Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“Given that the core amendment in this Bill is to raise GST to 8% in 2023 and to 9% from 2024 onwards, the Workers' Party cannot support this Bill.”
“But as we look forward into the horizon and take into context the very challenging road ahead, given the persistent inflationary environment, will low- to middle-income households then be on the hook for the higher GST rates after the benefits of the Assurance Package wear off, even after the topped-up Assurance Package? Again, do we really want the successive GST hikes to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for our fellow Singaporeans who are already struggling with the cost of living? Finally, Singapore has only narrowly averted a technical recession in the third quarter of this year, with the economy growing 1.5% quarter-on-quarter on a seasonally adjusted basis – a turnaround from the 0.2% contraction in the second quarter. Singapore's GDP growth will come in below trend in 2023 and downside risks have intensified. Against a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop with significant downside risks in the global and domestic economies, a GST hike at this point is counterintuitive and could lead to a lower path for GDP and private consumption. Mr Speaker, when the decision to raise GST to 9% was mooted in 2019, circumstances could not be more different. There was no COVID-19, commodity prices were half of what they are today and inflation rates were one-tenth of what they are today. To summarise, the timing of the proposed GST hike could not be any worse and it is irresponsible to proceed with it. This is especially so, considering the fiscally viable alternatives which have not been given due consideration, soaring inflation driving up the cost of living significantly and the fact that assistance packages provided are only temporary versus the GST hike, which is forever.”
“Even if we incorporate only the 6% headline inflation across both 2022 and 2023, household expenditures will increase by about $2,500 a year over those two years whereas the two sets of cost-of-living packages in June and October will only result in an $800 increase in benefits across the Household Utilities Credit, cost-of-living Special Payments and additional CDC vouchers that these households will qualify for. What is even more worrying is that, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, we must also be realistic that inflation is not going to go back to the situation where we were used to over the past decade where it was very low rates of inflation. Even if inflation eases eventually, prices are not going to come down and will continue to increase, exacerbating cost of living pressures for our fellow Singaporean households. My next point is then simply that Assurance Packages are temporary while a GST hike is forever. I recognise that the previously announced Assurance Package was supposed to offset about five years' worth of additional GST for most households. Back to the case of a middle-income couple with two young children, as illustrated by MOF, the total Assurance Package over five years amounts to $3,850, compared to the estimated annual household expenditure of $40,320. With the effects of inflation coming in hard, these five years' worth of offset is looking to be increasingly diminished. So, I do recognise the $1.4 billion top-up to the Assurance Package, which the Deputy Prime Minister has just announced. The blunting of the near-term impact from the GST hike from the Assurance Package is a welcome salve for low- to middle-income households.”
“In its October monetary policy statement, MAS noted that core inflation is likely to stay around 5% for the rest of 2022 and remain high in the first half of 2023. Similarly, MAS expects headline inflation to average 6% in 2022 and stay elevated at 5.5% to 6.5% in 2023. I fully agree with MAS that there are upside risks to this inflation forecast, including second round effects associated with a prolonged period of high inflation, which the Deputy Prime Minister also warned that it is unlikely that we return to a period of low inflation during his press conference last month. Do we really want to fan the flames of inflation and contribute an additional unnecessary one percentage point increase in the cost of living? Are we contributing to inflationary pressures? I am not much of a football person but, when your team is 5-0 down, does it make sense to respond by scoring an own goal? If you consider the effects of the Household Support Package, public transport vouchers and the two cost-of-living packages in June and October, these arguably one-off assistance packages can cover just over half of the increase in cost of living for middle-income households on average this year. The key words I want to highlight is "this year". Using MOF's illustration of a middle-income couple with two young children, the estimated annual household expenditure that incurs GST will amount to $40,320, which I assume to be based on average expenditure from 2018 to 2020.”
“Put another way, comparing revenue data on a year-on-year basis would suggest that operating revenues have cumulatively increased by 14% year-on-year or $5.8 billion in the first half of FY2022 alone. This will compare favourably to the projected increase of $1.4 billion for the full year. Even if we include the additional $1.5 billion package from October, there appears to be sufficient budgetary slack for the rest of the financial year. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong may say that we cannot rely on sentiment-driven collections, such as like stamp duties, which can fluctuate from year to year. However, the increase in revenues was driven by tax revenues led by corporate income tax at $3.5 billion, GST at around $900 million and personal income taxes at around $700 million. Is it not fair for us to ask is there really a need to push through the GST hike so urgently, especially when the effects of inflation have also partially contributed to the almost $1 billion year-on-year increase in GST collections in just the first half of the year alone? This brings me to my next point on inflation, where I still recall Minister of State Low Yen Ling's response to Parliamentary Questions in February this year where she shared then that MAS' core inflation is expected to increase in the first half of 2022 before easing in the latter part of the year for headline inflation to average 1.5% to 2.5% in 2022 and that both MTI and MAS do not expect persistent accelerating inflation. The current circumstances have proven otherwise, unfortunately, where core inflation and headline inflation have both accelerated over the course of the year, reaching 5.3% for core inflation and 7.5% for headline inflation – the highest levels since 14 years ago in 2008.”
“4 billion as of Budget 2022. This would already be more than sufficient to cover the first $1.5 billion support package. Moreover, both operating and development expenditures are lower by a combined $3.6 billion, which, I understand, is due to lower-than-budgeted spending on COVID-19 response measures as the Omicron variant turned out less severe than anticipated. Combining higher revenues and lower expenses would mean that the Government's primary deficit improved by $5.7 billion which, again, is more than sufficient to cover the recent $1.5 billion support package. In September this year, I asked a Parliamentary Question on the current FY2022's to-date operating revenue, operating expenditure, development expenditure and the primary surplus deficit respectively and how these figures compare with the budgeted figures. In his reply, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong noted that it is generally not meaningful to compare the latest revenue and expenditure figures against the budgeted figures so early in the financial year. I was thus a bit surprised that just one month later, on 14 October, the Government announced a second $1.5 billion support package, which will be funded from better-than-expected fiscal outturn in the first half of FY2022. I would thus like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister once again just how much better was our fiscal position in the first half of the year and what is this projected to be by the end of the financial year. I ask because, based on operating revenue data for the first half of the financial year, it appears that the total Government operating revenue of $48.9 billion is already about 60% of the full-year FY2022 estimates from Budget 2022.”
“Mr Speaker, it is disappointing that the Government has decided to push through the GST hike, as set out in clause 4 of the Bill where the GST will be raised to 8% for 2023 and 9% for 2024 onwards. While we recognise that the GST hike is meant to meet growing expenditure needs, the Workers' Party has consistently made clear our view that the GST hike is not necessary and that there are ways to raise recurrent revenue without resorting to an increase in GST, especially against the backdrop of macroeconomic uncertainties and soaring inflation. The only responsible approach is not to proceed with the GST hike without seriously considering the other better alternatives to secure the revenues we need, which the Workers' Party has described in detail during the 2022 Budget Debates earlier this year. Before I touch on why I believe the GST hike is not at all appropriate, particularly given the current circumstances, I do recognise the sets of support packages provided to our fellow Singaporeans. Given how our fiscal position has and is shaping up to be, it is, after all, the right thing to do. The first $1.5 billion package announced on 21 June provides relief for lower-income households and vulnerable groups. The package will be funded from the better-than-expected fiscal outturn in FY2021. As I have shared in my Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill speech in July this year, actual operating revenue collections for FY2021 turned out to be higher, compared to what was initially budgeted in Budget 2021 and even the revised estimates for Budget 2022 announced earlier this year. Overall operating revenues worked out to be $82.5 billion for FY2021 – $5.8 billion higher, compared to $76.6 billion as initially budgeted in Budget 2021 and $2.1 billion higher than the revised estimate of $80.”
“Sorry. The first is in regard to the utilisation rates of these bicycles lots across the different transit stations. And the second is, I understand that under the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 (LTMP), we do have targets for a 20-minute town and 45-minutes city, so whether or not we could set certain targets as to the number of lots in order to support these ambitions under the LTMP.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two quick supplementary question. The first is, if the Ministry can share with us the utilisation rates of these bicycle lots.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Like Member Ms Yeo Wan Ling, I also received similar feedback from some residents on the increasing prevalence of mosquitoes, which I presumed is due to the release of these male Wolbachia mosquitoes. My supplementary question is on how much the Ministry believes in the importance of support from all MPs in the community engagement efforts. And I ask this because I received an email from NEA earlier in March, in terms of support for the publicity of Project Wolbachia, in terms of the engagement of residents. But while I attended such an online zoom session in March, I thought it was also important to gain a firsthand understanding, hence requested to actually participate in some of these study sites and release activities. But I only learnt last week that these community engagement efforts are conducted only through People's Association (PA) and I was not able to participate.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I only have one supplementary question. I note from the Minister's response on the use of data analytics. Just wondering if the Minister can share with us in terms of the data points that are being collected from companies which make an EP application, to show that they have failed to source for a local candidate after the 14-day or 28-day period, despite their best efforts. Then, the MOM side can also satisfy itself that this is truly the case for these companies.”
“I hope we can, firstly, take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance; and, secondly, lower singles’ eligibility age for HDB BTO flats from the current 35 to 28. I am comforted that there is a slight reallocation of 2-room flexi BTO flats in non-mature areas for singles, with up to 65% of the non-senior 2-room flexi flats in non-mature estates will be set aside for first-timer singles, an increase from up to 50% currently. This, however, only means a marginal increase of, at most, 9% of 2-room flexi flats in only non-mature estates available. As elected Members of Parliament, we are given a mandate from and by the people we serve. We, therefore, must lend a listening ear to the generation ahead of us and ensure that our public housing policies are both inclusive and reflective of the diversity of our society. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared last year that beyond just a roof over our heads, home ownership has provided Singaporeans with a sense of stability, security and belonging and has given us a strong stake in our country’s progress. In this spirit, I hope the Government can consider the points I have raised in this speech and ensure that the housing needs of singles and all Singaporeans are met.”
“Our current policy measures have been described as imposing “anti-single penalties” and which, unknowingly, become signals to singles that their marital status, whether by their own volition or not, is viewed as undesirable and undeserving of Government support for home ownership. The next key argument against singles owning HDB flats is that it is somehow in conflict with the Government’s goals of encouraging marriage and family formation. If this hypothesis were true, then we might see an immediate dip in marriage rates for singles over 35 years old who have been able to buy an HDB flat of their own. To test this, we looked at the number of marriages in the 35- to 39-year-old age group at two key points in time when HDB options for singles were expanded: after October 1991 when the Single Singapore Citizen scheme was first introduced; and after July 2013 when singles were allowed to buy 2-room BTO flats in non-mature estates. The data showed that in the three-year period from 1992 to 1994, as well as from 2014 to 2016, marriage rates and the number of marriages for both males and females in the 35- to 39-year-old age group went up instead of falling. We accept that this could be a simple coincidence of timing between housing policy and marriage rates, which are, of course, affected by multiple factors and do not necessarily imply causation. However, the data does suggest that we need not be too circumspect about expanding HDB options for singles as a factor that will single-handedly cause a further delay or decline in marriages. On the contrary, allowing singles to have a home of their own might even encourage marriage and family formation. Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Adjournment Motion does not call for a major overhaul to the policies that are in place today.”
“The data shows that young married couples overwhelmingly apply for 3-room or larger BTO flats and very few apply for 2-room flats, whereas singles are limited to buying only 2-room flexi BTO flats. For example, in the BTO exercises since 2015, the application rate for 2-room flexi flats among first-timers have consistently been less than one time, while that for 3-room or larger BTO flats has consistently been multiple times oversubscribed. Moreover, first-timer singles can only apply for 2-room Flexi flats in non-mature locations, with a cap of 65% of the balance 60% of such flats meant for non-elderly applicants; in other words, at most, 39% of such flats. This shows that even without making any adjustments to the unit mix of various types of flats, lowering the minimum age threshold for singles to buy a BTO flat from 35 to 28 is expected to have a minimal impact on young couples’ likelihood of securing a flat. Secondly, we are in full agreement that public housing policy should provide extra support and incentives to young couples and budding families. Having said that, providing support for young couples and families should not be viewed as mutually exclusive from expanding HDB options for singles. For instance, the Government can loosen the BTO eligibility criteria for singles without in any way impinging on the subsidies and other benefits given to young couples, which may even be enhanced. Thirdly, even if there were to be a question on the allocation of limited resources, such an exercise will always be a balancing act conducted in accordance with Government priorities and, more importantly, guided by fundamental principles and values.”
“DOS data shows that between 2017 and 2020, the number of persons aged below 35 and living alone has almost doubled from 12,300 to 25,000. There are, of course, those who are neither living with their parents nor living alone. But there are also a considerable number who, while still living with their families, do not have the financial ability to live on their own, as much as they desire to do so. While it can be argued that some singles might have needed to move out given working from home requirements during the pandemic, many others have expressed a yearning simply to lead more independent lives in their early adulthood. The data and trends highlight the negative effects of excluding those under the age of 35 from owning HDB flats and, considering these developments, it behoves the Government to revisit the issue and assess the validity of the main arguments against HDB flat ownership by singles under 35. Mdm Deputy Speaker, one of the key arguments for limiting singles’ ability to buy HDB flats relates to the allocation of resources: that in land-scarce Singapore, flats should be prioritised for families over singles. To this point, I am comforted by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s comments during the National Day Rally earlier this year, where he shared that, and I quote, “We have done our studies and planning. We will have enough space for future generations. Our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats, nor keeping homes affordable for Singaporeans. We know how to do that.” Putting the issue of land scarcity aside, I would like to make three points on the issue. First, data from past BTO exercises shows clearly singles do not compete with young couples and families for the same type of flats in non-mature estates.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, implicit in HDB's exclusion of singles under 35 is the expectation that Singaporeans should get married before turning 35 years old and that, up until that point, single Singaporeans will live with their parents. While this traditional life progression might have been more relevant back in 1991, we know now that Singaporeans are staying single for longer for myriad reasons and not necessarily moving straight from their parents’ home into a matrimonial home. Contrary to popular belief that the younger generation are eschewing marriage, surveys have shown that many single Singaporeans still want to get married. In fact, over the last 20 years, the general marriage rates for resident males and females have been consistent at 43.3 for males and 40.2 for females. The latest data point on general marriage rates in 2021 is even higher on a year-on-year basis for both males and females, at 45.3 and 44.2, respectively. What has changed is that Singaporeans are staying single for longer and getting married later in life. Based on data from SingStat, the proportion of singles among citizens in the 30 to 34 years age group is now at a record high of 42.2% in 2021, increasing steadily from 27.6% in 2000 and 36.9% in 2010. A 2013 survey conducted by IPS sheds some light on why Singaporeans are getting married later in life. The IPS found that, among respondents who wanted to get married, the key reasons for their getting married later in life than their ideal age were “the delayed acquisition of the markers of adulthood” and “not having a suitable partner.” At the same time, data shows that more young people are moving out of their parents’ home even before marriage.”
“In fact, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee recently reassured Singaporeans that the Government cares about housing for singles, when he said at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum on 29 October 2021: “Some Singaporeans remain single for a variety of reasons, including obligation to family and parents, or a matter of choice, or a matter of life course. But many still want or need their own living space. They may wonder if we care about their housing needs. To these Singaporeans, let me assure you: we do. We recognise your needs, your aspirations and your sacrifices. That’s why we’ve in fact been expanding housing options and grants for singles over the years.” However, 30 years on from the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme, singles below 35 remain largely precluded from owning their own HDB flat. While there have recently been welcome exceptions carved out for certain special situations, such as for single parents, the general threshold of excluding singles below 35 years of age seems to have been retained by default since 1991, despite changing demographics and societal mindsets. This rule has serious implications on the growing number of singles under 35, depriving them of the security of home ownership if they are priced out of the private market, the private and HDB rental market and not having a place to call their own and build their own lives. More importantly, current policy signals to single Singaporeans that their marital status, whether by choice or due to factors beyond their control, is somehow viewed as undesirable and undeserving of Government support for home ownership.”
“Based on indicative prices of close to S$100,000 for a 2-room Flexi flat in non-mature towns in the latest August BTO launch, the monthly repayment amount over a 25-year period is only around $400 a month, a fraction of what it costs to rent in the open market. So, while it is abundantly clear that many Singaporeans who may be single for various reasons before the age of 35 would like to have a place of their own, many simply cannot afford to do so. Should we not look into further enabling single Singaporeans to meet their housing needs and aspirations? Mdm Deputy Speaker, when we look back at the time before the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme, the original rationale for excluding singles from owning HDB flats was: first, to prioritise BTOs for families as the use of space in land-scarce Singapore was not optimised; and secondly, that home ownership by singles was supposedly inconsistent with the Government's social policy of encouraging marriage and preserving the traditional family unit. The change in policy came about in 1991 by allowing singles over 35 to buy resale HDB flats but limited to 3-room flats in selected locations. The rules were further relaxed over the years, but the next big break came in 2013 when singles over 35 were, for the first time, allowed to buy new, subsidised 2-room flats directly from HDB. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme and the developments that followed showed that the Government can be responsive to the changing demographics of society.”
“7 years as of the August 2022 BTO launch, assuming one is successful in balloting for a flat on the first attempt at age 28, he or she would already be close to 35 years old by the time the flat is in a move-in condition. No different from purchasing a resale HDB flat anyway. Affordability is also a key consideration when it comes to meeting singles’ housing needs. While first-timers can access various financial support grants from the age of 21 to aid in their purchase of a flat, this is, at this point, not available to singles. That said, I recognise that single buyers, too, have access to housing grants and can buy smaller BTO units in non-mature estates. Should the eligibility age be reduced, I believe singles can avail themselves of such grants, too, thus supportive of singles’ home affordability. If the Government has budgetary concerns or believe that younger singles should not be incentivised to buy a place of their own, the level of housing grants accorded can be on a graduated scale, where grants provided for 28-year-olds are at a discount to the full enhanced CPF housing grants, with an annual step-up to the current eligible age of 35. Yet, singles aged below 35 who wish to have a place of their own today would have to either purchase a private residential property, which, needless to say, is significantly more expensive than public housing, or rent a flat in the open market. However, even in the HDB rental market, many singles would be priced out of the market if they wish to rent a place of their own. Median rents for a 3-room HDB flat are, currently, about S$2,000 a month, which is, essentially, the entire take-home salary of a Polytechnic graduate today. The purchase of a BTO 2-room flexi flat, on the other hand, is a lot more affordable.”
“While I acknowledge that our proposal on singles’ BTO eligibility could increase marginal demand for 2-room Flexi flats, it does not detract from the fact that there appears to be serious imbalances in the housing market, the spillover effects of which is evident for all to see in the secondary market, where HDB resale prices have increased by 25% in the last three years, with prices today 12% higher, compared to just one year ago, and prices showing no signs of slowing down, increasing by 2.8% in just the last three months alone. So, I hope the Government will seriously prioritise its resources to support Singaporeans in achieving their home ownership aspirations. Moving on to reducing the BTO eligibility age to 28 for singles. By the age of 28, the average Singaporean male and female would have finished their tertiary studies and had some amount of time in the workforce. In that sense, they would have some chance to lead independent lives and steady their financial footing. As shared by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh earlier this year, in the National Youth Council’s 2021 publication on the state of youths in Singapore, when it comes to aspirations or goals in life, the top choice selected by our youths was to maintain strong family relationships while the second choice was "to have a place of my own". Our proposal looks at reducing the BTO eligibility age to 28, and not that for the resale market. While opening the resale HDB market to singles below 35 is a possibility worth exploring, we think it is important to first enable singles to access the BTO market, to ensure that incremental demand is met through new supply and not through existing supply and via the currently buoyant HDB resale market. Moreover, with a waiting time of up to 5.”
“Moreover, while the average of 20,000 BTO flats between 2021 and 2025 is an increase, compared to an average of 17,000 flats between 2016 and 2020, this is still 13% below the average of 23,000 flats in 2011 to 2015, during the time when Mr Khaw Boon Wan was the Minister for National Development and sought to address the backlog in the supply of HDB flats. We have already seen BTO application rates climbing steadily over the past decade to new highs. For 3-room and larger flats, this increased from 2.8 times in 2012 to 6.1 times in 2021. Similarly, 2-room Flexi flats, whose buyers are more likely to be the elderly or singles, also saw application rates rise, albeit at a more moderate pace from 2.8 times in 2012 to 3.6 times in 2021. What is of greater concern is that despite the supposed ramp-up in supply this year, application rates have reached new record highs, suggesting that the level of demand-supply imbalance remains a critical concern. Following the February, May and August BTO exercises this year, application rates for 2-room Flexi flats and 3-room and larger flats have increased even further and reached new record highs, at 5.1 times and 7.2 times respectively this year. This is worrying, especially when we look at the recent August BTO exercise, where the overall application rates are seeing no signs of letting up, with that for 2-room Flexi flats at 5.5 times and that for 3-room and larger flats at 8.3 times.”
“The objective of today’s Adjournment Motion is two-fold: to ensure that the housing needs of not just singles, but those of all Singaporeans are met. Before I move on to state my case on why singles should be allowed to apply for a BTO flat at an earlier age, I would like to touch on the most pressing issue in my view and, that is, housing supply. I would like to implore the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance, to ensure that the housing demand of all Singaporeans, not just singles, can be met. In response to my Adjournment Motion last year on "Supporting Diverse Aspirations Through Rental Housing", Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared that home ownership has been and will continue to be our key housing strategy for Singapore. Since this is the Government’s position, I hope that the Government can take steps to deliver on this strategy. I acknowledge that compared to last year, housing supply is set to increase by about 35% over the next two years, at about 23,000 BTO flats per year in 2022 and 2023. Moreover, the HDB stated that it is prepared to launch up to 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, if needed, subject to prevailing demand. These numbers, however, need to be put in context. Even if HDB decides to launch the whole 100,000 flats in total from 2021 to 2025, this implies that BTO supply falls 20% to about 18,400 flats in 2024 and 2025.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution, covering the real estate industry. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the adequacy of HDB housing for singles has arisen in public and Parliamentary discussions ever so often, showing this remains an important and evolving issue in Singapore. Over the years, public housing options for singles have gradually expanded ever since the introduction of the Single Singapore Citizen scheme in 1991. However, since the scheme’s inception almost 30 years ago, one key policy requirement has remained unchanged – that singles must be at least 35 years old to be eligible to purchase public housing. At the same time, recent headlines reporting record high HDB resale prices, suggest that something is amiss in public housing provision, even for couples. As set out in the Workers’ Party manifesto, and as reiterated by Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh in the MND Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, we believe this threshold can and should be lowered and we propose to lower the BTO eligibility age for singles to 28 years, which is when most Singaporeans would have been in the workforce for a few years and have begun to lead more independent lives. This proposal would be a critical change, yet a continuation of the Government’s efforts over the years to expand HDB options for singles, while still allowing HDB to give priority to providing for families. In fact, we believe lowering the threshold for owning HDB flats to 28 years would go a long way towards HDB’s stated aims for Singapore’s public housing to be “inclusive” and to “reflect the diversity of our society”.”
“However, there will be an effective interest rate of 26.9% per annum charged from the date of the transaction until the date of full repayment. If left unchecked, these charges could continue to snowball inadvertently. While the intent of the Bill is to regulate this industry, I cannot help but wonder if this is equally an opportunity for us to explore how the debt collection effort can further evolve to become one that operates on a more holistic philosophy, as opposed to a zero-sum game, where debt collectors win by forcing debtors to cough up monies to pay down their debt. This could be through empowering or even requiring debt collection agencies to provide their debtors with referrals to means of assistance focused on facilitating debt repayment arrangements. For example, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS) has been a recognised organisation which works with The Association of Banks in helping the debt-distressed individuals manage their debt obligations. However, I understand that credit counselling and the creation of a debt management programme are voluntary and not mandatory programmes. In this case, education on how to manage debt and restructuring one's debt, where possible, can go a long way in preventing occurrences where debtors pay a seemingly infinite number of minimum payments that only service the interest charges. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“We should not let demeaning, disruptive and intimidating debt collection tactics take root in our society and our laws need to make clear that such tactics and behaviours are not acceptable. Second, I note in section 8 of the Bill, in determining whether to grant a licence, the Licensing Officer may have regard to, and give any weight that the Licensing Officer considers appropriate to, any criteria and requirements that are prescribed, but may take into account any other matter or evidence that may be relevant. Similarly, in section 20 of the Bill, there is also significant discretion in determining whether an individual is a "fit and proper" person to be deployed as a debt collector. Will the Minister make clear what are some of the current criteria, requirements and weightage that are under consideration when this Bill is operationalised? It is important that we provide regulatory clarity on this matter and ensure that individuals are not unfairly discriminated against, or perceive to be unfairly discriminated against, when seeking out employment in the debt collection industry, no different from any other regulated industry. Finally, while I understand that there are public education efforts on indebtedness and borrowing, such as those by MoneySENSE, I wonder if we can intensify efforts to ensure individuals avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt and the dangers of compound interest and excessive hidden fees and charges associated with not servicing one's debt. Even for the well-educated and well-informed, this may not be straightforward. To cite a recent similar but unrelated example, a particular new bank lauds itself for transparency and simplicity and proudly proclaims that there are no cash advance fees for its card.”
“I am thus supportive of the introduction of this Bill to institute regulations to better manage the disamenities arising from such activities and I believe that there is a need to elevate our nation's stance towards debt collection and rehabilitation and hold these companies accountable for the conduct of their debt collectors. With this as a guiding principle, I have three clarifications in relation to the enforcement of this proposed regulation. Firstly, the Debt Collection Bill has defined the scope of debt collection to mean any activity undertaken in Singapore which ranges from the finding of the debtor, to requesting, demanding or collecting of monies due. Section 45 highlights that the Minister may make regulations for restricting the manner or methods by which a licensee or any of its debt collectors, collect, or attempt to collect, any debt. However, I wonder if the Minister can share any guidelines that will result in a debt collection infringing on the intended principles of preventing alarm and nuisance to the public and whether there are clearer regulations prescribing the methods which are deemed unacceptable for debt collection agencies. For example, we would have seen videos showing men in uniform creating a ruckus outside a debtors' home or office. In a September 2021 article by TODAY, a particular debt collection agency even publicly shared that they livestreamed themselves demanding debt repayment and uploaded such videos showing the debtors' faces as so-called evidence to protect themselves. Where such encounters can be an emotional one, it is all the more important we clearly demarcate the out-of-bounds (OB) markers to better help guide their actions towards a less socially disruptive manner, which then fulfils the objective of this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, my speech today will focus primarily on the increasing visibility of debt collection activities in the eyes of the broader public and how this prevalence is now intensifying as such activities are captured and spread on social media by either third parties or the purported debt collectors themselves. Credit is essential for the functioning of modern economies and the availability of credit can support growth, improve convenience and facilitate transactions on both the business and personal front. The danger of that is, of course, the resultant implications when debt owed is not repaid when it comes due, whether through one's unwillingness or inability to pay. In the earlier days of our nation's history, unlicensed moneylending activities and their intimidating and violent means of debt collection are perhaps much more prevalent. While I confess that I have not witnessed such activities first-hand, I am sure we have all come across stories of physical violence and intimidation by unlicensed debt collectors, known colloquially as "Ah Longs", or seen first-hand the words "Owe Money, Pay Money" and the alleged debtor's name and contact details painted on the walls of our housing estates to name and shame these individuals. I believe it is not in the interest of Singapore's debt collection agencies to be identified in the same vein, given how they could play a significant and professional role in the recovery of non-performing loans. Yet, as MHA pointed out, there has been a high number of Police reports made against debt collection companies and debt collectors for conducting debt collection activities in a manner that caused alarm and nuisance to members of the public.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. As she has mentioned, in 2012, taxis were removed from the COE bidding system and I think, in July 2016, then Transport Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan shared that, on PHCs, the Government will monitor its rate of growth and uptake of COEs to see if a similar move will be appropriate. If you look at the point-to-point transportation sector today, the number of PHCs are about 70,000 versus about close to 14,000 taxis – about five times more. So, in terms of the relevance of PHCs within this P2P sector, it is now much more than that for taxis. So, I am just wondering if the Senior Minister of State and the Ministry will consider having a similar treatment when it comes to COEs for both PHCs and taxis.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got two supplementary questions. The first relates to my original PQ. In terms of the EPs as a whole, not just that of the top talent, in terms of meeting the FCF advertising requirements, do we have any statistical data to show that it is actually achieving its stated purpose and that companies are not just going through the motions of putting up their advertisements? For example, such as the number of interviews being granted or the number of applicants that actually end up being hired through these advertisements. Second is also in terms of timing. I recognise that as Minister shared, right now the labour market is very tight but at the same time they are actually risk in the horizon in terms of rising risk of a recession and slowing growth. So, in terms of the lower duration, would it be a bit too early to do so?”
“I thank the Minister for the response. Just one supplementary question, which is essentially my Parliamentary Question, in terms of the target passenger numbers for this year, as well as next year. I ask that because I think STB has put out a visitor arrivals target of about four to six million this year versus 1.5 million in the first half of the year. That would enable the various supply chain partners to better project their own internal capacities to plan ahead, should there be a faster than expected ramp-up in passenger numbers coming through.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first is in relation to Member Henry Kwek's question, in terms of the extra interest that can be granted, especially in the inflationary environment. I note that if you look at the CPF monies, they are invested in special SGS Securities and, basically, these earn for the CPF Board a coupon rate that is pegged to CPF interest rates that members receive. If you look over the last 20 years, I think the GIC portfolio nominal returns were about 7% per year. So, what will be the hurdle for the Government to consider granting extra interest rates, as it has done from January 2008 and 2016? The second supplementary question is in relation to the formula which Minister shared that was changed in July 1999. It has been more than 20 years since. I was wondering whether the Government would consider reviewing this formula. Because, even if you look within the fixed deposits and savings rates for the banks, I just had a look last night – just for DBS, for example, if you look at the 12-month deposit rate, for balances of $20,000 to $50,000, it is 0.05% which is indicated on the CPF Board's website. But for less than $20,000, the amount for a 12-month deposit rate would be 1.15% instead. And I think over the last few days, the various local banks have also raised their interest rates for their savings accounts, such as the Multiplier and so on. So, whether or not these changes in the account types would prompt the CPF Board to review its pegging of the formula?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just have one supplementary question for the Minister. On 9 May, in a report in The Straits Times, one of the private hospital groups shared that it has stood down its ringfenced general ward capacity. I note from the Minister's response that about 1,000 hospital beds are being set aside for COVID-19 purposes. I just wanted to understand – the healthcare system today across both the public and private hospitals, what is the current level of bed utilisation as a whole? And if the need arises, where would these additional 1,000 beds come from and how quickly can they be activated?”
“Using the median resale price of a 4-room HDB flat in Sengkang of $510,000, stamp duties would amount to $9,900. While this may not mean much in percentage terms as compared to the price of the flat, in absolute terms, assuming one saves $500 a month, stamp duties could represent close to 20 months' worth of savings. Again, as part of a periodic policy review, would the Government consider such a move in reducing upfront property purchase costs, particularly with continuing momentum in increasing HDB resale prices, which are now up by a worrying 19% in the last 18 months alone? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill. 3.24 pm”
“Unbeknownst to many, stamp duties on the transfer of shares in a company are only levied on net asset values, and at a mere 0.2%, significantly lower in rate and tax base, as compared to buyers' stamp duties and ABSD levied on the value of the residential properties themselves. Back then, there were several bulk sales of properties by developers via the sale of property holding entities, to avoid extension charges under the qualifying certificate, or QC, conditions for not completing the sale of all residential properties by certain deadlines. This loophole was, subsequently, closed with the introduction of ACD. While I recognise the policy intent of QC and ABSD in ensuring developers do not hoard inventory, the current ABSD remission rules for developers, in particular, cause greater cyclicality in the residential market, arguably, as it imposes harsh ABSD penalties for failing to complete the sale of all residential units within the prescribed period. This would apply, regardless of whether the project has 2,000, 200 or 20 units to begin with, and could even have discouraged developers from triggering for what would have been our first master developer site in Kampong Bugis. As part of its periodic policy review, is MOF looking at reviewing the ABSD remission conditions for property developers to ensure greater stability in the property market? Finally, I read with interest recent news in Australia, which highlighted that New South Wales is planning to give first-time home buyers a choice of not paying for upfront stamp duty but to replace this with an annual property tax which is paid over a period of time instead. Stamp duties represent a not insignificant upfront cost for home buyers even in Singapore.”
“More broadly, the practice of purchasing residential properties via trusts has been well documented since the implementation of the ABSD regime about a decade ago. Not having to pay ABSD for what would have been a multiple property purchase, but with no access to financing were the key features of such purchases, in what some would call a loophole, albeit a well-publicised one. While I recognise that this was born out of a periodic policy review, will the Minister shed light on what were the considerations and why is the gap only closed now and not years ago? What were the number and dollar value of such transactions which have made use of this gap in the ABSD regime, and was there a material increase in such transactions which prompted the MOF review? That said, I view this development with a glass-half-full lens and it could even be seen as a form of wealth tax which has a targeted and narrow scope. With concerns that residential property prices have continued to be firm despite the December cooling measures and amid rising interest rate concerns, was the implementation of the ABSD and ACD (Trusts) meant to achieve a signalling effect to the market, particularly amid news just last month of how an individual acquired 20 units at Canninghill Piers, a luxury condominium along the Singapore River, for over S$85 million, despite the recently raised ABSD rates for foreigners in December last year? With the introduction of ACD (Trust), as included in the Bill, I recognise that this will go hand in hand with the policy intent of ABSD (Trust), of which I am supportive. I am again reminded of news from yesteryears, when ACD itself first came into effect in March 2017.”
“So, I do agree with the Government that there need not be a further draw from the reserves, as the package can simply be funded from the better-than-expected fiscal outturn in FY2021. In fact, it also appears that while FY2021 operating revenues are higher by about $2.1 billion compared to the revised estimate presented earlier this year, both operating and development expenditures are lower by a combined $3.6 billion, which, I understand, is due to lower-than-budgeted spending on COVID-19 response measures as the Omicron variant turned out less severe than expected. Combining higher revenues and lower expenses would mean that the Government's primary deficit improved by $5.7 billion, which, again, is more than sufficient to cover the recent $1.5 billion package. So, I do hope that the Government will stand ready to support Singaporeans should inflation and macroeconomic conditions deteriorate from hereon. Returning to the proposed amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, I note that this Bill introduces the Additional Conveyance Duties for Trust and the stamp duty treatment for renunciation of interest in residential property that is held on a trust. MOF's announcement of the ACD (Trust) follows closely the announcement on the introduction of the ABSD (Trust) on 8 May 2022, which, I recognise, plugs a gap in the existing ABSD and ACD regimes. I am reminded of a news article I read in The Business Times late last year, which reported that a certain crypto billionaire – well, at least back then – was at an early stage of buying a S$48.8 million Good Class Bungalow (GCB) as trustee for his nearly three-year-old child. This transaction apparently closed in March this year, but I wonder if headlines, such as this, prompted MOF to undertake a review of the ABSD regime?”
“Nonetheless, as a tax that is levied on the market values of leases, properties and shares, stamp duty receipts are affected by the stage of the market cycle and, more importantly, should grow over time, in tandem with inflation. From around $1.26 billion in FY2000, stamp duty receipts have grown to $3.28 billion in FY2010 and $3.9 billion in FY2020. What is most impressive about this revenue source is that this growth over the past decade or so is despite the smaller Government Land Sales programme and a lower level of property market transactions today. More recently, stamp duty receipts in FY2021 have turned out to be higher than what was initially projected by the Government, from an initial estimate of $4.25 billion in Budget 2021 to the revised estimate of $6.45 billion as of Budget 2022, to actual receipts of $6.76 billion, which, I believe, is a record high. So, the positive surprise to stamp duty receipts worked out to be about $2.5 billion or 59% higher, as compared to what was initially budgeted for in Budget 2021. For FY2022, stamp duty receipts are expected to remain robust at $5.24 billion. More broadly, I have also observed that actual operating revenue collections for FY2021 have turned out to be higher, as compared to what was initially budgeted for in Budget 2021 and even the revised estimate as of Budget 2022 announced earlier this year. Overall, operating revenues worked out to be $82.5 billion for FY2021, $5.8 billion higher, compared to $76.6 billion as initially budgeted for in Budget 2021 and $2.1 billion higher than the revised estimate of $80.4 billion as of Budget 2022. This would already be more than sufficient to cover the $1.5 billion support package announced on 21 June.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like, first, to declare my interest as an analyst looking at the real estate sector. Mdm Deputy Speaker, when I first came across the term "stamp duties", I thought to myself, "that is a very expensive piece of stamp, compared to the 20- to 30-cent ones we stick on envelopes!" The second discovery was that, much to my disappointment, there was no physical adhesive stamp involved and all documents chargeable for stamp duty are "stamped" electronically or through the e-stamping system. Most adult Singaporeans would have encountered, or rather, paid stamp duties at various points in their life, most commonly, when buying property. And, indeed, stamp duty is a tax on dutiable documents relating to any immovable property in Singapore and any stock or shares. These include the sale and purchase of property, lease or rental of property, mortgage of property and shares and shares transfers. Beyond a revenue collection tool, stamp duty has also evolved to play a significant role as a macro-prudential tool to address risks in the property sector, especially in the past decade or so. This is the case not just in Singapore, but also in other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia, as well. From a simple Buyer's Stamp Duty, or BSD, this has now evolved to include Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, or ABSD, and Seller's Stamp Duty, or SSD, for certain classes of property, such as residential and industrial properties. The differentiated rates of stamp duty have also been adjusted ever so frequently, most recently, in the December 2021 round of cooling measures where Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) buying their second and subsequent property and all foreigners and entities saw raised ABSD rates of 5% to 15%.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Would the Government be able to share with us the assessment of the increase in household expenditures as a result of the higher inflation expectations and what is the expected offset in household expenditures as a result of this $1.5 billion package? I ask that also because as recently as January, I think MAS had assessed that inflation is expected to come in at between 2.5% and 3.5%, and now it is two percentage points higher at 4.5% to 5.5%, so that is quite a significant increase in terms of the expected rates of inflation.”
“But for women with the confidence and knowledge to conduct their own investments, their investments do better than men. This perceived lack of knowledge or confidence is also reflected in an earlier survey conducted in 2019 by UBS Wealth Management in Singapore. While 64% of women believe they would outlive their spouses, with most women heavily involved in household daily expenses, a dominant 72% let their spouses take the lead on long-term investment and financial planning decisions. While the White Paper compared literacy rates for women between 1965 and 2021, given our social security system which emphasises on individual responsibility and self-reliance, I hope the Government will commission an in-depth study to examine the levels of financial literacy amongst Singaporeans, with a particular emphasis on empowering women to take charge of their own financial well-being. Allowing all Singaporeans access to a simple and fuss-free investment solution to earn higher expected returns for their CPF as envisioned by the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme will also go a long way to enhance retirement adequacy for all, which, I believe, will also significantly benefit women who are less inclined to invest on their own volition today. To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the four issues I have raised – parental leave, providing support to parents beyond childbirth, supporting single-parent households and raising women's retirement adequacy and financial literacy – are not entirely new. But critically, what we need is a new approach which recognises that policies shape behaviour. And as lawmakers, we need to set in place concrete policy changes which reflect our collective will to advance women's development in Singapore.”
“No matter the express objectives of our Marriage and Parenthood policies to promote and strengthen the institution of family, and to encourage parenthood within marriage, children are not insulated from the impact of our policymaking. It is also these policies which could inevitably contribute to inequality at birth and beyond. Lastly, I would like to raise my concerns on women's retirement adequacy and financial literacy. Having adequate financial literacy to support sound financial decision-making throughout one's lifetime and having sufficient savings to support one's retirement are issues not unique to women. However, based on CPF data, as of 31 December 2020, we see that CPF members' balances for men are 10% higher than those for women, even though the number of men and women CPF members are roughly equivalent. While women had higher average CPF balances as compared to men up to the age of 35, this could perhaps be explained by the roughly two years of National Service commitments or that women in these age groups are, generally, paid more favourably compared to men. Men across all other age groups had between 6% and 35% higher average CPF balances, compared to women within the same age groups. The gender gap in retirement adequacy, especially when we have a defined contribution type pension system linked to employment, is one which needs to be squarely addressed. It is thus imperative that we redouble our efforts to strengthen social safety nets with an emphasis on adequate retirement adequacy for women. On financial literacy, the OCBC Financial Wellness Index 2020 report found that only 60% of women surveyed had investments, compared to 75% of men, noting that more Singapore women than men see investing as gambling.”
“The consequences of the distinction are self-evident. Financial worries are not uncommon for single-parent households and every cent counts. The median monthly employment income for unmarried single mothers below the age of 35 was $600 in 2017, a number which has hardly changed since 2013. The $10,000 to $15,000 difference between the Proximity Housing Grant for Families and Singles could amount to a year of mortgage payments or a significant contribution to a child's college fund. Families also qualify for the family grant, which can rise to $50,000, double the $25,000 maximum awarded to singles. While HDB is free to assess cases individually and make exceptions if appropriate, it does not appear that the exception is commonly made. In response to my Parliamentary Question in a previous Sitting on the number of unmarried single parents who have successfully obtained the Proximity Housing Grant for families in the last five years, MND Minister Desmond Lee shared that only five unmarried single-parent families had obtained the grant, in contrast to 2,029 divorced or widowed single-parent families. This is but one example of differential treatment under the law for unmarried single-parent households. Elsewhere, single parents are not eligible for the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Cash Gift Baby Bonus Plus, which amount to $8,000 in total. The Parenthood Tax Rebate and Working Mother Child Relief (WMCR) are also not extended to single parents. If the WMCR is to encourage married mothers to continue working after childbirth, the reality for many single mothers out there is that they simply cannot afford to not continue working after childbirth.”
“At present, HDB recognises single-parent households of divorced or widowed parents as a family nucleus, for the purposes of public housing eligibility, as well as for access to public housing grants. Some concessions have been made, depending on individual case circumstances, such as permitting unmarried single parents aged 21 and above to buy up to a 3-room flat in a non-mature estate from HDB, or a resale flat; but they still do not receive equal treatment to their divorced or widowed counterparts, let alone other families. Outside of these concessions, unmarried single-parent households have to avail of the schemes targeted at singles. The eligibility schemes and grants targeted at singles are often more restrictive and have lower monetary amounts. Yet, the challenges that single parents face do not discriminate based on marital status and are, in fact, more pronounced, especially when we consider that single parents have to singlehandedly shoulder the burden of both being the primary caregiver and primary breadwinner. This struggle was experienced first-hand by one of my constituents who is an unmarried single mother with her daughter. She shared the challenges she has faced over the years and how she has fought to overcome them to do right by her child. In addition to battling social stigmas and stereotypes, she was discouraged by the various Government policies, such as that for housing. As a young father, I understand the trials and joys of parenthood, but I cannot begin to imagine the sheer weight of responsibility faced by single parents, such as herself. The challenges faced by unmarried single parents are large enough without the additional burden of being viewed differently in the eyes of the Government for access to public housing.”
“Beyond providing informational support, could we bring the proverbial village to all mothers out there, to ensure that community support and services are available, especially to those without a strong informal support system, to fill the care gap? My colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, spoke about this point earlier as well, with her suggestion being instituting practices, such as having specially-trained health visitors, to routinely call on our new mothers. To reduce inequity and inequality during the foundational years of our children's lives, we need to strengthen access to continuous care for the health and well-being of our parents. I have spoken about support for parents in the plural and I would now like to switch gears slightly and focus on the topic of support for single-parent households. I am heartened to see that one of the action plans, Action 18, introduced in the White Paper seeks to "enhance support for single parents" and I look forward to the concrete initiatives and recommendations to come. There is merit to the ground-up consultative approach adopted by AfA, but, in parallel, more can already be done to correct systematic discrimination faced by single parents under the law. One of these areas is the differential treatment currently accorded to unmarried single parents – often single mothers – in contrast to their peers who are single parents by virtue of divorce or who are widowed. This contrast shows up most starkly on the issue of housing access – with far-reaching consequences for both parent and child. After all, a stable home environment is one of the leading indicators of positive developmental outcomes.”
“The second issue I would like to touch on is that of providing support to parents and, especially, mothers beyond childbirth. We all recognise the importance of parental care leave in allowing mothers to properly recover from giving birth to her baby and for parents to care for and bond with their newborn child. However, while we have a high standard of medical care provided at childbirth across all our hospitals here in Singapore, I believe more can be done to provide greater postpartum support to mothers, especially to first-time mothers, and families who may not have the economic resources to obtain post-birth support services. To many parents, including my wife and I, having a trusted confinement nanny to support our transition from a clueless couple to proud parents is a godsend. Such services do not come cheap, however, as they range in the thousands of dollars, and made worse in the last two years due to the border closures. Yet, even for those of us who are lucky enough to have the dedicated care and support of a live-in confinement nanny, the immediate aftermath of a confinement nanny's departure is still one characterised by high levels of stress and anxiety. They say it takes a village to raise a child and I find it to be especially true after the birth of my second son. One might think that, as experienced parents, things will get easier and we might enjoy some efficiency gains. But my personal experience suggests that caring for two young children is more than double the amount of effort. We are extremely thankful for the village that was our families and extended families. However, not everyone has easy access to their very own village and, for many others, the parenthood journey can also be a lonely and alienating one.”
“The experience of other countries, such as Sweden or Germany, has shown that the introduction of mandatory use-it-or-lose-it "daddy days" significantly increased the take-up rate of paternity leave. A further expansion can come in the form of "sharing bonuses" awarded if fathers take up their full minimum entitlement of shared parental leave. Portugal has experimented with this model, which increased the take-up rate of shared paternity leave from 596 fathers in 2009 before the reforms, to about 16,400 fathers the year after. This is why the Workers' Party has, in our manifesto, called for a shared parental leave scheme that entitles parents to 24 weeks of Government-paid leave, to be shared between mothers and fathers as they choose, but, crucially, with a minimum of four weeks to be granted to the father and 12 weeks to the mother. This would replace the existing 16-week maternity and two-week paternity leave entitlements: an increase from 18 weeks to 24 weeks in total of gender-neutral parental leave. Further, as an added incentive, consideration could be given for an additional bonus number of weeks to be awarded to the pool if fathers utilise the full four weeks of minimum parental leave they are entitled to. The hope is that, over time, these increased entitlements become entrenched as social norms – as has happened in countries like Germany – as more parents utilise their full entitlement, initially to benefit from the bonuses, and, over time, because it is simply the thing to do. These new social norms will encourage fathers to spend more time with their children and take on a greater role in the child's development, take on their fair share of household chores and lead to an overall uplift in our society's perception of gender roles.”
“Since my last speech on this topic, some of you would know that I have welcomed a new addition to the family and our little baby boy is now just over four months old. I am extremely grateful that my employer is understanding and a strong believer in FWAs, but many other young fathers do not share the same experience. A mere two weeks of paid statutory paternity leave, compared to the OECD average of 10 weeks, means that even the most well-meaning of fathers who wish to take on a more egalitarian share of the child-rearing responsibility must make direct financial trade-offs, such as via unpaid leave. By increasing the statutory entitlement to fully-paid parental leave for fathers, we can, at the very least, eliminate some of the direct financial considerations from the mental calculus. We are heartened by the Government's move to lead by example in encouraging public officers to utilise their full entitlement of parental leave. This will go some way towards breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions in the workplace that lead to lower take-up rates. But we can, definitely, go a step further with actual policy changes. The existing elective four weeks of shared parental leave, whereby mothers have to make the election to share their maternity leave, means that, in practice, it is rarely transferred, with 94% to 97% of fathers not taking at least one day of shared parental leave for the 2014 to 2018 cohorts. And I can imagine the challenges mothers face in reducing their paid maternity leave, especially when we consider that our parental leave policies are not exactly world leading, with the 16 weeks of maternity leave below the OECD average of 20 weeks.”
“Policies play a large part in shaping these views and, on this front, I was a bit disappointed to see that the White Paper has fallen short on concrete policy changes to encourage fathers to take on a more active role in household and caregiving responsibilities, especially around a more equitable distribution of statutory parental leave. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the immediate aftermath of a child's birth represent a golden opportunity of sorts to shape lasting good habits among young fathers that persist throughout a child's lifetime. Fathers who spend more time with their infant children develop greater confidence in their own childcare abilities, perpetuating a virtuous cycle that leads to lasting egalitarian split of responsibilities between mothers and fathers. There is also a suggestion that women in more equitable households can focus more energies on career development, leading to better gender equality both at home and at work. The impact is not limited to the parents involved, but also has far-reaching impacts on society at large. A study by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics in Germany from 2017 showed that in the decade after Germany introduced reforms in 2006, to encourage fathers to take at least two months of parental leave, there was a marked shift in the attitudes of not just the current generation of parents towards gender equality, but also the grandparents' generation. Both grandmothers and grandfathers, whose grandchildren were born after the reforms, were less likely to agree with the sentiment that "[w]omen should be more concerned about their family than about their career".”
“In August of last year, I spoke in support of the Motion on Gender Equality tabled by my colleague Ms He Ting Ru. I highlighted the unequal distribution of care responsibilities between parents and how this is linked to discriminatory social institutions and stereotypes about gender roles. I suggested that the impetus for change lies with both the views held by the individual and society at large, as well as with us policymakers and how we shape those views. My colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will be touching on FWAs and how both employers and employees gain from having FWAs as the norm, rather than the exception at the workplace. As I have reiterated across various speeches over the last two years, I hope that the Government, businesses and society do not view FWAs as one which has unintended consequences of reduced employability or, ironically, creating rigidity in the workplace. And it is imperative for the Government to demonstrate leadership on this matter. The first issue I would like to touch on is that of parental leave and its impact on the roles of fathers in society and in accelerating gender equality. The upheaval caused by COVID-19 and its impact on how we work have shone a spotlight on gender inequality that exists at home, with working mothers often the ones who have to pick up the slack. I previously highlighted a study by market research firm IPSOS Group S.A. and United Women Singapore, which showed that a mere 47% of mothers are happy with the division of household and care responsibilities, as opposed to 78% of fathers – a clear difference in perception that we need to shift. These shifts in societal perception that we seek do not happen in isolation.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. Just a supplementary question in relation to my second Parliamentary Question. I understand that MOM is rightly concerned about the financial ability of employers who hire and upkeep the MDW. And, especially, when it comes to retiree households, by definition, they would not already have an income. I do note that there is a sponsorship scheme which allows them to nominate their children or other family members to be their sponsors, but some of them may think that they do not want to unnecessarily impose on them when there is no logical need to do so, given that they do have the financial resources. I think the Minister of State has also mentioned that they consider other factors like the savings of these households, for example. I wonder whether or not this could actually be one of the means other than income specifically that is put up as the eligibility criterion, rather than on a case-by-case basis. I have a resident who came to me last month, sharing this concern and we have also written to MOM on his behalf.”