Supporting Singaporeans in Starting and Raising Families

The first step for many couples is to secure their own home, where they can build a new life together and start a family. Supporting first-time married applicants is a key priority of our public housing policies. We set aside up to 95% of our public flat supply for first-timers.

We started this term of Government in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely disrupted our building programme and caused a public housing crunch. However, through the efforts of HDB and the Ministry of National Development (MND) working with the built environment sector, we are now back on track. All COVID-delayed BTO projects have been completed.

In parallel, we significantly ramped up flat supply. We have not only met our commitment to launch 100,000 BTO flats from 2021 to 2025 but are set to exceed it. We launched 19,600 new flats last year and will launch another 19,600 BTO flats this year. We will continue to put out a steady pipeline of flats to meet housing demand in the next few years and are launching more than 50,000 flats between 2025 inclusive and 2027.

We are also launching over 5,500 Sale of Balance (SBF) flats later this month. SBF flats tend to have shorter waiting times, which will help families who are looking to move into a new home more quickly.

To help reduce the waiting time for flats, we committed to launching 2,000 to 3,000 Shorter Waiting Time (SWT) flats every year. We met the target last year with the launch of 2,800 SWT flats. Ms Hazel Poa has asked if we can further increase the supply of SWT flats. This year, we aim to exceed our target, with 3,800 such flats, and we will continue to explore launching more SWT flats in coming years.

Collectively, these moves have helped to bring down median waiting times to pre-COVID levels of three to four years, compared to four to five years during the peak of the pandemic. Several Members have asked if this could be further reduced down to even 18 months. There are practical and operational challenges to further shortening waiting times. These include difficult site conditions, extensive land preparation required, need for consultation with stakeholder groups and construction industry capacity. But we will do our best.

Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested providing a "quality rental option" for couples waiting for the new flats in the form of the Millennial Apartments Scheme. We do have quality rental options for this group. It is called the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about relaxing the criteria and increasing the supply of flats under the PPHS to help those who need a place while waiting for their BTO flat. As flat supply is limited, the reality is that we will still have to prioritise PPHS flats for those with greater needs. That said, we will double the number of PPHS flats to 4,000 units by this year.

In the meantime, we have introduced the PPHS (Open Market) Voucher as a temporary bridging measure to support households renting an HDB flat or bedroom on the open market. The voucher defrays around 10% of the median 3-room flat rent, or 40% of the cost of renting a HDB bedroom. Around 160 couples have applied for the voucher to date.

We have also been working hard to improve accessibility of BTO flats. We introduced the First-Timer (Parents and Married Couples), or FT(PMC), priority category to help young married couples and families with young children secure their first homes more quickly. Since introduction, about nine in 10 FT(PMC) applicants have been invited to book a flat at each sales launch.

We have also made significant moves to keep HDB housing affordable. To help younger couples who are entering the job market but have not yet started to earn and build up their savings to get flats early, we introduced the Deferred Income Assessment scheme and the Staggered Downpayment Scheme for full-time students and National Servicemen. We also made a major move last year to introduce the new HDB flat classification framework. The increased subsidies for Plus and Prime flats make flats in these locations more affordable for Singaporean couples.

We also enhanced housing subsidies and grants for first-time buyers. These include the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG), the CPF Housing Grant for Resale Flats and the Proximity Housing Grant. With the increased EHG in August 2024, a first-time married couple can benefit from grants of up to $120,000 for BTO flats and up to $230,000 for resale flats.

We know there are still concerns about the resale market. Ms Hany Soh raised concerns about the Cash Over Valuation (COV) component. Resale housing prices have risen over the last few years, driven by strong demand as well as some temporary tightness in the supply of new MOP-ed flats. These flats also tended to be in more attractive or central locations last year. Nevertheless, the vast majority of resale flats remain affordable and most resale flat buyers do not have to pay any COV. We have also implemented several rounds of cooling measures to moderate demand, while increasing support for lower- to middle-income households. These measures will take time to work their way through the market.

Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested indexing our grants to the resale market. We do not do so as this could inadvertently further fuel resale price increases. For example, some sellers may attempt to factor in grant increases in their asking price. This is why we are careful in reviewing grant amounts in tandem with income growth and affordability outcomes and means-test our grants to target support towards buyers who need it the most.

Mr Speaker, Mr Faisal Manap raised two points on divorced parents and transnational families. As he spoke in Malay, please permit me to reply in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Faisal asked us to allow parents who are undergoing divorce and in urgent need of housing to apply for public rental housing before the divorce is finalised. The Government understands and fully empathises with the concerns of divorced couples.

It may be that Mr Faisal is not aware but actually today, HDB does already allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing, even before the interim or final judgments are obtained. We have made this known in a reply to a previous Parliamentary Question in November 2020. [Please refer to "Temporary Housing for Individuals Undergoing Divorce Proceedings Or Division of Matrimonial Assets", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]

In addition, they can also apply to buy a flat upon obtaining the interim judgment and resolving matters relating to the matrimonial property and custody of their children.

Divorcees who are buying a new flat with their children can also qualify for schemes such as the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (ASSIST) and the PPHS.

And beyond housing, we will also continue to support divorced parents and their children through the broad-based support measures under our Marriage and Parenthood Package, so that they can continue to thrive as with all other families.

Therefore, divorced couples need not worry. The Government will do our best to help you.

Mr Faisal also referred to the Long-Term Visit Passes for foreign spouses and shared some concerns, such as whether the current approach of online submissions and assessments are sufficient. We will refer his feedback to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, to summarise, since the start of this term of Government, despite the major disruptions brought on by COVID-19, we have kept up a strong supply and delivered new flats to home buyers. About 80,000 households would have collected keys to their new flats between 2020 and 2024.

We have continued to provide affordable housing; about eight in 10 first-timer families can service their monthly HDB loan instalments with CPF with little or no cash outlay. This remained true in 2024, despite rising housing prices. And amidst the challenges, our longstanding commitment to supporting the housing needs and aspirations of Singaporean families remains firm.

I thank Members again for their suggestions on housing. We will continue to study the ideas and improve our system to support young couples as they embark on their marriage and parenthood journey.

For couples deciding whether to have children, the next big consideration is costs. This is fully understandable as the costs of child-raising can add up with each subsequent child. Several Members have called for more financial support for couples. Today, the Government provides a wide range of financial support for families through cash payouts, grants, subsidies and other forms of support.

Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government could support expenses incurred before the child is born, such as prenatal check-ups. Mr Leong Mun Wai asked if we can allow maternity and child-bearing medical fees to be fully claimable from MediSave without limits.

Actually, it was announced in October last year, under the MediSave Maternity Package, that expectant mothers will benefit from an increase in MediSave inpatient and day surgery withdrawal limits from 1 April this year. For a typical delivery episode comprising a two-day B2 or C Class ward stay and related pre-delivery medical expenses, the amount of MediSave one can withdraw will be up to $4,280, a more than 50% increase from today.

We set a limit because MediSave is intended to help Singaporeans offset healthcare expenses over their lifetime, especially during significant health episodes, which tend to happen during old age. MediSave withdrawal limits are therefore set to strike a careful balance between improving the affordability of current treatment and ensuring Singaporeans have sufficient savings for their future healthcare needs.

Upon birth, each Singaporean baby receives a MediSave Grant for Newborns (MGN), which can be used to cover their MediShield Life premiums, hospitalisation and outpatient treatments. The MGN will be increased from $4,000 to $5,000 for babies born on or after 1 April this year. Nationally recommended childhood vaccinations and developmental screenings at polyclinics and general practitioner clinics under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) are also fully subsidised.

In the child's early years, Government support continues in the form of the Baby Bonus Scheme, comprising the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and CDA. These help parents to defray various child-related costs, from daily expenses to preschool and healthcare.

Taking the Baby Bonus scheme and the increased MGN together, parents can receive up to $25,000 for their first child and up to $38,000 for subsequent children. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift is paid out every year until the child turns six-and-a-half, providing sustained support over the child's early years. The Government also provides strong support for infant care and childcare as outlined by Minister of State Sun earlier.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested providing subsidies for grandparents who care for young children. We are mindful that doing so might make such family support overly transactional and monetise family relationships. It would be more meaningful for appreciation for grandparents to come from their children instead. But meanwhile, we do signal our support for the care provided by grandparents through the Grandparent Caregiver Relief for working mothers whose parents or grandparents care for their children aged 12 or below.

Government support continues as our children progress through school. Education in our national school system and Institutes of Higher Learning is highly subsidised. In total, every Singaporean child can receive over $200,000 in education subsidies from preschool through to secondary school. When you add in the subsidies for higher education – ITE, polytechnics and the publicly funded universities – the amount is even higher. Students from lower- to middle-income families may access various financial assistance schemes offered by the Government, schools and institutions.

For those with more children, we know that expenses for larger families can add up. As mentioned by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally last year, we will be introducing a new scheme for large families. Details will be announced at Budget.

We are also doing more to foster our children's health, well-being and development.

Ms Hany Soh suggested providing expecting mothers with support for each stage of their pregnancy. Last year, we launched the Child and Maternal Health and Well-being Action Plan for mothers and children, including initiatives such as mental health screening, and antenatal and postnatal support.

Over the last two years, we launched Family Nexus centres in four neighbourhoods to bring health and social services closer to families in a single location within their communities. Services include child developmental assessments, postnatal support, and marriage and parenting workshops. We have served over 12,000 children and their parents at these sites.

The next thing that parents really need is time. Many parents tell us they value both family and careers. At work, they want to do their best to fulfill their responsibilities. Yet, they also need to care for their children and increasingly, their parents and grandparents too.

When it comes to child-raising, fathers need to be involved as well. As Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim highlighted, research shows that children benefit from fathers' involvement in their early years and have positive developmental outcomes well beyond the early years.

Over the last few years, we have strengthened our support in three areas to give parents more of that precious commodity – time. These include parental leave; infant care, childcare and student-care facilities which free up parents' time and allow them to focus on work; and FWAs.

In this term of Government, we have significantly ramped up leave for parents. We doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks. We doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year, in the child's first two years. We have introduced 10 additional weeks of new Shared Parental Leave, with the leave equally allocated between both parents as a default to encourage shared parental responsibility. These, together with maternity leave, gives parents of newborns a total of 30 weeks of paid leave. We are also introducing employment protection for fathers starting from 1 April this year, such that it will be unlawful for employers to dismiss male employees on paternity leave.

At the same time, we understand Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's concern that employers, especially SMEs, may incur additional costs when making covering arrangements for employees on parental leave. To support employers, most of our parental leave provisions are Government-paid. Employers can use the wage savings as they deem fit, including to offset any costs during the transition period between returning employees and covering staff. We encourage parents to discuss their leave plans with their employers as early as possible and work with them on suitable covering arrangements.

We have complemented annual leave provisions with childcare leave to cater for ad hoc situations where time off is needed. We provide more childcare leave to those with younger children, as older children are generally more independent.

Some Members have called for more childcare leave, especially for those with more children, primary school-aged children, or children with disabilities. We can understand why families would like additional childcare leave. At the same time, enhancements to our leave schemes require us to strike a fine balance between the caregiving needs of these parents and other caregivers, as well as the needs of employers. Employers also need time to adjust to the new Shared Parental Leave scheme starting soon, which is more complex to administer.

However, Members can be assured that we will continue to regularly review our leave policies in consultation with parents and the tripartite partners.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests which Minister of State Gan has spoken about will benefit all parents with caregiving responsibilities in a sustainable way. At the same time, I urge employers to ensure their workplaces are FWA friendly. Employers should not think of FWAs as an inconvenient imposition but rather embrace it as an integral part of their HR toolkit to attract and retain talent and redesign the way your company works for greater success.

Mr Louis Chua suggested that we over-emphasised work over family but, on the other hand, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa have reiterated the importance of job security to Singaporeans. This is why we need to strike a balance and ensure that our policies consider the needs of all stakeholders.

So, the Government naturally adopts the position in between, balancing both sides. And if you think about it, what is happening in the US now, the call to everybody to come back in the office and not to be able to work from home is really a response and a reaction to the last few years where there has been much more of working from home and we do not want that kind of backlash here. So, that is why we move, calibrating things carefully, recognising that employers' needs are important, jobs are important, incomes are important but also recognising that parents need time to be with their children. So, that is why we take this calibrated approach.

Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Hazel Poa spoke about fertility and that is an important topic which the topic of parenthood cannot be divorced from the subject of fertility. A key factor affecting fertility is age. With people marrying later or delaying having children, we do need to focus much more on fertility health.

I agree with Ms Nadia that the first step is to raise awareness or factors affecting fertility health.

Second, we need to normalise discussions about fertility health. For those who want to have children but have not been successful, the topic of infertility is often shrouded in stigma and shame and for some, a sense of personal failure. We need to have a broader understanding that infertility can affect anyone, male or female, and should be approached in a similar manner to other health issues.

The Government has stepped up fertility support in this term. Eligible couples can receive subsidies of up to 70% for fertility tests. Those undergoing Assisted Conception Procedures in public healthcare institutions can receive up to 75% co-funding. We also introduced elective egg freezing in 2023, to give women who wish to start a family the option to do so if they marry later.

I thank Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Nadia Samdin and Ms Hazel Poa for their suggestions on this front.

Today, women can tap on MediSave for egg freezing done on medical grounds. We are studying if other financing support should also be extended to egg freezing done on medical grounds. For those who wish to use their frozen eggs for assisted conception procedures in future, they can receive Government co-funding support and use MediSave for their treatments.

I wish to clarify with Mr Desmond Choo that since January 2020, women aged 40 and above can receive co-funding for up to two of the six co-funded ART cycles, as long as they have attempted an ART or intrauterine insemination procedure before age 40.

We have also bolstered mental and emotional support for those undergoing fertility treatment. Assisted Reproduction centres are required to inform patients of available counselling services prior to any assisted conception procedure and refer them for psychosocial counselling if needed.

Non-government groups also have an important role to play. Fertility Support SG is a non-profit organisation started in 2020 by a group of ladies facing infertility. They decided to create a community of support for others with fertility issues. They provide information, create a safe space for discussions and share experiences.

Mr Speaker, much of today's debate has centred on married couples and parents. But singles are also an important group to look out for.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government could run a networking agency or app for singles to meet potential partners. I should say that decisions around dating and romantic relationships are deeply personal. These are certainly not things that the Government can mandate. What we can do, perhaps, is our best to facilitate. Introducing a platform or app with an explicit Government signature may not be the most effective approach. Many youths tell us they prefer to meet and interact with people in natural settings.

Today, we have a vibrant social interaction space with a wide variety of options for singles to meet new people, be it through well-established online apps, or more informal interest groups. We welcome ground-up initiatives by partners who are keen to encourage and strengthen friendships among young people and we will provide our support where appropriate.

Mr Speaker, support for families goes beyond what Government can do. If we are to succeed in having more marriages and babies, we will need a whole of society approach – employers, businesses, community partners and individuals – all have a part to play too, to create a society where family is valued and parenthood is supported.

It is not always the big things. Sometimes, it is the small things. Mr Louis Ng has made repeated calls in this House for more lactation rooms for nursing mothers.

At his invitation, I met with the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group to understand the challenges faced by breastfeeding mothers. They shared stories of how nursing mothers had to express in a dusty storeroom or spaces with little privacy. And recently, a former colleague sent me a picture of what passes for a lactation room in a dispute resolution facility – basically a room with a table and chairs suitable for meetings but not really configured for a nursing mother's needs. We must consider the message that is inadvertently being sent, which is that breastfeeding, which is an integral part of motherhood, is an inconvenience and the provision of facilities for it is more of an afterthought. That is the message that is being sent. So, I am sure there was no ill-intent on the part of building owners and employers. But the message to nursing mothers is discouraging nonetheless and at odds with a society that wants to be supportive of families.

On this, I am pleased to inform Mr Louis Ng and Members that the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has recently released the Draft Code on Accessibility 2025 for public consultation which, among other things, proposes enhanced requirements for lactation rooms in office buildings and business parks. Public feedback has been positive thus far. BCA is refining the proposed revisions. I will share more at MND's Committee of Supply.

This is just a small example. But the broader point is that as a society, we must think more deeply and carefully about how we can be supportive of families in ways big and small, be it from re-imagining how to structure work and adopt good HR policies to help employees manage career and parenthood, to having child-friendly infrastructure and activities for families.

In this, Families For Life and the Made For Families, which Minister of State Sun spoke about, play important roles. Families For Life provides information, programmes and community support on marriage, parenting and grandparenting, which can also be accessed online. I encourage families to avail themselves of these resources. Made For Families rallies organisations to adopt family-friendly practices. To date, more than 280 businesses have pledged their commitment under the Made For Families movement. However, that is still a very small number compared to the number of businesses in operation. I, therefore, encourage more businesses to join us as partners.

Sir, to summarise, this Government is committed to supporting Singaporeans along their marriage and parenthood journey. This includes for buying their first flat; grants up to $120,000 for BTO flats and up to $230,000 for resale flats; not forgetting the market subsidies that we provide to keep BTO flats affordable.

It also includes support for raising children up to $38,000 in Baby Bonus and MGN for each child and over $200,000 in education subsidies per child from preschool to secondary school, and even more for higher education. And also work-life support: 30 weeks of paid parental leave during the child's first year after birth; and various caregiving options and FWAs for ongoing caregiving needs.

For preschools, we have ramped up infant care capacity; and for education, we have also undertaken major reforms. All in all, factoring our investments in the early childhood sector and upcoming parental leave enhancements, we expect marriage and parenthood initiatives to cost the Government close to $7 billion in FY2026, up from over $4 billion in 2020. That is just for the early childhood sector and the upcoming parental leave enhancements. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office, and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.] This is over and above our subsidies for general and higher education as well as our housing subsidies.

So, Sir, we will continue to review and update our policies as called for by the original Motion and I want to thank Members for their ideas and suggestions, which we will certainly take into account in reviewing and updating the various policies.

So, Sir, I support the original Motion.

Let me deal with the amendment proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai. The proposed amendment is this. Let me read out the original Motion. Then, I will read out the amendment.

The original Motion is, "That this House calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations for Singaporeans and endorses a whole-of-society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families."

Mr Leong's proposed amendment is to delete the words, "continued review and updating" and substitute, instead, the word "re-imagination". So, if you do that and if you insert his amendment, it will read as follows, "That this House calls for the re-imagination of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations for Singaporeans and endorses a whole of society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families."

Ordinarily, Mr Speaker, I would have no issue with such a proposed amendment, because after all, why would one object to the idea of re-imagining something and making sure that you come up with something new; except that, in this context, there are two reasons why I would not support the amendment.

The first is that, in this context, it is actually not a step forward, it is a step back. And second, it is tied to a policy which is problematic and let me explain why.

So, the first reason. Why do I say that the amendment is actually a step back? Well, it is because, in this debate, I think, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Louis Chua have sought to portray the marriage and parenthood measures that we have at the moment as incremental. So, in other words, not bold enough, not doing enough, therefore, you need to re-imagine something.

But the point is this: in the last few years, we have already started the re-imagination process. It is called Forward SG and if you look at what we did with Forward SG, you will see that when Forward SG was launched, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said at the launch of the Forward Singapore Exercise in June 2022, that the 4G Team was going to embark on an exercise to review and refresh our social compact and chart a roadmap for the next decade and beyond.

And just before he became Prime Minister, he said in an interview with local media, we are prepared to relook everything. It is not so much that we are going to slay a sacred cow for doing so, but we are prepared to re-examine all our assumptions and consider, under different circumstances, different societal expectations and needs. What might we do differently? And we have already started this process because the Forward SG work has already started. So, what are some of the major moves that we have done? We have done quite a few things.

If you think about it, the HDB new Classification Framework. That is a major move. For decades, we have had the mature and non-mature classification, but this came out of Forward SG. We launched it last year and it is a major move that is just starting to take place and we are rolling it out, so it is actually being implemented.

The other major moves would be for preschool. We have enhanced access to affordable quality preschools. We have ramped up the infant care capacity threefold over the last 10 years and by the end of this year, we will achieve our commitment to provide Government-supported places to cater for 80% of preschools. And we have also lowered the "out-of-pocket" expenses and we have had subsidy enhancements and fee cap reductions.

And education – we have made big, bold changes in education under the equip pillar of Forward SG. We have removed the PSLE T-score. We have removed mid-year exams. We have now a full implementation of full subject-based banding and we are broadening the post-secondary pathways.

And in addition, we have got Shared Parental Leave. That is another major move. Ten weeks of Government-paid leave, which is going to cost us something to the tune of $400 million per year and this was under the care pillar of Forward SG. And also, FWAs. We have introduced the tripartite guidelines.

All these are major moves with a vision of a "Singapore Made for Families".

So, we have already started the re-imagination process. The boat called re-imagination has already left port and is sailing. It is heading out towards open waters. It is chugging along. It is picking up speed and we are implementing, adding on and enhancing as we go. So, to ask us in this amendment to start re-imagination, it is kind of like a step back. It is kind of like going to the port, whereas the ship has already sailed. That is the reason why I would not agree to the amendment. That is the first reason.

But there is a second reason and it is a bit problematic. That is because in his speech on calling for re-imagination, Mr Leong Mun Wai has also said that we need to adopt certain policies and one of the central ones is the Affordable Homes Scheme. I mean, the other ideas and suggestions, certainly, we can think about and explore, but the Affordable Homes Scheme is the one that removes the price of land when pricing flats upfront. And that is problematic.

Because PSP's Affordable Homes Scheme is akin to a pre-paid rental scheme that turns Singaporeans from home owners to tenants and users only have the option to buy the flat at the point when they are actually going to sell it and it is a raid on the Reserves. So, for that reason, because in the context of this amendment, re-imagination entails certain policies put forward by PSP, of which a key one is the Affordable Homes Scheme, which constitutes amongst other things, a raid on the Reserves and I cannot support it.

But, Sir, other than that, I really do thank Members for their support for families, their ideas and suggestions, which we will continue to take on board and I support the original Motion.

Thank you, Sir. I would just like to seek one clarification from the Minister. Earlier, the Minister mentioned that there are cases where HDB approved application for rental flat under the public rental scheme by individuals who are still in the midst of divorce proceedings. So, may I know, is there a specific scheme for this or is it across the board or just based on a case-by-case basis?

I will have to confirm whether or not it is a specific scheme, but what I can confirm is what I mentioned earlier, which is that even though you have not finalised the divorce, you can still make the application.

So, as I said earlier, and let me just check what I said there: "HDB does already allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing even before the interim and final judgments are obtained." I think this was dealt with in the reply to a previous Parliamentary Question in November 2020.

So, if the Member's residents are concerned, the Member can give them the assurance that HDB will still look at their applications.

I thank the Minister, for her reply. But based on my personal dealing with the MPS cases, there are many letters, replies from HDB, which mentioned that residents have to go through the proceedings to be able to prove, to submit a divorce certificate. So, basically, my proposal is for HDB to actually implement a scheme for such cases.

I will check. But if there are any specific cases, then, perhaps, Mr Faisal Manap can send them to me and I will see what can be done.

So, to confirm two things. One is that it is case-by-case, not a specific scheme. I have just confirmed that.

Second, in the letter that Mr Pritam Singh referred to, it also did refer to a deed of separation, right? So, just to check, there is a difference between an application to buy a new flat and application for rental flat.

So, the one that I talked about was in the context of a rental flat, because that was Mr Faisal Manap's original speech. So, for the rental housing, HDB does allow individuals who have commenced divorce proceedings to apply for rental housing, even before the interim or final judgments are obtained.

Can I just check for Mr Pritam Singh, was he talking about application to buy or application for rental?

Yes, and I believe that in the reply, Mr Singh did refer to HDB talking about a "deed of separation". And a deed of separation is something you can do, even before the interim judgment. So, maybe that might be a way of doing it.

But perhaps, what I can do is, see whether HDB's procedures can be more facilitative, because that will help people who may not be familiar with all the various legal documents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministers of State for their very comprehensive replies, especially there are many points raised by the Minister. As a result of that, I have many questions to ask.

But first of all, I would like to ask the Minister, today, I think all of us agree that the low TFR and the declining TFR is a very serious problem for our country. So, I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, whether when we are debating the need for more policies, are we treating this as a national emergency or not? Or is it just a business as usual, maybe we need more? But I think the most important thing that we need to agree is that this is a very urgent problem and I would classify it as a national emergency. Would she agree to that first? My first question.

Okay, first of all, I want to ascertain whether we are debating this as a national emergency or not.

The next thing is, the Minister mentioned about re-imagining. So, we raised the issue, and my colleagues from Workers' Party also agree to that, that the current policies are obviously inadequate. As a result, we need to have new policies and there is a basis for us to say why the current policies need re-imagining.

So, I would like to ask the Minister whether she agrees that when we imagine what I have suggested in my speech, for example, we are actually trying to engage all the stakeholders, a whole-of-society approach. The whole-of-society approach, when hearing from the office bearers, seems to be a shirking of responsibility, saying that, it is not just the responsibility of the Government, the society also has to help.

But to us, the whole-of-society approach is that you must provide more fiscal incentives, to involve more stakeholders. Does the Minister agree, that in our recommendation of the new policies, we actually consider stakeholders like the employers. You ask the employers to have more FWAs, you ought to give them more fiscal incentives. We talk about engaging the community, engaging the extended family, the grandparents who are giving care to the children, they ought to be renumerated.

We are trying to expand the scope of thinking. It is not just what the Government has been doing, just from Government to the parents. Furthermore, we are also expanding into thinking about the mental health of the children, because happy children mean happy life.

So, when we say re-imagining, we are, of course, confident that there are many gaps in the current policies of the Government.

I thank the Minister for giving a list of policies that the Government has and I shall, one by one, ask her whether these are the gaps in the policies or not.

First of all, under helping married couples with their first home. After all the policies that the Minister has said here, how about the price of the HDB? It is still very high, right? So, you have not solved the problem.

Two, you said you cannot reduce the waiting time to below three years; then, TFR cannot be improved. You have to do something about it. You did not solve the problem, right?

So, our suggestions of Affordable Homes Scheme plus our Millennial Apartments Scheme do provide a feasible solution. This is the third question. Still got gaps, right?

So, secondly, when you want to encourage Singaporeans, especially mothers to have babies, I think we ought to upgrade the kind of help we want to give them. So, while we have done some of these and that, like before birth, you say now the MediSave is 50% increase from today. But this is from 1 April onwards. And that is one problem with saying the Government policies' implementation is that you always put it ahead.

So, many parents will feel short-changed. In fact, I think the policy should be to backdate one year, so as to make the parents feel that, "Hey, I had better get into the boat as soon as possible." Rather than, "Oh, I will give you the benefit in a few months' time." So, that means you cause the parents to say, "Maybe I should delay a few months and see whether maybe after Budget?"

Okay, thank you, Sir. So, the fourth clarification is, do you think these policies ought to be implemented backdated rather than forward dated?

The fifth clarification I seek to get is, under supporting child's development and well-being, she mentioned the shift in the education system and all that. But does the Minister think that this is really sufficient? Because I think we still got a lot of feedback from the ground that the PSLE system is still a big burden on the families. So, does she think that our suggestion of having a dual track system can achieve three objectives at the same time: one is better family life; two is better child development; and three, actually allows our children to have more social interaction time. This is the fifth point.

And the sixth point I want to make is that, in terms of helping parents to balance work and all that, does she agree that our suggestion of an enhanced job-sharing scheme has the following benefits and actually it engages the employers better rather than the current job-sharing scheme of just providing $35,000?

And the benefits of a job-sharing scheme – enhanced job-sharing scheme – does she agree that: one, it improves work life balance; two, Singapore workers can continue to be on the job without leaving the job market and that is very important. Today, once a Singaporean leaves the job market, it is very difficult for him or her to come back, and we all know that. And three, actually, it can increase employment because it may allow a few more Singaporeans to have part of a job.

My last question, the seventh question is, does she agree that since we want to build Singapore as a "Singapore Made for Families" and we want to involve a whole-of-society effort, the best is actually to engage the extended family and give incentives to the family and that will make our overall plan far more effective. So, that is the seventh question, does she agree that this will be a more effective way of doing it?

So, in conclusion, I think what I am trying to drive at is our re-imagining is not just giving some money from Government to parents. It is actually involving a lot of stakeholders and incentivising them to take action towards the same objective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me try and answer these clarification/speeches as succinctly as I can.

First, he asked, is it a national emergency? I would rather put it this way. I think it is a very important national issue. "Emergency" sort of suggests the idea of all alarm bells ringing, everybody rushing around and so on.

But our approach is when you have a serious national issue, you look at it calmly, coolly, you understand what the issues are and you then take the necessary steps to address them.

And that leads on to his next point about re-imagining, because Mr Leong said that have we engaged the stakeholders? That is exactly what I was explaining just now. That was the whole purpose of the Forward SG exercise and, in fact, before that, we had the Singapore Together conversations.

So, the point I am making about the re-imagination process – leave aside the policies that he has suggested – the amendments made it appear as though we have not even embarked on thinking about re-imagining Singapore and my reply to that was, we have already started the re-imagination process and we have done that under Forward SG and we have done engagements. In fact, if you take into account all the people that we have engaged through the various exercises, it is almost like 200,000 people. And that would include the families, family members, parents and so on.

Then, I think the next point that Mr Leong raised was talking about whether the policies were resulting in a low TFR. I think the point I made in my speech, which I must reiterate here, is that declining TFR is a global trend. It is not just Singapore. So, for example, between 2013 and 2023, I mean, when you look at all of the countries, Malaysia, France, Denmark, Sweden, UK, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, they are all on a downward trend. Perhaps the only one that bucks the trend may be Israel, which was mentioned in one of the speeches.

But in Malaysia, the TFR is 1.73. There has been a drop. Well, it has been dropping and then just had a slight tilt up. In France, it has gone down to 1.68; Denmark is 1.50; Sweden, 1.45; UK, 1.44; Japan, 1.20; Singapore, 0.97; South Korea, 0.72.

So, the point to be made is that it is not just us, which means that there is something happening at a global level and those are the reasons which I mentioned earlier.

What is our approach? Remember, because we embarked on this before. Mr Leong set out a list of his policies and asked whether I could agree with each one of them. But we started this whole process, this re-imagination process before. We talked to people to understand what their concerns were. And their concerns were, as I mentioned in my speech: space or housing, costs for child raising, education or competitive stress and time.

And so, we developed our policies specifically in response to what they told us. And this resulted in the reclassification framework, this resulted in the enhanced Baby Bonus, this resulted in the enhancements to childcare, this resulted in the Shared Parental Leave – all of the things which I outlined.

So, as far as the list that Mr Leong has put out of his proposed policies, those, if he is putting them forward as things which may be helpful, remember, as I mentioned in my closing of the speech, I said we can consider all of those. The main issue I had was with his Affordable Homes Scheme because that constitutes a raid on the Reserves and has all those other downsides. I really felt that I could not support the amendment insofar as it was tied to that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two questions for the Minister, although she has avoided answering all the questions already. But I will give her two new questions. First of all, when we compare the global trend of TFR, why do not we compare ourselves with France, compare ourselves with those countries – because although the Minister has quoted a downward trend of the TFR as a global phenomenon, but other countries are able to maintain it at above 1.5; but we are 0.97. Does that difference mean that it is a responsibility that the Government has to take? That is the first question.

The second question is actually the debate on the Affordable Homes Scheme is not complete. But I do not want to extend today's debate into the Affordable Homes Scheme. I have stated many times that I disagree that it is raid on the Reserves. And when the Minister says that the Affordable Homes Scheme is actually a prepaid rental scheme, is the current system not the same thing, with the 99-year lease? Is the 99-year lease not a prepaid rental scheme as well, for 99 years?

So, please, do not use Affordable Homes Scheme to negate all the debate I am trying to put up today. Do you agree?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not sure I quite understood Mr Leong's point about the global trends because he referred to France, and which I had also referred to. France is also on a global decline as far as TFR is concerned.

So, I am not quite sure, but the suggestion seems to be that Government is responsible for 0.97 TFR. I think that that is not the case. It is a global trend. There are many factors which are affecting TFR and I have listed them. No need to go through them again.

But what can the Government do? The Government can do its very best to facilitate and try to make sure that we have an ecosystem and an environment that is as supportive of parents and couples, and of marriage and parenthood as possible, which is exactly what we are trying to do.

Then, on the second point of Affordable Homes Scheme, I think we must certainly agree to disagree, because Mr Leong may have his view on Affordable Homes Scheme but I have mine.

And I have to explain to the Chamber why I disagree with his proposed amendment. And his amendment, one of the key things, is the Affordable Homes Scheme and that is the part I disagree with. Remember, I said that the other things we can discuss. So, this was the one that caused me a difficulty and that is why I am sharing it to everybody why I think that I cannot support the amendment.

Sir, I am not sure how useful it is to prolong this debate. But Mr Leong says the Government says, "Can't help it". We never said, "Can't help it". As far as this Government is concerned, we want to make a Singapore that is Made for Families and we are encouraging marriage and parenthood. So, it is very odd because Mr Leong says the Government says something when the Government has not said any such thing.

Are policies working? We have policies in the past which took us up to a certain point. But remember, we recognise that changes need to be made and things need to be looked at afresh – and that is exactly why we implemented Forward SG and that is why we embarked on the process of looking at what new policies we can introduce.

So, insofar as he says, set a target. You cannot just set a target for women to have children just like that. I do not think that families or mothers will just produce babies just because you set them a target. Having children is a personal decision and it is really up to parents to decide if they want to have children. What we can and are doing is trying to make it as facilitative and as comfortable as possible for them to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just wanted to highlight another dimension to marriage and parenthood. And I would like to cite a survey that was conducted by the National Youth Council together with the IPS, which was published in August 2024, where 3,000 young people had been surveyed. They were aged between 17 and 24 years old. And in their list of priorities, I am reading from the survey here, they had prioritised their top life goals for the next five years: the first was being in good health; the second was having a good career; the third is having lots of money; the fourth is having financial security; only at number six is getting married; and having children is actually further down the list.

I am sharing this survey because it is published data. It is factual data. It is from a survey of young persons and it is just to reinforce the point that Minister Indranee made, which is that when it comes to matters as personal as getting married and having children, it is not just like we snap our fingers and we say, "We want TFR to be this", that we can somehow command young people to go forth, get married and have children. We have to recognise that they have their own aspirations.

I think the survey results that we have shown here is not unique to Singapore. All across the world, when you look at published data, when you look at interviews with young people, the aspirations of young people have changed. I think we have to recognise that.

Okay, my last question, Speaker, Sir. Does the Minister agree that when I say we set a target, we are not actually trying to force Singaporeans to have babies. We are saying that as a policy objective, when we implement policies, we need an objective. So, like when you build infrastructure, there is a population target that you are looking at.

So, here, it is the same. Does the Minister agree that we cannot be just implementing policies without thinking about whether those policies will yield a certain amount of results or not, and what that certain amount of results is, is equivalent to a target, whether it is a soft target or a hard target? That is all I want to say. I think I have made my point already.

Sir, I think there is a difference. I mean, there are certain things where you can set targets and there are certain things where you can be as encouraging and as facilitative as possible, but I do not think that you can put a finite measure on it.

So, we can say we want to build X kilometres of roads. We can have Y number of bridges. We can have Z number of buildings. But I think it would be very difficult to say to Singaporeans, "You must produce X number of babies".

I think what Mr Leong should appreciate is that, for infrastructure maybe, for certain things, economic things, you can set certain specific targets. But when it comes to emotions, when it comes to things like fertility, when it comes to personal decisions, those are very hard to quantify.

So, the approach that we have taken is to try and create a country, a society, an environment that is as encouraging and supportive as possible. And we hope that Singaporeans will be able to respond to that because the policies that we are putting in place have been based on the feedback that they have given us.