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 8 of 15.
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I think I understand that the requirements for developers to take certain anti-money laundering (AML) actions against money laundering will be effective from June of this year. So, to that extent, I wanted to ask what sort of safeguards will be put in place for secondary market transactions. The reason being especially if the developers actually put in place such safeguards for primary market transactions, then, potentially the bad actors could even turn to secondary market transactions should they have such intentions.”
“The first is: whether or not the six key recommendations of the Community Advisory Panel report will be taken up, is that the plan? And second, in terms of the pilot team of dedicated personnel that was supposed to be rolled out by the end of this year to deal with the egregious cases, I am just wondering what is the expected duration for the pilot phase and also, when should we expect the full implementation of the programme?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just two very quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, is the plan for MSO to adopt the six key recommendations by the Community Advisory Panel? And second, I understand from the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year that the pilot team of dedicated personnel for the pilot scheme was supposed to be in place by the end of this year. I was just wondering if that is still on track and what the expected duration for the pilot phase will be before the whole programme is rolled out islandwide.”
“For a young divorcee under the age of 35, for example, he or she will not be able to apply for a flat by themselves under the Singles Scheme and not be able to form a family nucleus with his or her children. This could be especially problematic for some parents facing financial hardship or/and without family support, as it will not be practically possible for this parent to care for his or her child, without a stable place to call home. Both divorcees and their children would need a roof over their heads. So, I hope our policies can recognise this and ensure that all Singaporeans can have access to housing and not have to worry about basic needs, such as access to shelter, in their divorce. To conclude, I am supportive of this Bill and I hope the additional suggestions I have made can be considered to alleviate the anxiety and anguish inflicted upon the now broken families and enable those involved to better pick themselves up and restart their lives afresh. After all, as the Chinese saying goes, "孩子是无辜的", the children are innocent. Children of divorced parents are already facing difficult circumstances and are at risk of psychological and other adjustment issues. Let us continue to do all we can to better improve on the welfare of the children involved and minimise potential points of conflict in their growing up years.”
“The relevant Court order setting out the custody arrangements pertaining to the child will be required at the point of reporting to the current school. The parent who submits the application for the child will be required to produce a signed Letter of Consent from the other parent. To what extent is this being operationalised and practised in our schools? The reason I am asking is also because in the MOE's step-by-step guide for primary school transfers, it is stated that, and I quote, "In making this application, I understand that should the other parents/legal guardian have any basis to contest this arrangement in the future, I will resolve this issue with him/her". It appears that the responsibility to resolve any disputes on transfers is delegated to the parent, with no mention of any Letters of Consent or undertaking required. When it comes to preschools, are there also similar requirements by the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) for a Letter of Consent before any enrolment or transfer is made? Or could a parent with care and control of the child enrol him or her in a preschool, without the approval of the other parent with joint custody? On housing, divorcees with shared care and control of their children have an equal right to list the children in their application to buy or rent an HDB flat. However, as an individual is only allowed to be listed in one HDB flat application, the HDB requires divorced parents to come to an agreement before either party lists their child in a flat application. Considering that we are looking at divorcees here, coming to an agreement is often easier said than done. While one party can form a family nucleus with his or her children, the other party will not be able to.”
“We could consider implementing guidelines, such as to provide an environment that facilitates the process effectively, such as determining the parties present at the meeting, the tone of the meeting and the information briefed to the child. Risks, such as parental interference, could also be mitigated by instructing parents not to ask their children about the interview. These are some of the skills and knowledge that could be imparted to judges as part of a training programme to effectively conduct a judicial interview of a child. This would enable them to communicate with the child to gain a better understanding of their needs, wants and views regarding the matter, which could aid them in their judgment. The introduction of the Bill provides us with the opportunity to implement these measures, which would ensure that the child's voice is heard loud and clear, especially pertaining to a matter that affects their lives substantially. Before I conclude, I would also like to make some brief comments on issues outside the ambit of this Bill, relating to the education and housing needs of children involved in a divorce – two of the fundamental rights of a child. Strengthening the maintenance regime is arguably a key step to ensuring that the basic living needs of children and their caregivers, such as good nutrition, are met. At the same time, administrative procedures and issues that divorcees face could also reopen wounds and cause further trauma. I, thus, believe there is room for us to improve on processes and policies relating to the child's education and housing needs. On education, I understand that parents who have joint custody of their child need to come to a common agreement on their child's school transfer.”
“I propose that the Ministry consider granting additional consideration for, or even guaranteeing a baseline level of financial assistance to parties referred by the MEO during cases pertaining to the enforcement of a maintenance order, especially if it involves a reduced maintenance amount. This would help to ensure that there would be minimal impact on the welfare of the parties involved, increase the efficiency of the MEP and produce sustainable maintenance outcomes. Clause 12 of the Bill states that the Family Justice Rules can prescribe the mode through which the child's wishes may be determined if the Court wishes to consider it in its ruling. According to the media release, this may include judicial interviews with the child. In the case of AZB vs AZC [2016], the Family Justice Courts laid out that judicial interviews of children are suitable in the Singaporean context. In the ruling, Justice Debbie Ong also highlighted the difficulties faced when conducting judicial interviews of children, such as there being insufficient time available to build rapport between the judge and child, communication difficulties between the child and the judge, and discomfort towards the Court process by the child. One recommendation laid out by the Court is that judges should be equipped with the necessary skills to handle judicial interviews with the child, which could be achieved by training judicial staff. This is a move seen in other countries with the common law system, such as Australia, which called for the training of judicial staff back in 1995. Hence, Singapore could also consider adopting a similar approach.”
“Moreover, if the MEO and the Courts already have access to such information, should we do away with the requirement for parties to the maintenance enforcement process to submit documents, such as bank statements, which is detailed in the MEP process workflow? Such a move would greatly reduce the administrative burden of applicants especially, and reduce the emotional burden faced by the parties involved as they navigate through this patch of troubled waters in their lives. While the MEP workflow allows for the smooth application of financial assistance, it does not guarantee that each application will yield a successful outcome. Section 81 allows for the Court to "vary, suspend, discharge, rescind, set aside or revoke the maintenance order." This could either be due to an application by either party or a settlement by both parties. This step comes after the MEO has referred the relevant parties for financial assistance. What then happens if the application of financial assistance for the relevant parties is unsuccessful? Potentially, such a problem would especially impact those whose income exceeds the income threshold for financial assistance but are burdened with a multitude of financial commitments. Maintenance payments are key for applicants to pay for their living expenses, foot medical bills and repay other arrears and mortgages that they have. Hence, with a reduction or variation in the maintenance order, divorcees would face an additional financial burden and a lower quality of life. This would especially hit the children involved and their caregivers hard.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the aim of the Family Justice Reform Bill is to amend the Family Justice Act, Women's Charter and the Guardianship of Infants Act to, among others, simplify family proceedings and to provide sustainable maintenance outcomes. I am supportive of this Bill and the efforts to strengthen family Therapeutic Justice. My speech today aims to seek clarifications on certain aspects of the Bill, particularly that relating to providing greater support for both the applicants and respondents to the maintenance enforcement process. At the same time, I will also be speaking on related issues to improve on the education and housing needs of children involved in a divorce. The new section 85 of the Family Justice Reform Bill enables the MEO to refer and provide information regarding the parties involved to a social service officer. This step comes after the MEO has obtained relevant information from the involved parties and determines that one or more of the parties involved would require financial assistance. I appreciate the inclusion of such a step in the Maintenance Enforcement Process. As what my hon friend Member of Parlliament Jamus Lim alluded to in his Committee of Supply (COS) speech this year, the dignity of the needy should be retained even while applying for financial assistance. I wonder if the parties referred to a social service officer (SSO) would still need to complete the relevant paperwork and go through a similar application process for financial assistance, had he or she made the application to the SSO separately? After all, under section 86, the MEO will be empowered to obtain information about the parties' assets and means from stipulated entities, such as certain Government agencies, banks and the Central Depository.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two short supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is in relation to the question within the Parliamentary Question that I had asked, in terms of the number of audit letters that were sent out by IRAS recently questioning these transactions and based on IRAS findings, what number or percentages of these transactions were bona fide and which are tax avoidance? The second supplementary question is in relation to the various property agents or conveyancing lawyers, has the Government similarly send out audit letters to these parties to the transactions?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I understand that the CDL is a positive development for our healthcare system. But at the same time, a lot of the insurers are responding very quickly to this legislation and introducing various riders. I understand from the Minister's response that the Ministry is looking into this. So, my question is whether the Ministry will look into whether insurance companies are profiteering from this. And eventually, the concern is whether or not this could all end up as higher premiums for the various policyholders as a result.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Member for his clarification. I just want to reiterate that if he looks at the report, the key conclusion there really is that the key issue which I highlighted consistently across, is that it is really a matter of demand and supply, and what may be favourable from an investment perspective may not exactly be favourable from a national interest perspective.”
“Yes, Sir, that is correct. So, essentially, in terms of the report, the private property prices continuing to rise may be seen as a healthy investment opportunity to some. But from our national interests, I wonder if Mr Saktiandi would agree that, especially as an economist, if you have house prices not conforming to, in a way, economic norms, whereby with rising interest rates, house prices typically should fall but yet, they continue to be very firm. Would that not be a concern from a national interest standpoint versus an investment decision standpoint?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat on the comments that he made just now. I just wanted to ask through you, basically, to put into context. The report that he was referring to was produced for institutional investors in a commercial context for their investment decisions. And I think if you look at the key conclusions that have been put forth in the report and what I have shared as recent as earlier this afternoon, in that the key constraint that I was speaking about is really the fundamental demand-supply imbalance issue. I spoke about how demand has been resilient, BTO subscription rates, private property take-up rates have been very high. And even the number of marriages has outpaced the number of BTO flats available on the demand side. And similarly on the supply side, I also spoke about how in terms of the private property market, the number of unsold units is at an all-time low. And similarly, the number of BTO launches has been lower than what it was, say, 10 years ago. And so, if you look at the demand and supply picture, I think that was consistent in what I have talked about in the last two months. If we look at the affordability that was —”
“I have looked into the President’s address and MND’s addenda in detail, hoping to find out the solution to the problem of lease decay but to no avail. Is this a problem that the 4G leaders plan to address? It is difficult to understand how the PAP Government will honour the promise made by the Prime Minister last month, considering the fact that the value of HDB flats will trickle down to zero when their 99-year lease ends. On the one hand, we need to ensure that flats remain affordable. On the other hand, we must enhance the value of HDB flats so that Singaporeans will have adequate reserve funds when they retire. So, the Government needs to come up with plans as soon as possible and involve Singaporeans in the discussion. (In English): In closing, I have one final reflection. This concerns President Halimah's remarks that in so many societies, political parties aggravate rifts instead of bringing people together. I hope it is clear to the House and Singaporeans from the positions that I and my fellow WP colleagues have put forth, that we speak always to advance the larger public interest. It would be foolish and self destructive for us to do otherwise. We are Singaporeans too and have just as much of a stake in the well-being of this country as the ruling party does. So, even though my colleagues and I do not enjoy the same access to information, networks and resources that some of our hon Members do, we continue to strive to make constructive contributions to the policy debates of this House. On that note, I look forward to having more robust yet respectful debates in this House – for let us not forget that the capacity to have respectful contestation of ideas and views is a key piece in building public trust in Singapore's institutions.”
“I would also like to know details of the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) and the Government’s plans to address the problem of decaying leases of 99-year leasehold HDB flats. Currently, the provision of retrenchment benefits is not mandatory by law in Singapore. However, this is critical in ensuring that jobless workers and their families have sufficient liquidity to meet basic living needs. It is especially important when there is an economic downturn and the job market is weakening, as workers may need a longer time to find employment during these periods. Since 2011, the Workers’ Party has always advocated for the implementation of redundancy insurance and we hope that the Government will legislate this as soon as possible. We must plan for rainy days and be prepared for the next economic recession. On the issue of housing, I am glad that the Ministry of National Development (MND) is aware that there are many singles and caregivers as well as many young Singaporeans who desire to live on their own. It is even more heartening to know that MND is focusing on developing more inclusive housing options. Thus, I would like to reiterate a call made during an earlier Adjournment Motion, which is to expand rental flat options to meet the diverse housing aspirations of Singaporeans and to lower the age requirement for single citizens to apply for BTO flats from 35 to 28 years old. Even as we update our social compact on housing and offer new housing options, there is still a major unresolved issue in the next chapter of Singapore’s housing story. With regards to the VERS and the problem of decaying 99-year leases, what are we doing to address these issues?”
“This sobering reality will have to be adjusted to as well even as older Singaporeans hope to leave their residential property to their children”. The WP had proposed a universal sale and lease back scheme that provides a floor price for HDB resale prices where the HDB is the buyer of last resort for all lessees, where each individual lessee is empowered to exercise the scheme and not be subject to a voluntary process which is out of the hands of the individual. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared the same notion of having the Government coming in as the purchaser of last resort, although it remains to be seen how this can pan out in practice if VERS, as the name suggests, is voluntary and subject to voting by residents in the precinct. But critically, I struggle to see how amid all of these concerns and the eventuality of the value of HDB flats reaching zero at the end of the 99-year lease, the PAP Government can honour its promise to all Singaporeans as shared by Prime Minister Lee last month, “that your HDB flat will be both a good home for you and your family, and a valuable nest egg for your retirement”. I of course hope that what Prime Minister Lee shared can materialise. But for the sake of the current and future generations of Singaporeans, it is imperative that we lay out our plans to achieve these increasingly untenable links between affordable housing and retirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In view of the economic slowdown and weakening job market, I would like to urge the Government to roll out redundancy insurance for workers as soon as possible so as to enhance their income security.”
“Together with my hon friends Mr Leon Perera and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I asked Senior Minister of State Sim Ann for more details about VERS at the housing Motion debates in February, given that we know hardly anything about it despite it being introduced about five years ago. I am sure the Government would have been monitoring and studying this issue for a long time now and I was carefully scrutinising Mdm President’s speech and the MND addendum to the President’s Address for any mention of VERS and solutions to address the elephant in the room – the lease decay issue – but to no avail. Is this an issue that the 4G leaders are prepared to address? At the housing Motion debates, my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted the fundamental tension between housing as a retirement asset and as a home. Our current HDB and CPF policies may be a dangerous game of musical chairs: if one is able to offload one’s flat before its price collapses – as it must, eventually – then we can retire comfortably; but then, the one holding the bag is a fellow Singaporean who bought your resale because they needed the space for a growing family and could not afford to wait for a BTO. Essentially, what goes up must come down. The higher the climb, the harder the fall. And it is not just the WP that is worried about this increasingly untenable link. In a commentary published by The Straits Times earlier this month, Assoc Prof of law Eugene Tan spoke of the trap of ever-spiralling expectations in the housing market, which will be too much to bear for all stakeholders. He shared that “looking ahead, the reality of leases decay – as flats built in the 1960s and 1970s rundown their 99-year leases – will increasingly bite harder.”
“This is why I have called on the Government to significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme, with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households’ housing needs are well looked after. This is also aptly captured in a recent Mothership series on housing, which documented couples who are affected by the delay in BTO flats but are not lucky enough to secure a flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) and are faced with an option to either stay at their parents’ homes with no private space or pay an increasingly expensive rental lease. Even if the Government still believes in home ownership as a superior model, a pathway to ensure that younger Singaporeans’ housing needs are adequately met is to lower singles’ eligibility age for HDB BTO flats from the current 35 years to 28 years of age. This 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”. Yet, even as we refresh our social compact on housing and reimagine a range of housing options for a more inclusive housing programme, the next chapter of our housing story still leaves one big question unanswered: what about the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) and the end of the 99-year lease?”
“During the Ministry of National Development (MND) Committee of Supply (COS) debates last month, I called on the Government to support Singaporeans who may need to rent in the open market to address their immediate housing needs, given soaring open market rentals. At that point, Minister Desmond Lee shared that the Government will “keep an open mind and keep a close eye on the rental situation and will be prepared to take necessary measures in order to support Singaporeans”. I still hope that the Government will consider intervening in the market sooner than later, rather than continue monitoring the market, in order to preserve open market rental affordability. On that note, I am heartened to note that the MND recognises that we have more singles and caregivers in our society, and more young Singaporeans who aspire to live independently. In particular, I am excited to read that the MND is working on developing more inclusive housing options especially for singles, seniors and those with disabilities. Just as I have mentioned in my Adjournment Motion last year, I believe this is the right step to take for our public housing policies to be “inclusive” and to “reflect the diversity of our society”. As part of these options, I would like to once again reiterate my calls made in prior Adjournment Motions to support Singaporeans’ diverse aspirations through expanding on rental housing and to lower the BTO eligibility age for singles from 35 to 28 years old. Our younger Singaporeans aspire to have a place of their own and this is a trend which I believe the Government would have been closely monitoring as well.”
“After all, while President Halimah spoke of running up against more binding constraints in land, labour and carbon over the coming years, when it comes to having enough space for future generations, Prime Minister Lee gave us an emphatic assurance late last year that “Our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats, nor keeping homes affordable for Singaporeans. We know how to do that”. I am thus comforted to read that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared in a Budget roundtable discussion last month that the root of the problem is a supply issue. However, while I recognise Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s confidence in the Government’s ability to bring stability to the market again and perhaps this could eventually come when recession hits our shores, manifestations of the demand-supply imbalance in our housing market continue to persist in the meantime. House prices have continued to climb, where, based on flash estimates for the first quarter of 2023, private residential prices rose 3.2% in the quarter while HDB resale prices rose 0.9%, with both public and private prices up for 12 consecutive quarters now. Over in the public housing rental market especially, The Straits Times reported last week that “overall, HDB rents shot up 27.7 per cent in February compared with a year earlier – a rate of increase not seen in 15 years”, with January too seeing a similarly pace of increase. Based on estimates by the real estate consultancy quoted in the article, the town of Sengkang which I represent had the unfortunate honour of seeing rents rise the most across HDB estates, at 40.4% over a one-year period, with median rents now at $3,200 a month, compared to around $2,200 a month a year earlier.”
“By providing displaced workers with immediate income security, a redundancy insurance scheme can raise efficiency in the labour market and reduce underemployment. It will allow workers to take the time that is required to reskill and find a stronger job fit, instead of being pressured into choices that could hamper their longer-term career mobility, just so that they can pay the bills. With intensifying risks to our economy and labour markets, I hope that legislation on redundancy insurance can be put in place as soon as possible, even if it is called something else like a targeted re-employment scheme. Let us roll it out now before the next recession, when it will be needed. My third point is about a topic which is increasingly a key concern for many Singaporeans and that is housing – to which I wish to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution covering the real estate industry. We have had an extensive debate in this House about this topic just two months ago and I will refrain from repeating much of the points which I have raised back then. However, as I have shared in my speech on the housing Motion debates, the root cause of much of our housing woes today relate to supply and the solution really is for the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and ensure that the housing needs of all Singaporeans are met.”
“Here in Singapore, gross domestic product (GDP) already fell sequentially by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, with goods producing industries seeing a sharper 4.1% decline. While the Government has not updated its expectations for GDP growth of 0.5% to 2.5% in 2023, the risk of a recession is only getting higher. Some of you would know that I work in the banking sector, for a bank which is the subject of an emergency takeover. The recent turbulence at our firm has taken a very deep emotional toll on my friends and colleagues. In Singapore, job security is especially vexing because there is no nationally defined social protection floor that our workers can stand on to feel secure. There is also no law mandating retrenchment benefits in Singapore, which could be critical in ensuring displaced workers and their families have sufficient liquidity to meet basic living needs. This is especially pertinent during periods of recession and labour market weakness, where a longer time is needed to secure employment. I was therefore heartened to hear President Halimah say that the Government will study how it can extend support schemes similar to the COVID‐19 Recovery Grant beyond the pandemic. We should explore how the administrative arrangements for the COVID-19 Recovery grant can be adapted for a wider redundancy insurance scheme. The Workers’ Party (WP) has consistently been pushing for a redundancy insurance scheme since 2011 and had also published a consultation paper on this back in 2016. As our economy matures and as economic cycles become shorter and more unpredictable, many of us will have no choice but to make more frequent transitions between jobs and career paths, even when we are not financially prepared to do so.”
“The Government’s support measures are designed to ensure that Singaporeans “with greater means contribute their fair share of taxes”. But from an inter-generational equity perspective, you can see why so many younger Singaporeans feel anxious and uneasy about the future. Some have even given up on the aspirations to raise a family here. Even some senior citizens I have met tell me that they worry most about how the higher cost of living impacts their children and feel compelled to carry on working, even though they may not wish to do so. As workers and business owners, we will strive to be more productive and more competitive, and hope that our wages can go up higher than inflation. But I also hope that the Government can avoid introducing more pressure into the system through an untimely GST hike, especially if wage growth remains uneven or weak. Because when the cost of living – real or perceived – is too high, that hurts Singapore’s attractiveness as a liveable city, it weakens our younger ones' confidence to take risks and we become less competitive globally. Just last month, The Business Times reported that in a business sentiment survey conducted by the Singaporean-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, almost half of German employers in Singapore polled, or 44%, said “psychological distress and lower work performance is visible among staff” due to the unpredictable housing situation. My second point is about income security for workers who may find themselves displaced if labour market conditions deteriorate. Last week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation is much stickier than anticipated even a few months ago and the chances of a “hard landing” for the global economy have risen sharply.”
“Mr Speaker, in her speech, President Halimah spoke about shifts in the geopolitical landscape and the implications that this will have on the Singapore economy. She described trends that we have been concerned about for a few years now – growing obstacles to global trade and economic nationalism. Both of these trends are expected to persist in the years to come and both of these trends are inflationary. Indeed, the latest Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) data showed that core consumer prices rose by 5.5% year on year in February, with food prices up more than 8%. We have not seen food prices go up so quickly since 2008. Although the MAS expects inflation to “slow more discernibly in the second half of this year” and hopefully “reach around 2.5% year on year by the end of 2023”, the projection for core consumer prices to rise by 3.5% to 4.5% over 2023 as a whole and for headline inflation to average 5.5% to 6.5% is still elevated, compared to recent history and certainly out of the comfort range for many Singaporeans. Last year, wage growth for those of us who are employed full-time outpaced inflation but only barely. Real median incomes grew just 2% in 2022, almost half as fast as it used to grow in the pre-COVID-19 years. Working Singaporeans’ earnings power will be reduced again when the second GST hike kicks in in January 2024. I find it ironic that in its latest monetary policy statement, it appears the MAS took pains to highlight that the higher inflation rates we have seen at the start of the year “reflected in part the increase in GST” and that “when the impact of the GST increase is excluded, core inflation would be even lower and closer to the historical average”. Why add fuel to fire?”
“Thank you, Mdm Chair. I have just two related clarifications on open market rental affordability. Firstly, maybe the Minister can share his considerations in deciding whether or not to grant this, because similar to the granting of the resale grants for singles, we are looking at quite a specific group of individuals rather a broad-based grant being given and it is really those who are eligible for the PPHS and PRS but, yet, are unsuccessful in their application. Secondly, in the absence of which, should the open market kind of HDB rentals not kind of tame itself in the manner which the Minister described, once the people who are renting get the keys to their BTO units, whether or not the Government will consider intervening in the market just so that the rents do not get so out of hand.”
“Back in January this year, I asked MND whether the Government would consider providing a time-limited rental subsidy for rental flat applicants who qualify for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) and Public Rental Scheme (PRS) respectively, provided that they are unable to find alternative temporary housing arrangements and have been unsuccessful in obtaining a flat from HDB after a pre-defined time period. In the replies to many of my residents’ unsuccessful appeals to HDB, the open market appears to be HDB’s catch-all solution to those who have been unsuccessful in meeting their housing needs. Whether it is for those who qualify for, but are unsuccessful in obtaining a PPHS or PRS, those who are lucky enough to qualify for one but face long wait times or those who are not successful or successful in their BTO flat application. 1.15 pm Yet, for various reasons, largely relating to the current demand and supply situation, open market rentals have continued to soar, and are increasingly out of many Singaporeans’ budgets. As it is, the qualifying criteria for the PPHS and PRS schemes are very stringent. So, I do hope the Government can reconsider my suggestion to maintain open market rental affordability. Joint Singles Scheme Operator-run Model”
“Managing Cost of Living through MND Policies”
“Chairman, in November last year, I asked the Minister for National Development if the funds obtained by HDB to issue housing loans are derived from CPF and whether the Government can consider to unpeg the HDB concessionary interest rate for housing loans from the prevailing CPF Ordinary Account (OA) interest rate and, if not, why not. As it turns out, the funds obtained by HDB to issue housing loans are from the Development Fund, not CPF. Consequently, it is MOF that provides these funds to HDB and sets them at the prevailing CPF OA rate. I understand the rationale for the HDB to impose a spread of 0.10% above the OA rate to recover HDB’s cost of administering loans. But the bigger issue is, rather than being dogmatic about pegging the HDB concessionary interest rate at 0.10% above the prevailing CPF OA interest rate, can MOF and, in turn, HDB and MND not make the call to segregate the two distinct roles of the OA savings rate and the HDB loan rate? As I have raised in my cuts to MOM, the CPF Board’s assessment of the major local banks' interest rate to be at 0.52% for the period November 2022 to January 2023 appears unrealistically low, given the realities of the deposit environment of the local banks today, and does not reflect economic reality. Singaporeans are rightly concerned that if the OA rates do somehow rise in future, then there could be higher home loan rates as well, given this peg. However, given that MND has made it abundantly clear that the funds obtained by HDB to issue housing loans are from the Development Fund, not CPF, can we not let the concerns around the home loan peg hold us back from the correct decision of providing for both mortgage stability and certainty and also retirement adequacy for Singaporeans?”
“Most importantly, any such risk of marginal excess supply would be worthwhile taking to achieve the social need to reduce average BTO wait times and, in turn, support Singaporeans in charting their lives and starting new families. Communal and Co-living Housing”
“Chairman, in my cut last year, I called for the Government to build a larger percentage of HDB stock ahead of demand. During the housing debate earlier this year, my hon friend Leon Perera mooted this idea as well, recognising that if we can build industrial facilities ahead of demand, can we not also build residential homes ahead of demand? I do appreciate Minister Desmond Lee’s assurance that HDB is planning to launch more shorter waiting time flats of around 2,000 to 3,000 flats per year by 2025. However, this is, essentially, at similar levels to the number of such flats launched in the last five years, ranging from 1,096 in 2018 to 2,850 in 2020, representing a mere 7% to 18% of BTO supply in each year. We all recognise that long waiting times are not just an inconvenience but seriously affect Singaporeans’ life plans, such as causing young couples to delay starting a family. Beyond addressing the near-term demand-supply imbalance, I believe it is time for us to have a fundamental rethink of the BTO system. Someone shared with me a blog post by a certain Prof Ben Leong which I agree with, and I quote, “Having excess flats is actually a feature and not a bug. It just means that if some Singaporeans want to get married and want a new house straightaway, there is a house available!”, and he goes on further to say, “To me, BTO is the real culprit behind our uncontrolled fire”. Even if the hybrid approach I proposed entails a small risk of marginal excess supply, this would strengthen the security of supply of HDB flats, making us more resilient to potential supply-side shocks, as we have seen in the wake of COVID-19.”
“Stall leases should be awarded on the basis of retail diversity and the range of prices, among others. In my HDB (Amendment) Bill speech earlier this year, I called for the Government to not forget neighbourhoods, such as Sengkang, which do not have the benefit of the convenience and rich diversity of having heartland shops in close proximity to our homes. As advised by Senior Minister of State Sim Ann back then, I had since written to HDB on this matter and I look forward to hearing from HDB and working closely with the team on the low retail and food options within the existing precincts of Sengkang.”
“The rising cost of living and uncertain economic outlook have made Singaporeans more cost conscious about their food options, which makes hawker centres, with their eclectic mix of delicious local food at affordable prices, the preferred places for meals for most. However, given the uneven distribution of hawker centres around Singapore, some Singaporeans are, unfortunately, disadvantaged on this front. Some interesting statistics which I found, based on NEA’s list of hawker centres as at December, there are, currently, 118 hawker centres in Singapore, 27 directly managed by NEA, 80 by Town Councils (TCs), 10 by private operators and one is not in operation. It appears that, on the one hand, Jalan Besar and Tanjong Pagar have a disproportionately higher number of hawker centres per division while, on the other hand, Choa Chu Kang and Sengkang TCs do not have any hawker centres within their boundaries. There is no real justification for some locations having a lot more hawker centres than others. As they are a key feature of Singapore’s unique culture and heritage and are Singaporeans’ preferred daily go-to place for affordable food, they should be built in every town centre. Hawker centres, like HDB shops, not only make heartland living vibrant, they also support small local businesses run by and employing residents living nearby. Hawker centres directly managed by NEA should be central to the planning of new estates and built ahead of demand in new estates. Pioneering hawkers should be charged lower rents prior to demand building up and reassessed based on traffic and tenants' sales progress. This would be fair to the first few batches of residents and hawkers in new towns.”
“And leading up to this, I find it pertinent to maintain that these guidelines should be legislated and enforced, and not be seen as mere guidelines that leaves companies the option of not even extending this option to their employees. I have mentioned in my previous speeches how other governments have legislated and are looking at ways to strengthen worker’s rights to FWAs, with the key intent on creating a more inclusive work environment for all. Given the numerous benefits FWA has on women, young parents and the overall well-being of an individual, this should not be seen as a “good to have” or “extra”, but as part and parcel of what companies should offer to their employees. We had an opportunity to experience what it could look like to have FWAs. I hope that my worst fears of a return to pre-COVID-19 workplace norms in Singapore will not come true. Creating Inclusive Workplaces”
“When DORSCON Green was announced, many Singaporeans shared their fears of having to go back to the pre-COVID-19 way of work – and this has for the most part been quite true. In fact, many bosses are asking their staff to work from the office, with a preference to "see" their staff working, for fear of them not producing work. As I shared in my Budget debate speech, one friend quipped that his boss said, and I paraphrase, "if you are not in the office, how do I know that you are working?" This old myth needs debunking. One of many studies has shown that a Chinese company saw a 13% increase in productivity for employees allowed to work remotely in a work-from-home (WFH) experiment. Last year, I called for the public service to take a leadership role and undertake a four-day work week pilot, similar to the one which companies in the UK embarked on. I am pleased to update this House that more than nine out of 10 companies that adopted a four-day working week in the UK trial will continue to use the more flexible way of operating, according to findings. The White Paper on Women’s Development has also proposed Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) to be a "pervasive and sustainable workplace norm", to foster a more inclusive work environment especially for married women who may otherwise leave the workforce significantly earlier than men. A normalised FWA will enable employees’ FWA requests to be considered fairly, instead of not giving them the real option to begin with. We understand that there is the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements that will be ready by 2024.”
“While our CPF monies are invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SGS) fully guaranteed by the Government, GIC's portfolio has been able to beat inflation both nominally and in real terms at 7.0% and 4.2% returns respectively over the past 20 years. Pegging OA interest rates to deposit rates has its issues as it can be quite arbitrary. For example, DBS states that the 12-month fixed deposit rates for deposits up to $19,999 is 3.2%, while an amount of $20,000, which is used for OA calculations, drops to 0.05% instead. We are beginning to see a stark contrast in rates. Recent news articles show banks competing with one another to get deposits. UOB has even raised its maximum bonus rates from 3.6% to 7.8%, while many now offer fixed deposit rates at 3% to 4%. Despite this, the CPF Board's assessment of major local banks interest rates to be at 0.52% for the period from November 2022 to January 2023 and one cannot help but feel as though these are unrealistically suppressed, given the realities of the deposit environment of the local banks today. Chairman, the OA formula itself has remained unchanged since 1999. Many of us now have the likes of a DBS Multiplier or UOB ONE account where higher interest rates can be earned easily as compared to historical savings accounts. Even if the Government does not wish to take inflation into account, I urge the Government to reconsider the formula after 24 years, to take into account the current nature of fixed deposits and savings rates from the three local banks so that it better reflects economic realities. Workplace Health and Safety”
“It is, after all, close to seven years since August 2016 when the plans were first announced. Is there a more concrete timetable on which the Ministry can share details of the proposed LRIS? I hope the Ministry is cognisant that the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings. Moreover, I would like to reiterate the lack of options currently available to Singaporeans to allow them to take better control of the wealth they have. Since my speech last year, there are still only six ETFs available for Singaporeans to invest in. With increasing financial literacy among our people, they should be empowered to take greater charge of their investment decisions according to their risk appetites and financial goals. Reform of CPF Ordinary Account Rates The CPF Board's vision is, among others, to enable Singaporeans to have a secure retirement through lifelong income. It is imperative that we therefore consistently review and revise, where necessary, the mechanisms that underlie its functions to ensure that it serves its purpose as effectively as possible. One of the key concerns frustrating Singaporeans now is inflation. I understand that the liquidity of Ordinary Accounts (OA) pegs them to shorter-term interest rates. However, for much of our working lives, the bulk of our CPF contributions gets allocated towards the OA. I appreciate the interest rate floor that has been put in place at 2.5%. However, we must balance CPF OA rates against the goal of preserving the purchasing power of our retirement funds and guarding against inflation over time.”
“Chairman, on the topic of enhancing CPF returns, I would like to once again take the chance to raise concerns that I have previously voiced out in Parliament in the past two years. The CPF scheme plays an important role in securing Singaporeans' retirement needs and it is after all the CPF Board's mission. An opportunity to enhance these returns is therefore something which many Singaporeans continuously look out for. The long lines at the banks recently due to the promotional fixed deposit rates is evidence enough of this demand. In the past month alone, major banks such as OCBC and DBS have begun offering additional products for investors to allocate their CPF Ordinary Account (OA) monies to. OCBC is now offering eight-month deposits at an interest rate of 3.88%, while DBS now accepts online applications for T-bill investments using CPF OA funds. Again, the long lines forming suggest that Singaporeans' needs for higher quality returns to their OA funds is largely unmet. The excess demand for these additional OA investment products despite their rather modest long-term returns as compared to a globally diversified portfolio of Exchange-traded Funds (ETFs) for example, further shows that there is pent-up demand for more investment options that need to be satiated. In Budgets 2021 and 2022, I sought clarification on the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS). Last year, I asked if the Expert Investment Council had completed their studies and if the Government was still considering rolling out the LRIS. Minister Tan See Leng assured us that the Government is still evaluating the scheme and I would like to once again check in if there has been any conclusion on their studies since then.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two quick clarifications for Minister Chan in relation to the P1 registration framework. I fully agree with Minister's view that we need to change mindsets here. And so, for the first clarification, in terms of the societal circumstances and needs which Minister spoke about before making further changes, can he elaborate further on what these are? And second, in relation to that, I understand alumni ties and community ties – not meant to be literal – are important to parents. But, at the same time, could we not then look at the home-school distance as a primary factor while still keeping some of these other ties in relation to the secondary critieria, to send the right signal that distance and convenience for their children would be the most important factor?”
“In the past, MOE has been constrained by a need to respect the history and legacy of many schools which started off as community initiatives. But the impending move of ACS (Primary) to Tengah and the largely positive response is drawn from parents and alumni tells me that attitudes are shifting. CNA also recently broadcast a very thought-through talking point video which questioned If a complex and confusing P1 registration process actually perpetuates educational inequalities. We can and we must take bolder steps to simplify the P1 registration framework and make it truly accessible for all.”
“In his Budget speech, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about building a fairer and more inclusive society. This has to start with our children and with our primary schools where social mixing has arguably been on the decline. I was heartened by MOE's to tweak the Primary 1 (P1) registration framework by doubling the number of places reserved in each school under Phase 2C 2022 onwards. This allows more children who have no family connections to the school to get admitted into a school near their home. But I believe the changes do not go far enough. Why are we still entrenching the mindset that just because my father or mother went to a certain school and so did I; hence, I must get my son or my daughter into the same school as well. Since MOE recognises that going to a school nearby is in the educational interest of each child, as the Ministry has really made clear in its news release, then the P1 registration framework should be redesigned to make sure that we honour this commitment to every Singaporean child entering Primary 1. This was why I suggested in 2021 that MOE should consider using citizenship and home-school distance as a primary means of allocating vacancies for all three phases of the P1 registration, while retaining the existing Phase 2A and 2B criteria for determining balloting priority. Minister Chan's reply was that MOE needs to avoid causing disruptions to parents and take care not to drastically affect the groups given priority under the current framework. But if inherited parental privilege is protected at the expense of another child being turned away from a school that is only a few hundred metres away from their home, can we truly say that our system is fair for all?”
“I understand that even Temasek has raised its paternity leave to about four months and maternity leave to about six months. While not gender-neutral, nonetheless, it sets a workable example for the Government to follow when it comes to adequately giving prep time for parents to play their caregiving roles. More importantly, it takes a village to raise a child and we should go beyond merely adopting a practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions. In Singapore, true flexible work arrangements only began commonplace due to COVID-19. But that trend is worryingly reversing again. According to a June 2022 UOB study, almost half of Singaporeans have returned to the office full-time even though more than 80% prefer some form of flexible work arrangements. I fear that that number is much higher today. A fellow Singaporean who is a new mother currently on maternity leave emailed me about some thoughts which resonate with me. She shared her how she was lacking the intellectual stimuli and adult social interaction that came with work. But meanwhile, her husband faced opposite problem. Back to work too soon, he kept thinking about the time he was not spending with his daughter. Let us push for longer gender-neutral parental leave at a policy level for the country and empower new parents with the choice to share parental responsibilities. 4.00 pm Children Development Account”
“After hitting a recent high of 1.96 in 1988, Singapore's TFR has been steadily on the decline, down to new lows of 1.1 and 1.12 in 20 21 and 2022 respectively. While our enhancement of the baby bonus scheme in Budget 2023 is welcomed, it is time we adequately address the root cause of the low fertility problem and tackle the concerns of parents and would-be parents alike. More policies and spending should therefore be directed towards tackling deep societal, cultural and institutional issues that currently discourage women, with agreement from their male partners, from taking part in procreation. First, address stereotypes of gender roles and establish the idea of equal shared responsibilities. Based on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s Labour Force in Singapore 2022 Report of caregivers who are outside the labour force, a dominant 89% were females. If we work on entrenching equal shared responsibilities, young mothers, who fear loss of time, identity, personhood and even employment, means they have more time to rest, pursue their aspirations and contribute to the community at large. Meanwhile, men who try to take on greater responsibilities for caregiving will be able to put aside their fears of being discriminated against in the workplace or facing backlash for the lack of perceived work commitment. Earlier this year, I received an email from my company's HR to update employees about the parental leave enhancements from 2023. The firm is extending and increasing the flexibility of parental leave with all parents benefiting from 26 weeks of fully paid leave for primary caregivers and six weeks for secondary caregivers. This is regardless of the gender of the employee and there is also the option to take this flexibly over 12 months.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just three very quick clarifications. The first is around the Working Mother's Child Relief, which several Members of Parliament have spoken about. My question is, what percentage of mothers will benefit from this change? As Deputy Prime Minister said in the opening speech as well as the round-up speech, it is supposed to benefit lower- to middle- income mothers. But based on my calculations on just one child alone, it seems that the lower-income mothers will not benefit and a very narrow base of working mothers will. And if you have more children, I am just not sure what is the number of mothers who would actually benefit from this change. Second, is in relation to the CPF annual salary ceiling. I do recognise that the higher monthly salary ceiling will be raised over the next four years, but I think in this House you have spoken a lot about giving businesses visibility, certainty. And so, in that regard, what is stopping the Government from giving that visibility as to the in tandem moves with the annual salary ceiling? Third, I spoke about the reintroduction of the NAV tax on higher-end and secondary properties, which I think during the Global Financial Crisis, Senior Minister Tharman, then as Finance Minister, abolished. What are the concerns by the Government on this, since I did not quite hear about that in the round-up speech?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a follow-up supplementary question to the Minister of State. Based on a CNA article I read about one to two months ago, one of the interviewees said that this appears to be a very prevalent occurrence. I am just wondering what measures are put in place to detect road touts and also not just on the touts themselves, but on the workshops that facilitate some of these egregious claims. Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. Our sense is that members of the public, especially the motorists, know how to handle road touts. In essence, while there are Police reports being made, there are those who also seek guidance and help from their insurers as well as legal counsel for civil remedies. If you look at road touts, we will look at the case where there may be other offences that have been committed. For example, road touting itself is an offence and so, we will look at the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. Within it, depending on the facts and the circumstances of the case, they may be involved in some road traffic offences, Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) offences and so forth. Essentially, we will look at the facts of the case and at the same time, it is clear that touting in any form is an offence. So, people are aware and our sense is that people know how to handle it, remain calm, they disengage. If at any point in time there are reports and we see this as a serious matter, we will take action where necessary.”
“As the Government strategises on how to move forward in a new era, I hope the future Singapore will not be one where we worry about not being able to attract the rich and famous or the largest and most profitable corporations and hence, have the average Singaporean shoulder a higher tax burden. I hope it will not be one where we have a shrinking middle class owing to income inequalities and I hope it will be one where every Singaporean family can thrive.”
“Corporate income tax, personal income tax and GST are expected to reach new record highs for the third consecutive year. I thus hope that the Government will not hesitate to support the livelihoods of our fellow Singaporeans if the need arises. This is crucial, because inflation pressures will persist and are unlikely to slow down discernibly and labour market conditions might continue to deteriorate. One of the most puzzling moves to me is the change to the Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR). While there could be a group of lower income working mothers who would benefit from this change, the majority of would-be working mothers will be worse off with the change. In the context of "Building a Singapore Made for Families", I find this move self-contradictory. Based on my estimates of working mothers' income within married couples, roughly 20% of mothers will benefit from the WMCR change while the remaining 80% of mothers will either be unaffected or worse off. I wonder if the WMCR truly seeks to encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children, or does it have the unintended opposite effect? I hope the Government can reconsider the change to WMCR. (In English): Mr Speaker, to conclude, I would like to share some final thoughts on Budget 2023. Recently, I read about the Cost-of-Thriving Index in America, which suggests that while many economists argue that America’s working families are more prosperous than ever before, families themselves feel that they have come under increasing economic pressure. The report suggests that the families are right.”
“However, should the annual salary ceiling be raised in tandem, this would rise to $2,040 implying that the same worker will benefit from an increased CPF contribution of $510 a year. In the case of a worker who earns $8,000 a month and has a four-month bonus, whether through his or her exceptional work performance or otherwise, the worker would not benefit from the raised monthly salary ceiling at all. Yet, if the annual salary ceiling was raised in tandem, his or her CPF balances will be higher by $4,420 a year. When the Government says that it will review the annual salary ceiling periodically, what is the Government looking out for before deciding to make the move or rather what is stopping the Government from doing so immediately as it has done in the past? In Budget 2015, it was said that the higher salary ceiling will cover wages up to the 80th percentile of resident incomes. What is the coverage of the current CPF salary ceiling moves and what could it be if the annual salary ceiling was raised correspondingly today? Already, the higher monthly salary ceiling will be increased in four steps all the way to 2026 to allow employers and employees to adjust to the changes. I am sure everyone in this Chamber agrees that businesses value certainty and visibility on when exactly the annual salary ceiling move is going to take place, and this will be much appreciated by employers and employees alike. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, let me just say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Looking into FY2023, I note that the Government expects a modest deficit of S$0.4 billion. Despite slowing growth, operating revenues are expected to see strong growth in the year, up S$6.4 billion compared to 2022.”
“And I do not mean this as a motherhood statement as such a move can ensure that even a larger proportion of mothers will benefit as opposed to the design of the new WMCR. To further support lower-income working mothers, if the tax rebates granted exceed the tax payable, tax credits can be paid out in cash to ensure the reliefs are not lost. Moreover, unwed single mothers are ineligible for this relief. Single mothers already face significant challenges in singlehandedly raising their children and more often than not are working mothers. Even if we cannot raise their children on their behalf, the least we can do is to ensure that our tax policies do not discriminate against them. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the changes to the WMCR. Finally, I welcome the move to raise the CPF salary ceiling from $6,000 a month to $8,000 a month. From those within this monthly income band, the lower monthly take-home salary could be a challenge given the pressures of being in a sandwiched class, with high monthly household expenses and relatively lower grants and support compared to the lower income. However, I do recognise that the benefits from a higher employers’ CPF contribution over time can contribute meaningfully to retirement savings. Yet, where I think the move falls short is in keeping the annual salary ceiling intact at $102,000. Can the Government raise the CPF annual salary ceiling in tandem with the monthly salary ceiling move to benefit this expanded group of workers? I did some calculations for a worker who earns $7,000 a month with a three-month bonus. When fully implemented in 2026, he or she could benefit from $1,530 worth of additional employers’ CPF contributions with the raised monthly salary ceiling.”
“One of the most puzzling moves to me is the decision to worsen the Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR). While there could be a group of lower-income working mothers who would benefit from this change, the majority of would-be working mothers will be made worse off with the change in methodology. In the context of "building a Singapore Made for Families", I find this move highly ironic and self-contradictory. I did some calculations for WMCR for one child, assuming a working mother gets two months' worth of bonuses which is the average in Singapore, while benefiting from other standard reliefs such as earned income relief, CPF, NSMan (Wife) relief and shares the qualifying child relief with her husband. Essentially, for mothers who earn less than $2,610 a month, they would not be better off as they would not have paid taxes at all even under the prior methodology, while mothers earning more than $3,810 a month and above will be worse off. The only group of mothers who would be better off are those earning between $2,610 and $3,810 a month, and the extent of their tax savings range from a grand $0 to $40 in total tax savings a year. Based on my estimates of working mothers' income within married couples in resident households, roughly 20% of mothers will benefit from the WMCR change to the tune of up to $40, while the remaining 80% of mothers will either be unaffected or worse off. I wonder if the WMCR truly seeks to reward families with children and encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children, or does it have the unintended opposite effect? If the aim is to benefit lower- to middle-income working mothers, why not just give a motherhood tax rebate to working mothers earning below a certain income?”