Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 51.
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024. The difference in tax paid by these working mothers is about $7.5 million in total or about $800 per person on average. The data for YA 2026 is not yet available.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Integration with the Region”
“I thank Ms Lim for her indication that she will not be objecting to my recommendation. And likewise, when she made those statements on 14 January, I had also responded on 14 January, and my statements are on record. 12.17 pm”
“As the conduct in question took place during the First Session of the 14th Parliament, it is no longer open to this 15th Parliament to impose any penalties in respect of this conduct under the PPIPA. This does not mean that Parliament is without recourse. The House could, if it wished, pass a Motion to express regret at such conduct. Such a Motion would serve to signal Parliament's disapproval, as it did in Mr Singh's case in January this year. However, it should be noted that in the January Motion, this House had already signalled its clear disapproval of lying to Parliament or its Committees. Given the very specific circumstances of this case, it is my view that no further action need be taken by this House in relation to the Committee's finding regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Had the timelines been different, I would have proposed a different course of action. This outcome has happened because even though this House was entitled to act on the Committee's findings in 2021, it decided to give Ms Lim and Mr Faisal the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Even though the Committee's findings have now been effectively confirmed by the High Court Judgment, the law in this case, the time-bar provisions of the PPIPA must be observed. Unless any Member objects, we can now bring this matter to a close.”
“In most cases, offences under the PPIPA can be dealt with fairly quickly and in the same session of Parliament. Occasionally, the offence may occur in one session of Parliament but for whatever reason Parliament may not be able to deal with it immediately and it is dealt with in a subsequent session of Parliament. However, in the interests of finality, there are constraints on this. Under section 22 of the PPIPA, Parliament has the power to punish offences which have been committed in either (a) the preceding session or (b) the last session of the preceding Parliament. The previous Parliament – that is the 14th Parliament – was first constituted on 24 August 2020. It was prorogued on 24 March 2023 and re-opened on 10 April 2023. It was dissolved on 15 April 2025. The 14th Parliament therefore had two sessions. In this case, the relevant conduct of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal took place in 2021, during the First Session of the 14th Parliament. Mr Singh was convicted by the District Court on 17 February 2025. This was during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament. However, Parliament rightly deferred consideration of Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal’s cases until the Court process had concluded. Those proceedings concluded only on 4 December 2025, when the High Court delivered its judgment. By then, the 14th Parliament had been dissolved, a General Election had taken place, and the 15th Parliament had begun. Under section 22 of the PPIPA, this 15th Parliament can only deal with offences committed either in this Session of the 15th Parliament, or during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament.”
“During the Committee hearings: (a) Ms Lim denied that Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to take her Untruth to the grave. She said that there was no discussion on this point. (b) Mr Faisal's evidence was that all three WP leaders did not remark on Ms Khan's confession that she had lied and did not discuss what to do about it. (c) Thus, at the COP hearings, both Ms Lim and Mr Faisal denied that Mr Singh had advised Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and said that the matter was not discussed. However, now, after a full investigation, trial and appeal dealing with this issue, the Courts have expressly and conclusively found that: (a) At the 8 August 2021 meeting – at which all three WP leaders were present – Ms Khan's Untruth was discussed. (b) Mr Singh had lied when he denied that he told Ms Khan to "take it to the grave" – "it" meaning her Untruth. The Courts' findings directly contradict Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's evidence. It follows logically from the Courts' findings that their evidence to the Committee was not true. The Court Judgment effectively confirmed the findings of the Committee in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. The question that arises is what is to be done in light of this. That is the unresolved issue that was deferred for decision. In principle, if someone gave untrue evidence to a Committee of Parliament and did so knowingly or intentionally, this would be dishonourable conduct and a serious contempt of Parliament and would be dealt with under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA). Ordinarily, if there is evidence someone has lied to a Select Committee, I would initiate the PPIPA process for dealing with such conduct. However, there are certain timelines within which such action must take place. Let me explain.”
“This enabled the matter to be independently investigated and if charges were brought, Mr Singh would be able to defend himself with the benefit of legal representation, and it would be for the Court to determine whether the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, the Committee found that they had lied about what was said at the meeting of 8 August. The Report stated, and I quote, "Ms Lim and Mr Faisal attended the 8 August meeting. They agreed (to Mr Singh's advice) that the Untruth should be buried, and that Ms Khan would not have to tell the truth. They did not tell the truth to the Committee about that meeting." However, the Committee considered Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's roles in the matter to be subsidiary, and noted that both had been somewhat helpful to the Committee, albeit in a limited way. The Committee therefore recommended that consideration of what, if anything, should be done about their conduct of stating untruths to the Committee should be deferred until the conclusion of investigations and/or criminal proceedings against Mr Singh. Parliament accepted the Committee's recommendation. This was done to be fair to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. If the investigations or court proceedings produced evidence inconsistent with the Committee's findings, Parliament could take that into account before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. Pending that process, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were given the benefit of the doubt. The criminal proceedings against Mr Singh concluded on 4 December 2025 when the High Court Judgement was delivered. On 14 January 2026, Parliament passed a resolution noting that the High Court Judgement and the Committee's findings had implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Let me explain why.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Ministerial Statement to this House regarding the "Determination on the Committee of Privileges (COP) Findings on the Conduct of Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap". On 14 January 2026, this House debated and passed a Motion on "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition". The resolutions in that Motion relating to Mr Singh were all dealt with and concluded on that day. One matter, however, remained outstanding. Members will recall that in the fifth limb of that Motion, this House noted "that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately". That is unfinished business which has to be dealt with. The question is what to do with the findings regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the COP Report on the "Complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for Untruth Spoken in Parliament", specifically the Committee's finding that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were untruthful to the COP about what was said at the 8 August meeting. I am now dealing with that today. To recap briefly, a key issue in the COP inquiry was what was said at the meeting of 8 August 2021 between Ms Khan and the three senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders: Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. In particular, whether Ms Khan was told to suppress the fact that she had told an untruth in Parliament, that is, that she should "take it to the grave". The three WP leaders all denied this. The Committee found otherwise. As the findings against Mr Singh were the most serious, the House referred his case to the Public Prosecutor.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively. [Please refer to "Addressing Reasons for Underutilisation of Parental Leave Benefits", Official Report, 25 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 5, Written Answers to Questions section, and Data on Leave Days taken by Parents Due to Childcare Centre Closures or Children Falling Ill", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] The answers cited the 2023 take-up rate of childcare leave by mothers as 58%. The correct figure ought to be 59%. I would therefore like to make this clarification to correct the record. Thank you.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave. In considering further enhancements to leave provisions, we will have to strike a balance between employees' caregiving needs and the operational impact on employers, who are still adjusting to recent parental leave enhancements. Beyond leave provisions, it is equally important for employers to implement work-life friendly practices, such as flexible work arrangements, and demonstrate understanding towards parents who may require time away from work to care for their children. We will continue to work with tripartite partners to foster work-life friendly workplaces.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone. Should an owner wish to sell any unit on such land lots individually, subdivision must first occur. Upon subdivision, each unit will count as one residential property for ABSD purposes. We review the ABSD policy regularly to ensure it continues to promote a stable and sustainable property market.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions. On the last question, the average amount of individual income tax foregone from course fees relief was around $13 million per year over the Years of Assessment 2020 to 2024.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Curiosity Credits: Empowering Informed Post-secondary Choices”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt. We are not closed to considering fresh ideas or initiatives, but I think the key consideration must always be what is the need and what we want to support, and what is actually required.”
“Both men and women are marrying and having children later. Mothers over 40 years of age have higher risk of maternal and foetal complications. Our public hospitals provide specialised care for such high-risk pregnancies, including being equipped with neonatal intensive care units for newborns requiring greater medical care. Later marriages and births have also resulted in more couples experiencing challenges in conceiving naturally. As part of the effort of the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Reset Workgroup, funding for fertility health services and support for those undergoing fertility treatments are being reviewed. On workforce participation, the Workforce Singapore provides a range of job matching and career guidance services, including for mothers in their 40s to stay in or return to the workforce. There are also programmes, such as career conversion programmes and mid-career pathways programmes, to support women who are keen to explore new roles. Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) play an important role in supporting working parents in managing work and personal responsibilities. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests set out guidelines for employees', employers' and supervisors' considerations on FWAs. The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans through every stage of marriage and parenthood. Last week, we announced the composition and scope of a newly formed M&P Reset Workgroup. It will develop a longer-term roadmap on how M&P is perceived, supported and realised, propose policy enhancements and mobilise stakeholders across society to collectively support Singaporeans in their M&P journeys.”
“The Member had raised a related question at the 8 April Parliament sitting. [Please refer to "Subsidised Co-living Options for Singles, Addressing Motherhood Penalty, Publicising Shared Parental Leave Take-up Rates as Marriage and Parenthood Ideas", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] Parental leave is intended to provide working parents protected time to care for and bond with their children. We have significantly enhanced these provisions in recent years, covering up to 30 weeks of paid parental leave. Beyond leave provisions, employers play a key role in fostering supportive workplace norms that enable parents to take their parental leave without judgement. The Workgroup on Marriage and Parenthood Reset will explore ways to further encourage employers to develop practices that support parental leave-taking. We will study the Member's suggestion as part of our efforts. This includes considering global standards and international practices, such as those related to company disclosures on parental leave policies and utilisation. While mandatory disclosure requirements may help to promote transparency and normalise good practices, any decision to adopt them must also take into account our local operating context and compliance cost or impact on employers.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] SINGAPORE ENERGY RESILIENCE STRATEGY: AN OFF-GRID AND MICRO-GRID POWER USING SMART ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS TO BE DEPLOYED ISLAND-WIDE”
“We will announce details of the Workgroup and the approach to the Marriage and Parenthood Reset soon.”
“The Workgroup will look into creating opportunities for more social interaction, including the matters raised by Mr Hoe. Mr Hoe also asked about stronger targeted measures to support working parents on caregiving. We are looking at how to better support parents with caregiving responsibilities, including strengthening existing measures and exploring new ones. However, bearing in mind that different sectors have different operational demands and job roles, our approach will not be to micro-manage but rather to drive progressive and sustainable workplace norms for better alignment of work and personal priorities that both employers and employees will support and embrace. We will also explore ways to incentivise employers to develop work-life friendly practices and will consider Ms Lee Hui Ying's suggestion to have companies disclose their parental leave policies and utilisation rates. Ms Elysa Chen asked about the motherhood penalty or employer bias for mothers returning to work. This is a very valid concern. The Workplace Fairness Act, which the House passed last year, prohibits adverse employment decisions on the basis of pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities. This is targeted to be implemented in end-2027. The Workgroup will look into the issue of support for women who want to continue in their careers while being mothers. On Mr Hoe's query about fertility treatment, currently both men and women who undergo fertility treatments can obtain Medical Certificates, request for flexible work arrangements from their employers or take time-off from work. We are studying how we can get employers to provide better workplace support for those undergoing fertility treatment. I thank the Members for their suggestions.”
“My reply will address Parliamentary Questions Nos 66 to 69 on today's Order Paper and also address Mr David Hoe's three related Parliamentary Questions which are scheduled for the next Sitting1,2,3. Globally, marriage and parenthood are trending downwards or being delayed. Singapore's Total Fertility Rate fell to an historic low of 0.87 last year. Left unaddressed, it will over time have a significant impact on our society, our economy and the future of Singapore. The Government is committed to addressing this issue. However, it cannot be tackled by the Government alone. It requires a whole of society approach. As announced on 26 February we are setting up a Workgroup to drive a Marriage and Parenthood Reset. Mr Christopher de Souza has asked about the deliverables and timelines of the Workgroup and how the Government aims to galvanise whole-of-society support. We will be announcing composition of the Workgroup and its terms of reference very soon. So as not to forerun that and also because we are still in the process of fine-tuning the workstreams, I would not be providing details today. For now, I will just say that the Workgroup will explore a wide range of options to provide more support across each stage of one’s journey in marriage and parenthood and foster broader societal support. Mr David Hoe asked about social infrastructure, community programming and co-living to provide opportunities for singles' interaction. The Government has been working with partners to grow spaces for youth to connect and meet new people. For example, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has been working with *SCAPE to develop the Somerset Belt into a vibrant youth precinct and to grow youth communities of interest in diverse areas.”
“Over the past five years, the Government has procured $250,000 of software services from Palantir Technologies Singapore Pte Ltd, a subsidiary of Palantir Technologies Inc.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Strengthening Return to Work Pathways”
“Mr Speaker, the Motion everyone has been waiting for. [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“I thank all Members on both sides of the House, as well as our Nominated Members of Parliament, for supporting Budget 2026 and for their contributions to the Budget process. Even when there were disagreements, we share a common commitment to building a better Singapore. For this year, we had robust debate spanning nine days; 68 Members spoke for two and a half days in the debate on the Budget Statement, the highest number in recent Budgets with about 21 hours of debate; 425 cuts were covered over six days of Committee of Supply, with almost 55 hours of debate. And for the first time in my recollection, there was no formal break in the Budget process. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, you have had to spend long hours in the Chair, presiding over these proceedings with fairness and professionalism. This year, you have added a new item to your toolkit to keep us on time and in line – the bell and the mute button. I am glad that you only had to use them a few times and as the exception, and not the norm. On behalf of this House, I thank you once again for your able chairmanship. [Applause.] We are also deeply grateful to the Clerk of Parliament, Deputy Clerk and the other Clerks of Parliament, the Parliament Secretariat and staff, interpreters and translators. Their dedicated efforts and support behind the scenes ensured that our proceedings went smoothly. I hope that we can express our appreciation for them too. [Applause.] 12.36 pm”
“It resembles the British system, except, as Mr Goh noted, Singaporeans have gone further and superimposed on our Constitutional framework the ideal of a political leader who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust. We believe that our leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity, committed to the public good. The world has changed greatly since Mr Goh spoke in this House in 1988. So have the way both the US and British political systems operate. But Mr Goh’s observations remain, if anything, just as relevant today. Rules and processes are important. But even more important are the people who are elected to represent and serve the people and whether they possess the competence, commitment and conscience to fulfil their duties. If they do, then you do not need as many rules because they can be trusted to do the right thing. If they do not, we can impose and improve as many laws and rules as we like, but democracy and politics will still go wrong. This applies to governments as much as it does to oppositions and governments-in-waiting. Mr Speaker, in a changed world, Singapore’s model of democracy remains our anchor. It is by no means perfect, and we must and will continue to find ways to improve our system. But we do have something rare and precious. To safeguard it we must have the right laws, the right principles and the right people. It is important to appreciate that not only is our model unique but that it is this uniqueness that has enabled the Government to continue delivering Budgets that strengthen our economy, improve the lives of Singaporeans and bring Singapore forward.”
“At that time, we were just getting out of COVID-19 and things were looking up. Within six days, the Russia-Ukraine war started, changing the global geopolitical dynamic once again and adding to energy and supply chain issues, accompanied by inflation at levels unseen since the 1970s. In all our Budgets, we prepare for the best, but we also plan in case of the worst. History is a hard taskmaster, and we must not ignore its lessons. Our Reserves and our surpluses are things to be grateful for. Our fiscal approach is enabled by our unique system of Parliamentary democracy, which has served us well and continues to deliver good results for Singaporeans. During the Committee of Supply debate, I spoke about then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s 1988 speech on the infamous Hendrickson affair, where he outlined three different political models. That speech is well worth re-reading. Not all Members may have been present in the Chamber when I spoke about it. So, it is worth recapping what he said. First, the American system is one of checks and balances. Its underlying premise is fundamentally one of distrust, with each branch of government constantly checking the others. Then you have the British system where the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are given a wider range of discretionary powers. There is a greater premise of trust, which rests on the mandate given to the party with the majority in Parliament. The unspoken and unwritten expectation is that those in power are individuals who can be relied upon to always act honourably. And then, there is the Singapore system.”
“However, within the span of just three weeks since the Budget Statement was delivered, the world changed again. On 20 February, eight days after the Budget Statement, the US Supreme Court struck down President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. President Trump responded by doubling down on tariffs the next day, triggering another round of economic uncertainty. On 26 February, hostilities between Pakistan and Afghanistan erupted. On 28 February, the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran. Iran is retaliating, not just against the US and Israel, but also against other countries in the region, plunging the Middle East into another round of instability. No one knows how long the conflict will last. These developments have added to the overall climate of uncertainty. The business outlook for trade and investment may have to be adjusted. Energy prices may be affected. If so, there will be implications for business costs and daily costs of living. As a small and open economy, Singapore will feel the knock-on impacts keenly. Viewed in light of these changed circumstances, our surplus is less about marksmanship and a whole lot more about assurance and quiet confidence. We have the ability to do more for Singaporeans with ballast and buffer against potential turbulence. Our approach of fiscal prudence has been validated time and time again. Budget 2020 was delivered on 18 February. The global economy was calm, the outlook rosy even. But within a month, we were plunged into the thick of a pandemic, the crisis of a generation and the global economy shut down. We ended up delivering another four Budgets and drew down about $40 billion of Past Reserves. In 2022, the Budget Statement was delivered on 18 February.”
“Budget 2026 also allows us to implement our refreshed economic strategy, continue investing in our workers and drive growth to create jobs, strengthen support for families and advance our social compact, and enhance our security and sustainability. Budget 2026 also put a spotlight on our total fertility rate (TFR), which has dropped to a historic low of 0.87 and signals the start of the marriage and parenthood reset as a whole-of-nation effort. As we begin this important work, we will take into account the many helpful ideas and suggestions from Members on both sides of the House on what we can do to provide more support for families and couples who aspire to become parents. Mr Speaker, in a world rocked by turbulence and change, Singapore stands out as a beacon of safety, security and stability. This is not by accident. It is the result of successive Budgets, anchored on fiscal prudence, forward planning and catalysing new ways to catch the winds of change even as we provide for current needs. This approach has stood us in good stead. We have projected a healthy surplus of $15.1 billion for financial year (FY) 2025. It is in contrast to many other major economies, where public debt is rising, straining their financial stability and weighing on growth prospects. When the surplus was first made known in the Budget Statement, some questioned why the surplus was so large and whether the Government had been too conservative. The Budget Statement was delivered on 12 February, against the backdrop of 5% gross domestic product (GDP) growth, when the world had more or less adjusted to the United States (US) tariffs and things seemed to be getting back on an even keel.”
“Mr Speaker, the passing of the Supply Bill and the Supplementary Bill a few moments ago marks the end of the formal Budget process for Budget 2026. This being the first Budget in this new term of Parliament, I should explain for the benefit of first-time Members that it is customary at the end of the annual Budget process for the Leader of the House to deliver a speech in acknowledgment of the Chair of the proceedings, namely, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, as Chair of the proceedings, you have presided over two weeks of intensive debate on the Budget Statement and in the Committee of Supply, in which we have passed a Budget with more than $200 billion worth of Estimates – $158,962,520,000 for the Main Estimates and $49,014,559,600 for the Development Estimates. This is our largest annual Budget to date, passed against the backdrop of a profoundly changed and uncertain world. The international order that underpinned stability and prosperity for over nearly eight decades is breaking down. Geopolitical tensions have increased. The multilateral system that has served us well has weakened. More countries are resorting to unilateral action. The rule of law is under strain with the resurgence of a "might is right" approach. In short, the world has become more contested, more fragmented and ultimately, more dangerous. Budget 2026 is our action plan to enable Singaporeans to navigate this new reality with confidence and secure our future together. A key feature of Budget 2026 was artificial intelligence (AI). Budget 2026 aims to harness AI as a strategic advantage and drive national adoption so that Singaporeans can take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by technology.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Reforming CCA Access in Our Schools”
“The Member is referred to the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 2 for the Sitting on 14 October 2025. [Please refer to "Enhancements to Extended Childcare Leave Scheme and Proposal of New Leave Scheme for Caregivers", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Written Answers to Questions section.] Parents with younger children are granted more childcare leave provisions, as younger children are generally less independent compared to older children. The Government remains committed to supporting working parents in caring for their children and will take the Member's suggestion into account as we review the current leave provisions.”
“So, I do not propose to address it in detail, other than to say that this has been answered quite fully by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a separate earlier sitting of Parliament, where he explained the difference between the role of a grassroots adviser, which is essentially flowing from Government, and that of an MP.”
“So, I do not propose to address it in detail, other than to say that this has been answered quite fully by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a separate earlier session of Parliament, where he explained the difference between the role of a grassroots adviser, which is essentially flowing from Government, and that of an MP. [Please refer to "Committee of Supply – Head F (Parliament)", Official Report, 27 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 21, Budget section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No. 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 27 February 2026. My statement should read as follows:”
“The Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) is given to encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children. The WMCR was changed from a percentage of the mother's earned income to a fixed dollar relief to provide equal support for children of the same child order regardless of the mother's income. Pegging the relief quantum to the mother's income would disproportionately benefit higher-income earners and make the scheme less progressive. The changes to the WMCR were part of a broader effort to strengthen support for families. In recent years, we have enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child Development Account, introduced the Large Families Scheme and expanded support for early childhood education. In this year's Budget, we further raised the monthly household income thresholds for preschool subsidies and Student Care Fee Assistance, enabling more families to benefit. The Government is committed to helping parents cope with child-raising costs. Our approach is to provide comprehensive and progressive support for families, rather than relying on a single relief measure. We will regularly review our policies and schemes to address parents’ needs and concerns.”
“The Government provides a suite of financial support measures to help families with young children manage the costs of child-raising. We are aware of the cost of transport for families with young children and have factored this into the design of our financial support schemes, which include cash and cash-like payouts, that can be used to offset the cost of transport services. For example, all families received $500 in Child LifeSG Credits (CLC) for each Singaporean child aged 12 and below last year and will receive another round of CLC this year. Under the Large Families Scheme, eligible families with three or more children also receive up to $6,000 in Large Family LifeSG Credits (LFLC) for each third and subsequent child. The CLC and LFLC can be used to defray the cost of taxi and private hire transport services. The Large Families Scheme also provides families with three or more children with special privileges at partner merchants, such as deals, when booking car-sharing services. We will continue to review our policies to strengthen support for families.”
“Mr Speaker, I do not have to look at the code of governance for directors. That is a regime for directors. What is of importance is what is the right and appropriate conduct for MPs, and I have outlined that earlier. On the second point about conflicts of interest, the resolution that was discussed did touch on matters which will be something that the Central Executive Committee or the disciplinary tribunal of the WP has to look at. I say no more than that because it is self-evident and self-explanatory.”
“[Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 27 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 21, Correction By Written Statement section.] The MP's role is to come to Parliament to represent their voters and to do certain things and the roles are separate. So, let me just wrap up by pointing to a speech made by Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1988 about the infamous Hendrickson affair. He cited three political models: one, the American system of checks and balances, where the underlying premises is fundamentally one of distrust, where each branch must constantly keep the other in check; the other, the British system, where the executive, the Prime Minister and Cabinet are given wider discretionary powers. The Singapore system is more like the British system, except as Mr Goh noted, Singaporeans have gone further and super-imposed on our constitutional framework, the ideal of a political leader who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust and we believe that leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity, committed to the public good.”
“You have declared to the world that you are no longer partisan. You have taken on a responsibility to be non-partisan and so long as you carry out that duty properly, there is nothing wrong with that. And should the reverse be the same or take place, meaning that you are in a non-partisan position and let us say, tomorrow you wish to become partisan, then the right thing to do would be to step down from your non-partisan position and say to the world that you intend to have a partisan role or are exploring a partisan role. That way, it is transparent, it is fair and this is what we have done in our system, and it has served us well. She mentioned conflicts of interest, perceived or real. Well, that is a good point. Because a conflict of interest can also arise where you may have taken a certain position in Parliament and then later, be sitting on a tribunal which has to decide on an issue where you have already taken a position in Parliament. Now, that would be a conflict of interest too. So, we must see how we conduct ourselves appropriately and much depends on the individual. On the role of grassroots advisors. Firstly, that is not a Parliamentary matter and is wrongly discussed under Head F. That is one of the reasons why Members of Parliament (MPs) should, in the gist when they file their cuts, actually set out a bit more on what they are going to say. So, first, it is wrongly filed under this cut. So, I do not propose to address it in detail, other than to say that this has been answered quite fully by Minister Ong Ye Kung in a separate earlier session of Parliament, where he explained the difference between the role of a grassroots advisor, which is essentially flowing from Government, and that of an MP.”
“First, there must be proper laws, coupled with respect for the rule of law. One must observe the letter and the spirit of the rules and to follow through, even though the consequences may be politically inconvenient. Second, integrity. Laws alone are not enough. Around the world, we see democracies with many laws but that are still dysfunctional. Democracies can only be safe when the Parliamentarians, in whose hands democracy is entrusted, act honourably and with integrity and who, when things go wrong, have the courage and the sense of shame to accept accountability for matters within their responsibility, and their personal conduct. Third, the right people. We need Parliamentarians with competence, commitment and conscience on both sides of the House. In Government, we need competent people who understand the fundamentals of governance and can master the difficult task of running a country. In opposition, we need competent people who understand the issues, ask the right questions and hold not only the Government, but also themselves to the same high standards of integrity and accountability. We need Parliamentarians who are committed, who will stay the course and are able to put country before party. Ms He Ting Ru raised two points. One was on cooling-off periods and the other on grassroots advisors. On the question of cooling-off periods, actually, it is very straightforward or simple. I think she put forward the suggestion or the scenario – could she resign from the WP and become a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) the following day? The answer is, if she resigned from the WP and declared that, there is no obstacle to her becoming an NMP the following day, provided that when she, assuming she is selected, carries out those duties as an NMP properly.”
“Mr Chairman, the gist of this cut was strengthening parliamentary democracy and safeguarding democracy in a changing world. Watching recent events unfold on the global stage, it sometimes feels like democracy is under siege. In some other countries, which have long been regarded as leading democracies, there is a sense that systems are breaking down, trust has been eroded and once-revered institutions have been rendered ineffective, compromised or even under direct attack. This malaise is marked by the following symptoms: polarisation, deep divisions with no space for a middle ground, sometimes resulting in legislative paralysis; political contestation, increasingly framed around race, religion or other divisive issues which exploit and deepen divisions; populism, where electorates are sold only the upsides and not told the downsides, and where difficult but necessary decisions are avoided; short-term thinking driven by selfish political calculation without regard to societal cost; performative politics in and out of Parliament, in lieu of substantive and rational discourse; misleading statements or even not so rarely, outright falsehoods; disregard of the rule of law and processes. We can be thankful that our Parliamentary democracy is not in such a parlous state. This is not because we are immune to such dangers. We are as vulnerable to these political pitfalls as any other society. We have, in large part, avoided going down this path only because we and, in particular, successive PAP Governments have continued to maintain high standards and important fundamentals. But this is not to say it cannot happen to us in the future. And it takes very little to get onto the slippery slope. How then can we safeguard our Parliamentary democracy?”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]”
“From 2020 to 2024, there were on average, about 745 non-marital live births per year to Singapore Citizen mothers in Singapore. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Working Mother’s Child Relief were designed to encourage parenthood within marriage. Hence, they were not extended to single unwed parents. It is not an issue of cost. Therefore, we do not track how much it would have cost to extend these benefits to unwed parents, nor do we compare this against expenditure on other programmes that may support these families. Nevertheless, single unwed parents are eligible for Government benefits that support the growth and development of their children. These include leave provisions as well as subsidies for infant care, childcare, education and healthcare. They are also eligible for the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession and the Child Development Account (CDA) benefits, which include the CDA First Step Grant and Government Co-matching. Single unwed parents who require additional support can apply for financial assistance via the SupportGoWhere portal, and approach family service centres for holistic support, which may include help through programmes like ComCare and KidSTART.”
“Mr Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY2026/2027 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Mr Chairman, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported and leave be asked to sit again?”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarification. In terms of timeline, let me put it this way, we will share details of the workgroup shortly. But the workgroup will be looking at the four areas that I covered and as the Member can see, those four areas are quite broad. So, it is not going to be that we have to wait for everything to be ready in order to implement or put in place. I think where we can have some low hanging fruit, which can be ready to implement early, we should do that as soon as possible. Because the Member is right, time is of the essence. It is an existential issue; we cannot afford to sit back and wait. But some things, particularly, if they are more complex policies, or which may need to engage more stakeholders, those might take a little longer. But really, in this term of Government, you can be assured that we will be preoccupied with trying to make sure that we have more Singaporean babies born.”
“However, to buck the trend, everyone – parents, employers, businesses and community partners – need to be part of this endeavour. In the months ahead, we will work with stakeholders to develop concrete plans for the four-pronged approach I laid out earlier. We welcome all suggestions and fresh ideas on how we can better support Singaporeans' marriage and parenthood aspirations.”
“We will continue to review ways to foster workplace cultures and societal norms that value and support families, including Dr Haresh Singaraju's suggestion of piloting a tiered workplace certification. Beyond workplaces, we will encourage neighbourhoods, communities and businesses to be supportive of families. There are ground-up efforts to create conducive community spaces for families. The Caterpillar Library at the Taman Jurong Community Club established by the Ong family is one such example, where residents donate a book for every book they take. Starting out with just 100 books, the Caterpillar Library has now facilitated the circulation of over 10,000 books, creating connections between neighbours while helping children discover the joy of reading. I encourage more neighbourhoods to create such family-friendly spaces. Community organisations and businesses also contribute by organising a wide range of activities – from the arts to sports – for families. The Families for Life website provides a list of such resources for families. Most of the activities are free or charge nominal fees. In addition, Families for Life has gathered corporate partners, like GetGo, Sofitel Singapore Sentosa and ABC Cooking Studio, to offer Large Families Deals with exclusive discounts and offers. I encourage more partners to come onboard to celebrate families. Mr Chairman, in conclusion, the latest TFR figures have not deterred us from our quest to boost marriage and parenthood. If anything, it underscores the urgency of the task before us and it has made us even more determined to turn things around. The Government will redouble our efforts to address this existential challenge.”