Debated in Parliament on 8 Apr 2013.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Families are the most important building blocks of Singapore society. The Government is committed to helping Singaporeans achieve their marriage and parenthood aspirations. In January this year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean unveiled a new package of measures to encourage Marriage & Parenthood (M&P).
This Bill gives effect to some of the measures under the M&P package, namely, the enhanced maternity benefits and new parental leave schemes.
There are four key components in the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill.
Page: 85
First, the Bill introduces new leave benefits in the form of paternity leave and shared parental leave to encourage fathers to play a bigger role in bringing up their children. Second, the enhancement of existing childcare leave and adoption leave. These are to better help working parents manage work and family commitments. Third, we will enhance maternity benefits to better support working mothers whose employment arrangements make them ineligible for maternity leave today. Finally, we will extend protection for working mothers against dismissal without sufficient cause and retrenchment, to cover the full term of pregnancy.
Mdm Speaker, fathers play an important role in raising children. To encourage fathers to take on shared parenting responsibility, the Government is introducing one week of Government-paid paternity leave and one week of Government-paid shared parental leave. Both leave types are subject to a reimbursement cap of $2,500 per week. We wish that all fathers will make good use of all these leave schemes for their families.
All lawfully married natural and adoptive fathers are eligible for paternity leave. The natural father must have served an employer for at least three months immediately preceding the child's birth. In line with maternity leave, the fathers can consume paternity leave in a block within 16 weeks after the child's birth. If there is mutual agreement between the employer and employee, paternity leave can be consumed flexibly within 12 months from the child's birth.
Shared parental leave is contingent upon the mother being eligible for 16 weeks of maternity leave. The eligible mother can choose to allocate one week of shared parental leave to the father. This can be done on a new Shared Parental Leave Allocation System available on the Central Provident Fund Board website.
Employers can also log into the system to check on their employees' maternity leave or shared parental leave entitlement. To give certainty to employers, the allocation of shared parental leave, once done, cannot be changed. The only exception is if the father's employment is terminated before he has consumed the allocated leave, in which case, the leave will be returned to the mother. As couples can allocate the shared parental leave within the child's first year, they should have sufficient time to decide on the arrangements.
I now come to the second part. Let me elaborate on the enhancement of existing leave schemes. In 2008, we increased childcare leave from two days to six days per parent per year, to better support working parents in taking care of
Page: 86
young children under the age of seven. Recognising that parents also need time away from work to see to the needs of their children in Primary school, the Government will extend two days of childcare leave to parents of Singapore citizen children aged seven to 12 years.
To be eligible, parents must have served their employer for at least three months. Each parent will be able to take two days of childcare leave per year, subject to an overall cap of 12 days over the six years between the child's seventh to twelfth year. The leave is fully paid by the Government, subject to a cap of $500 per day. If a couple has children in both age groups, that is, below seven years and seven to 12 years, an overall cap of six days of childcare leave per parent per year applies.
We are also enhancing the Adoption Leave. In 2004, the Government introduced voluntary Government-paid adoption leave. Employers who grant adoption leave to female employees who adopt a child below the age of 12 months could receive salary reimbursement for up to four weeks. With effect from 1 May this year, the four weeks of adoption leave will be made a statutory provision for adoptive mothers who have served their employer for at least three months. The payment for the four weeks of leave will be subject to a cap of $10,000.
We have also made changes to provide more time for mothers to take adoption leave. Currently, adoption leave can only be taken after the court appoints the Director of Social Welfare as Guardian-in-adoption of the child, or when the dependant's pass has been issued. With effect from 1 May this year, adoptive mothers can take adoption leave earlier, from the date the adoptive mother applies to the court to adopt a local child, or, in the case of a foreign child, when the adoptive mother receives in-principle approval for a dependant's pass. Adoption leave can also be taken within the child's first 12 months, instead of within six months previously. All the above arrangements will apply to paternity leave for adoptive fathers.
As we are granting adoption leave ahead of the court's issue of the Adoption Order; we have included provisions for the Government to recover the paid adoption leave and paternity leave benefits in the event that the Adoption Order is not issued within one year from the adoption application or the in-principle issuance of the dependant's pass; or if the child does not obtain citizenship within six months from the Adoption Order.
Page: 87
Shared parental leave, paternity leave, adoption leave and extended childcare leave will apply to self-employed mothers and fathers as well. These parents would need to be engaged in their trade, business, profession or vocation for at least three months, except when consuming shared parental leave.
While not part of the M&P package, we have taken this opportunity to extend some leave benefits under the Child Development Co-savings Act to never-married single parents. As announced in my Ministry's Committee of Supply session, we will extend the childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave to unwed single parents with effect from 1 May, if they have a Singaporean Citizen child and served an employer for at least three months. This move is in line with my Ministry's efforts to enhance support for vulnerable families, of which single parent families are one such group.
The third aspect of the Bill is provisions to provide maternity support to more working women. Today, some do not qualify for any maternity leave due to their employment arrangements. These could be women who have worked for some time, but their contracts expire before the delivery of the child. They could also include women who are on multiple short-term contracts.
With the new Government-paid Maternity Benefit (GPMB) scheme, they will now enjoy the Government-paid share of maternity leave in the form of a cash benefit. They are eligible if their total employment or self-employment duration is at least 90 days in the 12 months preceding delivery. Mothers can receive the GPMB for births on or after 1 January this year.
The mother will receive eight weeks, or 56 days, of GPMB for her first or second child, or 16 weeks, or 112 days, for her third and subsequent child. GPMB will be based on the average income earned over the 12-month period preceding birth. Mothers who have worked for longer periods before giving birth will receive a higher benefit. The GPMB is capped at $10,000 for every 28 days.
Generally, a working woman cannot receive both maternity leave and GPMB. The only exception to this is if a mother's contract ends before she could fully consume her maternity leave. In such cases, the mother can receive GPMB in addition to the maternity leave, such that she receives paid maternity benefits of up to eight weeks for the first or second child, and 16 weeks for the third or subsequent child. This ensures that the mothers whose contract expires before
Page: 88
or after delivery can receive equivalent paid maternity benefits.
Let me emphasise that the GPMB is not to replace the paid maternity leave. For the majority of women, they remain employed after childbirth and continue to benefit from the normal maternity leave provision.
This brings me to the fourth aspect of this Bill, which is ensuring that mothers are better protected from being denied their maternity leave benefits due to termination of employment. The Bill has extended the protection period for pregnant employees. From 1 May 2013, pregnant employees who have served an employer for at least three months and obtained a doctor's certification of pregnancy prior to the notice of dismissal will be protected against dismissal without sufficient cause, or retrenchment, throughout their pregnancy. This means that employers will be required to compensate or reinstate pregnant employees with their full maternity leave benefits, if employers dismiss pregnant employees without sufficient cause or retrench them.
This is an enhancement to the existing provisions, where pregnant employees' rights to maternity leave benefits are only protected during the three months preceding delivery for retrenchments, and six months preceding delivery for dismissals without sufficient cause. The Bill makes such provisions through related amendments to the Employment Act, which also applies to the maternity leave provisions under the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
MOM has also reviewed the offences and penalties provisions to ensure that employers do not deny their employees their leave benefits. The changes bring the associated penalties for employers who fail to grant or pay for the various statutory leave schemes in the Child Development Co-Savings Act, in line with other employment offences in the Employment Act. Employers who commit an offence in relation to the various leave schemes can be penalised with a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months. For repeat offences, the penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 12 months.
The maternity leave and childcare leave provisions are under both the Child Development Co-Savings Act and Employment Act. Any maternity leave or childcare leave offence on or after 1 May 2013 under one Act will be considered in determining if an offence is a repeat offence in the other Act.
Page: 89
In formulating the enhancements, the Government has consulted the Tripartite partners and other stakeholders extensively. Whilst providing working parents with more leave entitlements to help them better balance work and family commitments, it is important to ensure that employers' concerns over the impact on business costs and operations are also taken into consideration, so as to mitigate any adverse effects on the employability of the parents. Hence, the new leave schemes, namely, paternity leave, shared parental leave, the two-day extended childcare leave and adoption leave, are all fully Government-paid. Before going on leave, employees should work out with their employers arrangements that best meet the needs of both parties while minimising disruptions to business operations.
The Bill is scheduled to come into effect on 1 May. Notwithstanding, the Government will reimburse employers who voluntarily grant their employees the extended childcare, paternity and shared parental leave schemes from 1 January this year, even before the enhancements are made mandatory through legislation. This is to encourage employers to be generous and start granting the leave benefits early.
Mdm Speaker, encouraging marriage and parenthood is an important and worthwhile goal for Singapore. It is also one in which Government legislation alone cannot accomplish. And let me conclude this portion by urging all employers and the community to not only embrace the new measures but also do their own part to create a more positive environment for marriage, parenthood and family life. It is through a whole-of-society effort that we can make Singapore A Great Place for Families. Madam, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The amendments contained in this Bill are of immense importance nationally as it helps address a persistent problem that has been affecting our country for a number of years. And if not addressed, the issue of low birth rate may continue to undermine nationhood and economic growth in Singapore going forward.
I would like to make some key points on this Bill that I feel are relevant. Employers here have generally been accepting and supportive of the measures that the Government has announced in encouraging a more flexible work
Page: 90
arrangement and even to increase the paid maternity and paternity leave for parents. We must be cautious that in trying to entrench some of these measures in legislation through this Bill, that we do not make it too onerous or unnecessarily burden employers with the mandated measures. What I really mean is that while we proceed with these measures and hope that they result in the desired effect, we must ensure that employers receive adequate protection. I am encouraged that the Government has taken responsibility of bearing the costs of the mandated leave but there are other costs that employers may be exposed to.
Chief among these is the possibility of employers being misled or misinformed on information from employees on these measures. I would like to suggest that since we have enforced in this Bill that errant employers be taken to task, a similar mechanism should also be enshrined for errant employees. Hence, if any employee is found to be supplying inaccurate or misleading information, there should be mandated penalties for this errant employee in respect of this Act. Such strong penalties will deter employees from going down this road in the first place and also protect the employers from incurring such unnecessary costs. With these mechanisms in place, I am sure that the confidence in these pro-parenthood measures will be preserved and kept high.
But I recognise that confidence has been kept from both sides and that adequate and equal effort should be made that both employers and employees are protected. To uphold the sanctity of these pro-parenthood measures, I suggest that it is important to not only promote transparent practices and ethical and accurate representation, but also to encourage red-flagging contrary practices. But for this to happen, there must be clearer protection of those who come forward to report such deviances.
What I am asking for is a clear whistle-blower mechanism which will protect those who dare come forward that these policies are not being adhered to or abused. For instance, should an employer not be practising these measures and unfairly deprive its employee of these privileges, the question still remains if the employer will be reported to the Government. Will the employee concerned or someone associated with the company risk losing his job in reporting this incident? If there is a whistle-blower policy, then those who surface such deviant practices will have more confidence in coming forward.
Similarly, if an employee is misrepresenting information and abusing the pro-parenthood privileges accorded to an employee, then he or she should be reported. But will any colleague, relative or friend come forward knowing that
Page: 91
it may jeopardise his or her relationship with the alleged employee? If there was a clear whistle-blower policy which protected their identities, I think transparency will be better achieved and, hopefully, create a strong deterrent against deviations in the first place. I feel such a step will help protect the sanctity of the pro-parenthood measures and help achieve their intended outcomes.
It is important that we recognise that these measures are done to help prop up birth rates in Singapore. It is hoped that some of these initiatives, particularly allowing parents to spend more time with their young children while still receiving an income, will help encourage them to take a step forward in starting or expanding their families.
While we try to entrench some of these measures into our legislation, I hope we also recognise that more can be done to achieve greater results in this regard. Take adoption, for example. I applaud the Government as it has decided that parents who adopt will also be accorded maternity leave, although for a shorter period. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction.
However, this Bill suggests that the maternity and paternity leave be allowed in the first 12 months from the date of the birth of the child. I would like to point out that for an adopted child, some adaptation needs to be allowed here. For starters, not all parents may adopt children at the time of their birth. It could be possible that the parent adopts the child when the baby is already many months old, possibly even a year old. The parents who do so will be excluded from maternity or paternity leave since they have already passed the 12-month criteria. And if this is, indeed, an important determinant, it would push adoption demand for newly born babies and perhaps result in older babies being neglected by potential adopting parents.
I think we need to appreciate that regardless of when the baby is born, any parent adopting a child will need to spend some time with the child to familiarise and acclimatise the child to new surroundings and build new bonds. So, my suggestion is that if the parents adopt a child of up to two years old, meaning the child is still an infant, then the parents be allowed to take their maternity and paternity leave not in the 12 months from the date of birth of the child, but in the 12 months from the date of adoption of the child. For parents adopting children of more than two years old, perhaps the maternity and paternity leave can be reduced and it can also enforce its criteria to be in the 12 months within the adoption of the child. Adoption is, indeed, one alternative source of expanding families in Singapore, particularly for those who are unable or unwilling to use traditional or medical conception methods. So, we
Page: 92
should facilitate adoption and not keep the door only half open.
These measures are only part of the overall solution to increasing a pro-family and pro-parenthood culture in Singapore. But, certainly, by entrenching such measures in our legislation, we are taking the right step and sending appropriate signals to all segments of our society. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. On the whole, I support the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, the primary aim of the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) is to encourage married couples to have more children, with the Baby Bonus and Leave Schemes being the primary drivers. But it will take more than the proposed changes in the Bill before us today to create a genuinely pro-family environment in Singapore. Ultimately, all stakeholders need to see that a pro-family environment is to their advantage, whether it is the Government, business or society. The challenge is to have the various stakeholders to look long term.
Madam, I welcome the proposed amendments to enhance maternity leave protection. The move to provide working mothers with maternity benefits at any stage of their pregnancy should they be dismissed without sufficient cause or be out of a job on grounds of redundancy is to be welcomed. The current legislation provides protection for a period of six months before delivery in the case of dismissal, or in the case of job redundancy within a period of three months before delivery.
In this regard, I hope the Government will pursue all cases of unjustified dismissal and redundancies of pregnant women with determination. Unscrupulous employers should not get away so easily. In this regard, the proposed fines under the Employment Act strike me as being on the low side.
Discrimination is a scourge, and the Government should consider naming and shaming the recalcitrant employers who discriminate against pregnant employees. Otherwise, we will be fighting a losing battle against the stereotypes of pregnant women as lesser employees at the workplace. Women should not have to decide between their jobs and being a mother. Sure, some compromise is needed but it need not be an "either-or" option.
Page: 93
The various clauses in the Bill that relate to shared parental leave are welcomed. This introduction of shared parental leave provides for a working father to share one week of the mother's 16 weeks of maternity leave, subject to certain requirements. This provision of shared parental leave is significant and reinforces section 46 of our Women's Charter (Cap 353), which was remarkably innovative when the Charter was first enacted more than 50 years ago in September 1961. As a society, we seem not to give sufficient recognition to section 46(1) of the Charter which states: "Upon the solemnisation of marriage, the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children." Section 46(4) of the Charter reinforces the theme of equality in a family unit. It reads: "The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household."
Given the need to have fathers more involved in the care of newborns, I welcome the long overdue introduction of paternity leave. The Bill introduces one-week Government-paid paternity leave for a male employee who is the natural father or adoptive father of a Singapore Citizen child born on or after 1 May 2013.
With the amendments, a couple who are the natural parents of a Singapore Citizen child would have 16 weeks of maternity leave and one week of paternity leave between them. Why not let a couple decide how to allocate the 17 weeks of leave between them?
Can we consider moving away from unique leave schemes for mothers and fathers, and graduate towards a broader understanding of shared parental leave? Parents should have the autonomy to decide how they would like to utilise their leave to better tailor to the circumstances and needs of each household.
If the couple agrees that the father should spend more time with and caring for the newborn, why not give that couple the liberty to split the wife's 16 weeks of maternity leave, with the father taking on anything between one and eight or more weeks of shared parental leave?
Mdm Speaker, as it stands, how we package our leave schemes can reinforce the mindset that fertility decisions and childcare responsibilities are almost the sole preserve of the woman. This, in my view, has partly contributed to our low-fertility rates, with childcare duties being primarily borne by women. Let us not forget that the Singaporean women, like her male counterparts, are
Page: 94
well educated and have careers of their own. A paternalistic approach will do us more harm than good in terms of trying to engender a pro-family environment.
On adoption leave, the Bill seeks to amend the Act to mandate employers to provide up to four weeks of Government-paid adoption leave for female employees who have adopted a child and meet the eligibility criteria. Madam, I would like to ask the Acting Minister for the policy rationale behind giving mothers of adopted children only four weeks of leave.
In the case of an adoptive mother, the need for her physical recuperation is not an issue. However, there can be no denying that the need for the adoptive mother and the adopted newborn to bond is just as crucial, if not more so. There is also the need to care for the adopted newborn. Therefore, given the differential entitlements where leave is concerned for natural and adoptive parents, are we sending the signal that an adopted child is valued less, or that adoption is not encouraged?
Madam, I would now like to discuss the issue of treatment of unwed mothers. While not under the ambit of the Bill before us today, we cannot avoid the issue of unwed mums and the reality of the Child Development Account (CDA), which is under the purview of this Act. The CDA is used as a conduit for the disbursement of the Child Development Credits. Further, the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) seeks to ensure that such Credits are used in ways that would directly benefit the child.
Madam, I appreciate that inroads have been made for unwed single mums to have the same parental leave benefits as their married, divorced, or widowed counterparts. However, unwed mothers do not benefit from the Baby Bonus scheme and the Marriage and Parenthood benefits. In addition, they get eight weeks of paid maternity leave, less than their married counterparts.
I appreciate and support that the state policy is to promote families, conceived as one where a family unit comprises a man and a woman married to each other and a child or children. This is notwithstanding that societal attitudes have become relatively more liberal and tolerant of alternative household formats.
The challenge pivots on how the state can uphold this policy without discriminating against children born to unwed mothers. These children did not choose to be born. These children are Singaporeans as well – they have a stake
Page: 95
in Singapore, and we have a stake in their well-being. How do we ensure that such children are not disadvantaged or have the disadvantages of being in a single parent household from being magnified?
I appreciate that there are no easy solutions. Every Singaporean life is precious, relatively more so now given our demographic imperative. In other countries that have treated single mothers and married mothers alike in terms of benefits, indications are that it promotes irresponsibility on the part of the unwed fathers and mothers, with the state and taxpayers picking up the tab.
Even if societal norms are not in favour of doing more for single mothers, let us not have the children suffer "collateral damage" of their unmarried parents' action. How can we ensure that such children do not bear the legacy and burden of disadvantage?
The legislation for which this House is now considering amendments to is called the Child Development Co-Savings Act. We should not let high principles to blindside us as to whom this legislation is for and what it is all about. It is fundamentally about the Singaporean child, regardless of his or her race, language, family background and the like.
Madam, I note the Acting Minister's assurance last month that his Ministry will consider the needs of an unwed mother's child to determine the appropriate assistance package for the child. Nevertheless, as a society, we must endeavour to endow the child equally, regardless of whether he/she is adopted or born to married parents or an unwed mother.
Madam, although the leave enhances the overall leave entitlements to parents, the crucial question is whether working parents will be able to utilise them without fear that it will prejudice their job prospects such that they feel "pressured" into not consuming their leave entitlements.
A pro-family environment requires employers to be on board and buying into the need to create a supportive environment that is child- and family-friendly. The Bill also provides for the Government to reimburse the employer, if certain requirements are met, which grants the employee paid paternity leave, shared parental leave, or adoption leave. While the state's financial outlay is generous in this regard, I hope it does not send the message that raising a child is the state's responsibility, and that the state has to compensate employers for the time that their employees are not at work because of maternity, paternity,
Page: 96
adoption, or childcare leave.
Madam, I welcome the amendments even though laws and incentives, while necessary, are not sufficient to make for a society that is nurturing of children. More importantly, I hope we can do more to remove any remaining discrimination – be it against pregnant women or children of unwed mothers. Every Singaporean child is precious and our laws and policies must be unequivocal about that.
Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend the existing Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCS) to implement some of the measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package that were announced this year.
I welcome the amendments and I am glad to see the introduction of paternity leave. This was something I appealed for during last year's Committee of Supply debate. I urge all new fathers to fully utilise the one week of paternity leave to bond with their newborn babies and help their wives during their confinement period. I am glad I was able to take paternity leave when my two babies were born a few years ago and I am grateful to my company for providing it even before the Government mandated it.
I think the Government is moving in the right direction by extending paid childcare leave to all single mothers. However, the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave, which are two of the biggest and most helpful parenthood benefits, are still being denied to single unwed mothers. My colleague, Ms Lee Li Lian, advocated on behalf of single mothers and for the equalisation of maternity leave during the COS debate for MSF this year. Now, I would like to add to her calls.
Currently, unwed mothers get eight weeks of employer-paid maternity leave and their companies are required to give them an additional four weeks of unpaid leave. Essentially, the Government bears no cost for the maternity leave of unwed mothers. This is unlike married, widowed or divorced mothers who enjoy eight weeks of employer-paid leave followed by eight weeks of Government-paid leave. Unwed mothers also do not receive the Baby Bonus cash gift of $6,000 and the Government's co-matching contribution of up to $6,000 in the Child Development Account (CDA). There are also several tax benefits that are not available to mothers of what IRAS calls "an illegitimate
Page: 97
child", including the Parenthood Tax Rebate, Qualifying Child Relief, Handicapped Child Relief, Working Mother Child Relief and Grandparent Caregiver Relief. Unwed mothers also do not qualify for public rental flats from the HDB, a point raised by Mr Png Eng Huat during the COS debate for MND.
Madam, I would like to ask for unwed mothers to receive the same 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, including the last eight weeks paid for by the Government. The Baby Bonus cash gift and the Government's co-matching contribution to the CDA should also be extended to them. The Baby Bonus scheme, as stated on MSF's website, is to "support parents' decision to have more children by helping to lighten the financial costs of raising children".
It is, therefore, not a reward for having children but a financial assistance scheme. I note for the other new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package like Extended Childcare Leave, the Medisave grant for newborns and MediShield coverage for congenital and neonatal conditions, the same benefits are extended to unwed mothers or their children. Why not take the next logical step of equalising the remaining parenthood benefits? Equalising benefits for unwed mothers helps not just the mother but her child as well. The Ministry should take a child-centric view of the family and not make the child pay the price for the past actions of his or her parents.
Unwed mothers have made a choice to keep and raise their child despite their difficult circumstances and the options for abortion or adoption. We should give them the due recognition for making this difficult choice. I note that a single unwed mother can become eligible for the Baby Bonus if she marries the biological father of her child before her child turns 12. However, some single mothers may not end up marrying the man for various reasons and this should not prevent them from receiving the same benefits. Providing these benefits will help reduce their financial burden which, for some unmarried women expecting a child, could tip the scales in favour of keeping the child instead of choosing to undergo an abortion. It is certainly not a silver bullet to reduce our high abortion rates but, if just one more life is saved, I think it is worth providing the benefits.
During the COS debate on 14 March, I pointed out that the issue of out-of-wedlock births is a complex, moral and social one that needs to be tackled in ways other than through selective social benefits. In response, the Acting Minister assured me that the Government does not judge people by their status. I was glad to hear this because I took it to mean that the Government is not trying to shape moral behaviour using parenthood benefits. The Acting Minister also told me that there will always be some help that we give to married couples
Page: 98
and there will be another package of help that we give to singles. That being the case, what alternative package of help is the Government giving to unwed mothers? I do not think there is any universal package available, apart from means-tested social assistance.
I believe that it is important that, as a society, we continue to uphold the centrality of a two-parent household within the institution of marriage. This norm should continue to be promoted by the Government, for example, through schools. However, breaking with this norm should not result in a mother and her child being denied the Baby Bonus and equal maternity leave. After all, we do not encourage divorce but we still give divorcees the same Baby Bonus and maternity leave as married mothers.
While some may fear that providing equal benefits to unwed mothers may encourage the emergence of "welfare moms" where single women get pregnant just to collect welfare cheques, I think this fear is unfounded in Singapore's context. First, the quantum of benefits is hardly enough to make up for the high cost of raising children in Singapore. No rational woman will choose to conceive a child just to collect the Baby Bonus. Second, I am not asking the Government to provide additional benefits to single mothers as they do in some countries – just equal benefits.
Madam, unwed mothers face huge challenges raising their child on their own. I can only imagine how tough it must be whenever I have to look after my own kids on my own when my wife is away. Unwed mothers have to single-handedly care for their child, take on the role of both father and mother, and hold onto a job to pay the bills. They also have to face the social stigma of being single and unmarried. On top of all that, they are denied many of the parenthood benefits that married, divorced and widowed mothers receive. This could add to their feeling of marginalisation from society.
Single mothers need more of society's support. As the Acting Minister said, many of them are from vulnerable families. They are mothers first and singles second; not the other way around. The welfare of their children should be our top priority. Do we, as a society, believe in second chances? Do we believe that all children are born equal and that every child is legitimate, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers.
Page: 99
Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to start by expressing my support for the Bill in widening the scope of the Act in its coverage of maternity leave, adoption leave, parental leave, paternity leave and childcare leave.
I think these amendments and extensions are steps in the right direction, but I think we need a more critical review of our social policies to create a total environment that makes Singapore one of the best places in the world to bring up children. Specifically, we must love and support all our children and their families, without discrimination.
I am not disagreeing with the state being involved in buttressing parental efforts in raising their children. In fact, I was part of the team in the then Ministry of Community Development and Sports that developed the pro-natalist policies that were implemented in 2001.
What I believe differently is that the Government's primary objective should not be a paternalistic one, one in cajoling Singaporeans to marry and have more children. These are highly personal decisions, and Singaporeans increasingly baulk at exhortations to have one more for the nation.
Moreover, the state probably does not have enough credibility to speak on pro-natal matters. For more than two decades since 1959, the Government had in place aggressive population control policies that heavily discriminated against large families. So, when the state goes from saying that a third child is a bane to saying that the child is a boon, citizens would be quick to note that having children, to the Government, seems only a means to an end, which is, economic prosperity. Citizens would not desire to have children who are treated as mere factors of production.
Hence, financial assistance schemes that are provided to families, like the ones that are covered in the Act and Bill, should not be seen as financial incentives. Financial incentives are extrinsic motivators and nobody would or should have a kid just because of them. Instead, we must have children because they are both an enormous source of joy and also of sacrifice.
However, I do believe the Government has a role in building a total social environment that supports the bringing up of children. Only the Government has the power of taxation to redistribute from those who have no or few
Page: 100
dependants to those who have more and to fund and regulate crucial services that are vital to the development of children.
But, fundamentally, the state is significantly involved because we, as a society, believe in strong families and loving children. We love children because they are an enormous source of joy. When the love of children is both the start and end points, the babies will eventually come.
But do we really love our children? Loving here is similar to saying that we must be inclusive in our approach. Inclusiveness is primarily a mindset and value system, which both citizens and the Government must demonstrate in thought and action. Inclusiveness here means that we must respect and value each child for who he or she is, not what he or she should be. And, ultimately, each must be treated with equal dignity and compassion, and provided equal opportunities, no matter what their family backgrounds are, like how rich their families are, how intelligent the parents are and what family type they belong to. The point is all the more stark when we consider that these children could not choose who their parents are.
Yet, in many of our policies and many of our perceptions, we discriminate against children. Let me recount some of the ways.
As mentioned by the two speakers before me, we discriminate against the children of single parents and unwed mothers, who struggle harder than other parents because they do not have a partnering spouse to share the load with. Unwed mothers are not eligible for Baby Bonus and a single mother receives only part of the normal entitlement of paid maternity leave and childcare leave. A single parent would also have obstacles purchasing and renting an HDB flat.
We discriminate against the children of low-income parents. The co-savings component of the Baby Bonus favours higher income families who are better able to save upfront to get the matching grant. We also have the HOPE scheme, which illustrates that we value the children of less economically productive people less. And the education system increasingly favours those who can afford tuition for their children.
We discriminate against children whose fathers do not have stable incomes and whose mothers are foreigners. These foreign spouses often find difficulties in procuring a Long-Term Visit Pass, let alone Permanent Residency or a Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus. I regularly learn about children whose families' financial situation is dire and their mother is not allowed to work, or not allowed to even
Page: 101
stay in Singapore for the long term. These are Singaporean children who need a mother; and in making it harder for their mother, we make life hard for their children.
We discriminate against the children of stay-at-home mothers. Working mothers, especially the higher income ones, are eligible for huge tax benefits through the Working Mother's Tax Relief and receive more generous infant care and childcare subsidies. Stay-at-home mothers, on the other hand, feel under-appreciated, even though they have more babies on average and try to invest more time with their children.
Finally, the worst discrimination, I feel, is against all unborn children who are aborted. I understand this is a highly emotive issue, and many would defend vigorously the rights of women to choose. But who asks about the rights of the unborn children who are voiceless? If they are unloved by their mothers, there are many others in Singapore who would queue up to adopt them.
Hence, the picture is quite clear. We seem to love only certain kinds of children. We favour the ones who are from intact and financially stable families, and who have both parents working and with decent income. Do not get me wrong. I am a social conservative when it comes to marital and family matters. I, too, wish for children to have parents who are married and have a strong relationship. But after the children are born, I think we should treat them equally. Like what Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Gerald Giam mentioned, they should not be made to suffer for whatever their parents did or did not do.
To achieve our vision to be one of the best countries in the world to raise children, we must do more than avoid discrimination. We are already excellent in some areas, like public safety and security, and healthcare. But there are some areas that I think need improvements.
Firstly, we need to establish quality childcare and pre-schools for all. Government is already investing heavily in this area to improve quality and availability. I hope it continues to do so, working closely with the private and non-profit sectors. However, currently, I think there are too many assistance schemes. So, why do we not streamline and merge all the pre-school subsidy schemes, including the co-savings component of Baby Bonus, into one standardised voucher for each child that is sufficient to provide a basic, no-frills preschool education free for the three years leading up to Primary school?
Page: 102
Secondly, we have to revamp our education system, and allow a more flexible one that caters to a wide diversity of abilities and learning styles and foster a lifelong love for learning. The current highly test-based system impacts adversely on parent-child bonding time, on their well-being, on household expenditure on education enrichment and tuition, and, eventually, on the number of children desired.
Thirdly, we must strengthen families. Marital instability is a major concern. Nearly a fifth of marriages result in divorce within the first 10 years, the prime time for most to have children. Couples need to work on their marriages more and be open to external help in marital counselling. As mentioned earlier, we need to give more permanent immigration status to foreign mothers with Singaporean children. Parents also need much better work-life balance, more than just having childcare leave, so that they can spend more time with their children.
Fourthly, we need to strengthen gender equity. Low fertility is prevalent in countries where there is gender equity in social institutional settings, like in schools and the workplace, but gender inequality in family settings. In the home setting, women often continue to take on many of the traditional wife and mother duties, while also holding paid employment, resulting in fewer working women having fewer or no children. It is great to see a lot more fathers nowadays in Singapore actively involved in raising their children but, on the whole, gender expectations in Singapore still need to be discussed and refined.
Fifthly, there must be strong and clear social safety nets for all families who have children facing major health problems and disabilities, regardless of their income levels. I am happy that MediShield coverage has been extended for congenital and neonatal conditions. But there are still many parents who spend too much of their limited savings on children with medium to long-term needs, be it on healthcare, or on physical, occupational, speech or other types of therapy.
In conclusion, we need to create a total social environment that makes Singapore one of the best places in the world to raise children. It is not one thing that needs to be fixed, but a bunch of them, and it is not the Government's job alone to fix them. In the end, it is primarily also a matter of mindset and values. For couples and families, it is about how we value children and how we view what constitutes a good life. For the state, it is about helping all children and their families without discrimination. And any financial help from the state is welcomed as supporting parents in their efforts, but should not be seen as
Page: 103
incentives.
Overall, we need to be more upbeat in our efforts. Despite the improvements required, Singapore is already a good place to raise children. Things will get better. And it is because the outlook is hopeful that Singaporeans would bring new children into this world.
So, thank you, Mdm Speaker, for letting me speak on matters beyond the ambit of the Bill but within the intent of the Bill. On the Bill itself, I support it, but would like it to go further in future.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Bill. The amendments demonstrate the Government's commitment to enhance the Marriage and Parenthood Package to encourage the formation of families, support parenting and better work-life harmony.
Confucius said and I quote, "The strength of a nation is derived from the integrity of the home." Strong families form the foundation of a healthy nation. Marriage and parenthood play a key part in the future of Singapore. So, as we work towards building a firm base for families to grow, I would like to highlight three key points for the House to consider in relation to the amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Bill.
The first point is on extended childcare leave. The additional two days of leave for parents of children from seven to 12 years old is, indeed, a welcome one. It acknowledges parents' need for time off to attend to their children's needs, especially if both parents are working. The current leave entitlements are provided, regardless of the number of children that a couple have. This does not give them the additional support they would need should they have more children. If we want to encourage parents to consider having more than one or two children, we should try to provide as many avenues as possible to support their child-rearing efforts. So, I hope the House would consider giving couples with more than two children the additional support they need, especially in this area of leave entitlements for parents.
The second point I would like to raise pertains to the shared parental leave for fathers. The amendment to the Bill now allows for fathers to have one week's paternity leave, as well as share another week of parental leave from the
Page: 104
weeks' maternity leave provided to mothers. This recognises the important role of the father in a family and the much-appreciated support his physical presence will bring to his wife, especially in caring for a young baby.
However, the additional week of shared parental leave will not apply to fathers whose wives are stay-at-home mothers. As MSF seeks to encourage fathers to take on a more active fathering role, I hope the Ministry can consider including this group of fathers so that they, too, can enjoy two weeks of leave to bond with their newborn.
The third and last point I wish to highlight to the House today is the protection of pregnant women. The amended Bill will enhance protection for pregnant employees. Working mothers will be entitled to maternity leave benefits from their employer if they are dismissed without sufficient reason or retrenched at any stage of their pregnancy. I support this and I feel that we can do more to protect pregnant women at the workplace.
While the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill has addressed unfair dismissal and maternity benefits, I hope this House can look into the other areas of maternity protection – such as health protection at the workplace and ensuring arrangements for mothers' breastfeeding and expression of milk. These two areas are part of guiding points provided by the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Maternity Protection Convention 2000 No 183 and Recommendation No 191.
For instance, are there specific guidelines or regulations to protect pregnant mothers and breastfeeding mothers from risks related to chemical, physical and biological agents, industrial processes, movements or postures that could lead to harm? Do employers carry out assessment of such risks in order to adjust working conditions or hours for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers? Are mothers able to request for a change in job scope or roles so as to protect themselves and their child?
The ILO recommends that mothers are given one or more daily breaks or a daily reduction of hours of work to breastfeed her child. These breaks or the reduction in daily hours of work are to be regarded as working time. So, are our workplace environments built to support breastfeeding mothers? Last Friday, an article in The Straits Times brought to our attention how it has now become compulsory for some shopping malls to provide nursing facilities. Likewise, I think we should review the design and environment of workplaces and help them create or modify facilities to support breastfeeding mothers. As SMEs
Page: 105
employ over 80% of our local workforce, could we also provide assistance to our SMEs that need funding or expertise in this area?
The difficulties that nursing mothers face were widely reported and discussed by several mothers in yesterday's Sunday Times article entitled, "Helping Mothers Express Themselves". Ms Fatimah Abdul Rahman had to endure a smelly and unhygienic staff toilet before she gave up expressing at work and it was so very different when she joined KK Hospital later. In KKH, she found a dream nursing room; it has five cubicles, breast pumps, steam steriliser and the works. Of course, not all companies can be as well equipped as KK Hospital but all companies should exercise basic understanding and support for our nursing mothers. Nursing mothers not only juggle work demands, they also face unhappiness from bosses or colleagues when they take time out to express milk.
As a mother of two young children, I understand the inconvenience faced by nursing mothers. Nursing while at work can take tremendous patience, discipline and lots of coordination. I also struggled to juggle all that a few years ago. That is why it is not surprising that many mothers find it very hard to keep breastfeeding after they return to work. So, let us all give them the support that they deserve.
In essence, increasing support for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers, and supporting parents and fathers in their family responsibilities are big steps in the right direction. We cannot do less. If we want to reverse the declining birth rate, we need to give strong signals to parents, mothers, men and women thinking of having children that they are not alone in this area of parenting. The state cannot be a nanny but it can assist parents in parenting through setting pro-family polices and creating family-friendly environments in workplaces and taking the lead to set examples for companies and organisations to follow.
Mdm Speaker, please allow me to wrap up in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I support the Child Development Co-Savings Amendment Bill wholeheartedly. Besides the above-mentioned three suggestions, I also want to emphasise that although the Government provides various supporting schemes, we still need employers' cooperation. Only with their combined efforts can we create a pro-family workplace culture. I recently read a report on Japan's declining birth rate and the ageing problem. One point worth noting in the report is that Japan's
Page: 106
employers generally believe low birth rate is the country's and society's problem, not their companies' problem. Therefore, it is not something that workplaces can help to resolve.
Singapore's employers may be more proactive in their attitude. However, many employers believe that we can rely on importing foreign workers to solve the problems of declining birth rate and manpower shortage. If we allow this trend to continue, eventually, our society will not be able to develop in a sustainable manner. Our young people will leave Singapore to look for opportunities overseas and start their family there, simply because they cannot find high-quality jobs in Singapore. Our population problem will become even worse then.
Hence, I urge companies and employers to make the workplace more pro-family and pro-marriage so that your offices can become a place where employees can marry and start a family with peace of mind. More important than Government policies is the employers and supervisors' flexibility towards employees' needs for family life during different life stages. Employers should help them start a family and contribute their best to the company. Only with the combined efforts of the Government and the companies can we build a youthful, vibrant and hopeful Singapore.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I believe it is good that we are trying to take a broader approach to the issue of compensating especially women who are self-employed so that they do not fall through the net when they have to go on maternity leave. It is, indeed, refreshing that the men are also covered under the Bill.
Population replacement is, indeed, not an easy issue for the Minister to tackle. We know there are also many other countries facing the same problem. In fact, very often, I hear residents discussing this issue and, very often, they say that we are facing this problem because of our "Stop at Two" policy. It was too efficient. Is that really true? There are many other countries, including Japan, Taiwan, which do not have the "Stop at Two" policy and they are also facing the same problem.
As our citizens are better educated, they have also set higher standards for themselves in terms of their careers and their expectations of marriage and having children. In fact, personally, I feel that we need to tackle the problem
Page: 107
even more upstream which is, helping women to find partners. Why do I say so? I observe that in my cohort, in my tutorial group, there were four ladies; only two are married. In a university female basketball team, out of five players, only two are married. So, it is between 50% and 60% who are not married and that is why I feel that we need to tackle the problem upstream.
For those who are married, many of them told me that they welcome financial help and packages from the Government but it will not sway their decision on the number of children that they are planning to have. To some, it is their mindset. To others, it is the experience that they went through from pregnancy to delivery to bringing up their first child. Improve the process, such as a shorter wait at clinics and more family support in terms of housework and so on, perhaps will help.
Many parents have also set higher expectations in bringing up their own children. No longer are they like our parents who would leave us to fend for ourselves at school and in our studies because they were busy looking for three meals for the family then. I remember during my time, after school, I would just have to go to the kitchen to look for porridge. If there was no porridge, I would then have to wait until dinner. My parents would never ask me whether I had homework, whether I had finished my homework or not.
Today's parents want to bring out the best in their children. They want to give their children everything they did not manage to have during their time, including enrichment programmes, swimming classes, drawing classes and, perhaps, table tennis classes as well. Well, this is good. However, in the process of trying to achieve this, they are confronted with some real challenges. And the problem with the challenges is that it is not just about money but it is also about finding the time to create the right environment and the social support to meet the standards they set for their children. I believe this is where there is a gap between what benefits the Government has been able to offer to get them to have children and their ability to bring up their children thereafter. The bigger issue which remains unaddressed is this "thereafter".
Take the example of a child who is growing up. The parents need to find time – and I mean quality time – to oversee the child's studies. They would want to find time to send the child for enrichment programmes on weekends. Worse still, some of them are unable to get good caregivers to take care of their child while they are at work. Remember – not every family wants their child to be put into childcare. Remember – not every family is fortunate to have good domestic helpers who can do the housework and oversee the child. We know how domestic helpers can create as many problems as they are able to help in some
Page: 108
homes. So, as parents, they worry about what is going on at home. Plus, in today's context, getting a domestic helper is not cheap. In addition, some are less fortunate than others and their children grow up with problems in their studies or with emotional problems that require special attention. The children may not be able to cope with their schoolwork or their social environment, spend too much time playing computer games and so forth. All these add on to the challenges that parents face after childbirth.
The steps taken by the Education Ministry to run kindergartens is a step in the right direction. What prospective parents need is support after the child is born. I believe many can afford the fees for childbirth as they enjoy medical benefits. Their problem is what next, after the child is born. We have so far focused on dangling the dollar to get married couples to have children. Our policymakers have not adequately addressed the emotional and social support after the child is born. And I encounter many such issues that parents raise on bringing up children. The modern child is learning so fast that if the parents cannot cope, it will be a lost opportunity that can never be recouped. Hence, I hope the Ministry will continue to search for the answers. If we can find the answers, then the joy of bringing up children will be the draw. They will no longer see the child as a burden or a hindrance to career development.
In conclusion, financial help alone will not sway the decision of the married couples on the number of children they have. What the Ministry needs to work on and highlight is the joy of having children and the need to have more children.
Mdm Speaker, I support the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill, in particular, in the areas of greater employment protection for our working mothers, shared parental leave, provision of paternity leave and extended childcare leave.
These are commendable changes that are necessary for our working parents – not so much to simply improve our current Total Fertility Rate, but more to provide the much needed support for our Singaporean parents to spend more quality time with their children and family and to have better work-life harmony.
While the amendments are lauded, there are some areas which I hope the Ministry can consider, study a little bit more and, hopefully, implement in the
Page: 109
near future.
First, clause 4 of the amendment indicates the addition of section 9 subsection 5A. While the addition is welcomed, I would like to propose a further amendment. Instead of simply providing 56 days of paid maternity leave for all working mothers for their first and second confinements, and 112 days of paid maternity leave for their third and subsequent confinements, I would like to propose a more staggered paid maternity leave provision by the Government.
For the first confinement, it is the same – 56 days of paid maternity leave. For the second confinement, I would like to propose 84 days of paid maternity leave. For the third confinement, I would like to propose 112 days of paid maternity leave and an additional four weeks of half-pay maternity leave. For the fourth and subsequent confinements, I would like to propose 140 days of paid maternity leave and an additional four weeks of half-pay maternity leave.
While I understand that a longer total maternity leave period may compromise the initial or overall employment opportunity for the working mother, I feel that the extended maternity leave period beyond the current 16 weeks can be provided as an option for working mothers.
There are several compelling reasons to do this. One, the amount of paid maternity leave by the Government should increase with later confinements to indicate greater support for working mothers who have more children. In addition, the amount of time that a working mother needs to take care of a newborn and an older child or children is definitely more. Imagine nursing yourself back to health after giving birth, and taking care of a newborn baby and two older children who may be below the age of seven each – all at the same time. As a working mother of three children myself, I know how challenging that can be. Once one child falls ill, the others are quite likely to fall ill as well. It can be quite stressful.
Two, in light of the current employment crunch and to further protect the continued employment of working mothers, the Government can show greater support in this by bearing a larger proportion of the cost of employing working mothers compared to employers. In addition, it might just be easier and probably neater to employ a relief employee over a six-month period on a contract basis compared to over a four-month period to cover the employee who is on maternity leave.
Page: 110
Three, the extended four weeks of half-pay or full-pay maternity leave can be made optional but it certainly can provide the mothers who have just given birth to their third or subsequent child the option to spend more time at home with her children and make it easier to nurse the newborn child with exclusively mother's milk for at least the first six months, as recommended by health professionals as well as the World Health Organization. As a mother who has done this, I know the difference it makes.
Next, clause 10 to include the new sections 12AA to 12AD is a welcome move. However, it is indicated therein that "adoption leave must be consumed within a period of 12 months commencing on the date of birth of the child."
The hon Member Mr Dhinakaran has talked about this earlier, but I would like to add on just a little bit more. While the four weeks of adoption leave are rather generous, I would like to propose that the duration in which these four weeks can be taken be extended to 18 months from the birth of the child – up from the current 12 weeks given. On the part of the biological mother, more time ought to be given to the biological mother to spend time with the newborn child to fulfil the maternal instincts developed throughout pregnancy and for the biological mother to sufficiently nurse the child with mother's milk.
On the part of the adoptive mother, a longer period before the adoption process is completed and approved is also important to give more time for the adoptive mother to ease into the role as the mother and main caregiver to the child.
Essentially, this longer runway of 18 months is necessary to allow the child to have a smoother transition from the care of the biological mother to the adoptive mother and, above all, to ensure the well-being of the child. So, it is not merely an item to be passed on from one person to another.
Third, clause 11 which amends section 12B where two days of childcare leave are given to working parents with at least a child between the ages of seven and 12 years old, inclusive, is a right move.
However, for a working parent who has more than one child – and whose children can be either below seven years old, or between seven and 12 years old, or both – the maximum number of childcare leave they are eligible for, is still six days.
Page: 111
I would like to propose instead for such parents to have the maximum six days of paid childcare leave – three days paid by the employer and three days paid by the Government – and an additional two days paid by the Government. Hence, working parents with more than one child below the age of 13 years old ought to have up to eight days of paid childcare leave. As I have said earlier, it certainly requires more time to take care of more children.
In conclusion, the Government has done much to help Singaporeans plan for a family and have children, such as giving priority for housing and providing child development co-savings and education financial support for the children, among others. We must not fail to acknowledge all these.
Notwithstanding, there are still areas in which the Government can continue to improve on and provide for Singaporean couples to help them have and raise children. The decision to have children is simply not based on the financial ability to raise them, but also on one's ability to spend quality time with them.
While money can provide for most physical needs, time is required to nurture human relationships and inculcate values. Hence, I hope that the Ministry will take a look at the additional measures that I have mooted earlier. Overall, I support the amendments to this Bill.
PAPERCUTS