Mr Alex Yam, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Seah Kian Peng, Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Desmond Choo, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Ms Thanaletchimi, support the extension of maternity leave benefits to unwed mothers. These will improve the outcomes of their children.

Assoc Prof Goh shared his concern about housing security for children of unwed parents and divorcees. I share that concern. He asked if the Government could include unwed parents in its definition of family nucleus in assessing applications for HDB flats. Mr Seah, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Choo asked if housing options can be improved for this group, such as allowing unwed mothers to purchase an HDB flat before turning 35.

Our public housing policy recognises the traditional family unit. That said, single unwed parents are not without housing options. Those aged 35 and above may apply for a new 2-room flexi flat in a non-mature estate or a resale flat and also enjoy housing grants. Those below 35 years old may apply for new HDB flats or resale flats jointly with their parents. As for divorced parents with young children, they are given priority under HDB's assistance scheme for second-timers when they apply for a new 2- or 3-room BTO flat in non-mature estates. Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, HDB also exercises flexibility to help divorced parents and single unwed parents buy a flat within their means, or to provide rental housing to those with no other housing options or family support.

Mr Patrick Tay asked whether unwed fathers could be granted paternity leave. It is generally the case that unwed mothers would be the main care-givers of their children. However, we will consider appeals by unwed fathers on a case-by-case basis. All working parents, regardless of marital status, can avail themselves to infant care and childcare leave to meet their care-giving needs.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Alex Yam, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if more could be done for unwed parents. Some suggestions include the extension of Baby Bonus Cash Gift and tax benefits. It is good to take stock of the support we have given to all Singapore children to enhance child outcomes, regardless of whether their parents are married. I have said this a couple of times in this House and I think it is important for me to repeat it here again. These are education and healthcare benefits and they include the MediSave grant for newborns, and infant and childcare subsidies. All working parents, regardless of marital status, also get infant care leave, childcare leave and extended childcare leave and the Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession to support caregiving to enhance child outcomes.

I think many Members' concerns centre around children who come from more vulnerable backgrounds. If you compound that with unwed parents, it makes it even more difficult for them. We know that children of unwed parents from low-income and vulnerable families need even more support, which is why we are introducing KidSTART. It is a very important programme. It may be in its pilot stage but we hope and want this to work, so that we can extend this much more extensively amongst the vulnerable families, even starting from Year Zero when women can be identified at the pregnancy stage. Financial and social support is also available at Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres.

I urge Members to take note that, even for unwed mothers, there is a range of support available. With the recent changes and the changes we are putting in place, it extends it further.

However, it is also important to understand that we continue to believe in the importance of the family institution. We encourage married couples to have children. Hence, specific measures, for example, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, tax benefits and Government co-funding for Assisted Reproduction Technology treatment and priority for housing, are targeted at married families. However, as mentioned earlier, for unwed parents, there are also ways in which we can support them through various schemes.

Let me now turn to the topic of adoption leave. Mr Louis Ng asked why the length of maternity leave and adoption leave differs. We are increasing adoption leave from four weeks to 12 weeks from July 2017. This is to strengthen the support to adoptive parents. Natural mothers currently have 16 weeks of leave. Maternity leave is longer by a month, largely because natural mothers need time to recover from childbirth.

Mr Ng also asked whether adoption leave could be extended to adoptive mothers of children older than 12 months. Similar to maternity and paternity leave, adoption leave is intended to support parents of infants in the first year of delivery. Beyond the child's infancy, all working parents – including adoptive parents – can take six days each of paid childcare leave when the child is below age seven, and six more days of unpaid infant care leave when the child is below age two, to spend more time to bond with their children.

Mr Henry Kwek touched on the need for our society to support adoption. He suggested a grant to offset foreign adoption costs for couples who have failed repeatedly to conceive. As the focus of adoption is to find a suitable family for a child, subsidising the fees charged by commercial adoption agencies is not the right solution in terms of protecting the best interests of the child. Mr Kwek also suggested allowing single parents who were previously married and have adopted a related child to benefit from the Parenthood Tax Rebate. We thank him for the suggestion, which we will study further. That said, all things being equal and in the child's best interest, we encourage parenthood within marriage. That is still something that we would like to see and encourage.

Members, including Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Kwek, also raised suggestions to support foster parents, through various measures, such as leave benefits. I agree with Mr Kwek that we should make it easier for foster parents to discharge their parenting responsibilities. We have about 400 foster parents caring for over 400 children today. Mr Kwek mentioned about the Bao Lady. In fact, I visited her and spoke to her and her family. They are really quite amazing. I visited various foster families as well. It is quite encouraging to see families with such capacity to love, not just for their children but for many children over many years. It really makes a difference to these children whose families may not be ready to take them in and look after them for a period. Foster parents play a very significant role. We are heartened to see that Singaporeans are willing to go that extra mile to care for vulnerable children. We certainly want to encourage more Singaporeans to come on board to be foster parents. We will keep the suggestions in mind as we continue to develop foster care.

I will now move on to the topic of stay-at-home mothers. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the Government would consider putting in place Returnship Programmes to help match women jobseekers and employers. He also suggested providing an Income Supplement to stay-at-home mothers and for Workfare Scheme benefits to be extended to a select group of such young mothers. I think this is an idea that we can consider, though we should take a hard look at all the current job-matching services and to minimise duplication of efforts. But I think this is something that we should work at.

I want to assure Members that we recognise and value the contributions of stay-at-home mothers in caring for their children. Today, eligible stay-at-home mothers already enjoy all the measures under the Marriage and Parenthood package except, understandably, those related to employment, such as leave benefits. They will get the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, MediSave Grant for newborns, Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession, and basic child and infant care subsidies. We appreciate the suggestions from Members and will take them into consideration as we continue to study ways to enhance the family-friendly environment in Singapore, to support both working and non-working parents.

Mr Patrick Tay is right that there are other caregivers, such as those of the elderly and other dependants. He suggested allowing flexing of medical leave under the Employment Act with them, as they may not qualify for the current leave benefits. We will study these suggestions as well. While we want to support such caregivers, we also need to consider the impact on businesses and the overall leave support already in place for employees.

Let me touch on protection for workers and employment-related concerns raised by Mr Patrick Tay. Mr Tay asked to extend protection beyond pregnancy and maternity leave for female employees. We will work with tripartite partners in the next round of review to study this, while being mindful not to change the laws so drastically that it results in unintended consequences, such as resentment against mothers and impact on gender bias because this could impact on their employability. This is something that we have to be careful about. Nonetheless, it is an important area to look at. In the meantime, we will continue to encourage employers to adopt flexible work arrangements to support families.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh highlighted the need to protect contract workers as this group is fast becoming a substantial group in the gig economy. I agree. In fact, when I was in MOM, this was an area that we flagged out for close attention. But we also realised that this whole space is quite complex because there are many, many different types of contract work. MOM will work with our tripartite partners to study this suggestion further, taking into consideration the overall leave provisions already in place by employers and the care-giving needs of workers.

Ms Thanaletchimi raised four technical areas for clarification under this amendment Bill. Firstly, she asked what measures will be taken to ensure that workers who are terminated without just cause know their leave entitlements upon termination of employment. MOM encourages employers to implement fair and non-discriminatory employment practices. The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) takes an active role in looking into complaints of unfair employment practices and will refer cases to MOM for enforcement if found to be true. Any employee who feels discriminated against can approach TAFEP for assistance.

Secondly, Ms Thanaletchimi asked about the process of calculating benefits for a woman returning from overseas to deliver her child, especially if it seems to be an "inflated claim". We will determine the amount of Government-Paid Maternity Benefit for such a woman based on documents, such as her payslip. Where there is reason to doubt the documents or the claims, we will ask further questions and may not always approve the claim.

Thirdly, she asked how the weekly index works for a person who works seven days a week. The weekly index simplifies the provisions of the Act and does not change entitlement. A self-employed person who works seven days a week and takes the full maternity leave continuously will be paid based on seven days a week. Where maternity leave is taken flexibly, it will be based on the number of days she works in a week, or 48 days, whichever is lower. This mirrors the computation of entitlement for employees on continuous and non-continuous leave.

Fourthly, she asked about the circumstances and mechanism under which the Government will recover over-payment of Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Maternity Benefit. As with other civil debts, the Government has the option to commence legal proceedings to recover over-payment of Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Maternity Benefit. In practice, we will seek to recover through calls, letters or physical visits if necessary.

Finally, let me make a technical clarification. Ms Thanaletchimi said that employees whose services are terminated with just cause cease to be entitled to Adoptive Leave, Government-Paid Maternity Leave and Government-Paid Paternity Leave. I would like to clarify that a woman only forfeits Government-Paid Maternity Benefit, and, even then, only for the relevant employment period where she is dismissed with sufficient cause. If she had worked satisfactorily in other jobs in the 12 months preceding delivery, she can still receive a Government-Paid Maternity Benefit amount based on income earned from those jobs.

Miss Cheryl Chan suggested some enhancements relating to CDAs. Miss Chan would be pleased to hear CDA monies can be used to purchase the child's premiums for MediShield Life or MediSave-approved plans. At the end of 12 years, unused CDA monies are also automatically transferred to the child's Post-Secondary Education Account which can be used for post-Secondary education fees.

She also suggested that the Government facilitate donors or payments of cash assistance into the CDAs of children from low-income families, so that they can benefit more from the CDA scheme. We are mindful that low-income families face more challenges in saving into the CDA. This is why we have introduced the CDA First Step of $3,000 earlier this year. This is directly provided into newly opened CDAs, without parents having to save first. We also reach out to lower income families through touchpoints, such as the Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres, to increase awareness about the CDA.

We also welcome initiatives by society to help families defray the cost of child-raising. One such example is the OCBC Starter Scheme, which was introduced in 2012 and will end in December 2016. Under this scheme, if lower income parents saved $50 in CDA, OCBC would contribute $100 into the account. As the Government provides matching contribution of $150, the children will effectively receive co-savings of $250 in return for the $50 saved.

Let me now move on to leave for fathers. The Government is mandating the second week of Paternity Leave from 1 January 2017 and extending Shared Parental Leave from one week to four weeks from 1 July 2017. On Mr Louis Ng's request for the updated take-up rates for Paternity Leave, this was 38% in 2014 and 42% in 2015; an improvement of 4%. It is not bad, but we hope this will increase further. Really, fathers should just take it up. The 2015 figure is still increasing and will only be finalised at the end of March 2017, when the deadline for the submission of claims is over. On Ms Thanaletchimi's request for statistics, about 4,000 fathers have taken shared parental leave as at the end of August 2016.

Mr Seah Kian Peng asked if independent leave can be considered. We are now increasing paternity leave and shared parental leave. For any further leave enhancements, we need to balance the needs and concerns of both employees and employers. We will also look into Mr Desmond Choo's suggestion for an in-depth study of constraints faced by companies and fathers in consuming these two leave schemes.

The enhancements to paternity leave and shared parental leave signal the Government's strong support to encourage fathers to spend more time caring for their children. Shared parental leave also provides parents the flexibility to decide and to choose their leave arrangements to care for their newborns, based on their respective family's circumstances. We really hope that more fathers will make use of the enhanced leave to be involved in child-raising. That being said, ultimately, it is for the father to decide whether to take the leave or not. Maybe we should persuade mothers to convince fathers to take the leave.

I thank Mr Louis Ng for sharing his good news. Congratulations! And I encourage Mr Desmond Choo to work harder. I also thank Mr Louis Ng for his interesting parenting experiences. I am sure many of us who are parents here will have our respective interesting stories as well. Indeed, those of us who can look back and honestly say, "I am glad I did", remember the lessons we learnt as parents.

Children enrich our lives in the most unexpected ways, just as we fathers play an important role in the family. We are not just breadwinners, but we are role models for our children. We really need to be active and present in our children's lives, especially during our child's formative years.

In MSF, when we look at the various social issues, there are two common denominators that we pick up, as we connect the dots and trace it back. A lot has got to do with a stable family environment and, especially, the presence of the father. The other point is about making an impact in the formative years, where the greatest development is experienced by our child. Are we there shaping those formative years? Mothers are usually there, but fathers need to be there as well. This is something that we can encourage and support but, ultimately, the individual parents must make those choices.

Fathers can shape a child's confidence immensely in their development. I fully agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng's point that, as parents, we should be focusing on the child's health, growth and well-being. Parents sometimes do not know what impact their comparisons have on their children. In some situations, the child loses confidence in his ability and he starts to wonder if he will be unloved by his parents the moment he fails to meet their expectations. Fathers have the means to demonstrate unconditional love and support to the children. I urge all of us to do so.

I also agree with Mr Alex Yam on the importance of recreating a pro-family and pro-children environment. The physical environment is important. There are 35 Ministries and Government agencies with childcare facilities within their buildings. While this will certainly help working parents, more and more young fathers are willing to make use of these facilities and not just expect the mothers to do so. That is encouraging.

Families for Life as well as Government agencies provide parenting and family events and workshops at the workplaces. I encourage more fathers to avail themselves of these and to be more engaged in pro-family workplace programmes.

When the two weeks of mandatory paternity leave kick in next year, we hope that more fathers will take the opportunity to actively bond with their children from the time they are born. Like Mr Patrick Tay, I also hope more fathers will use the shared parental leave so that they can further bond with their children.

These leave enhancements are focused on the critical infant period. But fatherhood continues beyond infancy. One important tagline says, we are "Dads for Life". I hope that we, as fathers, will continue to be involved and always present in our children's lives. It may be different for everyone, and we all need to find our own way to connect and bond with our children. It need not be something elaborate. It could be through simple everyday activities like reading a bedtime story, kicking a soccer ball around, going out to cycle or just going out for a meal. It may surprise some of us but, to our children, it is not what we do, but that we are doing it together with them.

Active fatherhood also strengthens marriages. Fathers show that they care and are committed to their wives and their families when they share the parenthood journey. The journey may be a bumpy ride with ups and downs, but we learn along the way to be better parents ‒ together with our spouses. It is also these ups and downs that result in the creation of special moments and memories, memories unique to our families, memories which we will always hold dear to ourselves and memories which will last us a lifetime. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

I have just one clarification for the Minister. I note the increase in the number of fathers who have taken up paternity leave – it is a 10% increase, from 38% to 42%. I urge the Minister to look into the underlying reasons for the low take-up to get to the source. Indeed, we all want to make sure that the two-week mandated paternity leave will be fully taken up. But I think if we do not address the source, we are not going to get there. So, I urge the Minister to look seriously into this.

I fully agree with the point. We do want them to consume it. I think we would conduct further studies and review what exactly are the impediments and what we could do to help make sure that these schemes that we are putting in place actually get used and achieve the desired outcomes that we want.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*