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 12 of 51.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this House: (a) Affirms the need for Members of Parliament to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct themselves in accordance with the law; (b) Affirms the need to deal firmly and fairly with any Member of Parliament who is being investigated for possible wrongdoing; and (c) Resolves to consider the matter regarding Member of Parliament S Iswaran when the outcome of the ongoing investigations against him is known." As Members are aware, Mr Iswaran, who is a Member of the West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC), is currently under investigation by the CPIB and is on leave of absence. At the direction of the Prime Minister, he has been interdicted in his capacity as a Minister on a reduced pay of $8,500 per month, until further notice, as explained by the Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement delivered at the last Sitting on 2 August 2023. In response to a clarification by Mr Dennis Tan as to whether the reduced pay comprised both the Minister's pay and MP allowance, the Prime Minister explained that Mr Iswaran's MP allowance was not interdicted, as unlike a Minister's pay, it was not at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pointed out that it was a matter for Parliament and that Parliament had not done that, nor in previous cases, had it done so. Instead, what has happened is that the MP has been on leave of absence and, eventually, when the case is settled one way or another, then, consequences will follow. I believe that it is in this context that the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Ms Hazel Poa has filed her current Motion.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion." Mr Speaker, as mentioned earlier, these two Motions deal with the same topic insofar as Mr Iswaran is concerned. I am thus moving this Business Motion for a simultaneous debate on the two Motions, so that Members can address both Motions in a single speech. This will allow the issues raised in the two Motions to be considered holistically. To be clear and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is to be concurrent. The Motions remain as two separate Motions. And at the end of the debate, the votes on the two Motions will be taken separately. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion." – [Ms Indranee Rajah].”
“In this case, however, the question of whether there is a need to amend the PPIPA to allow Parliament to back pay Mr Iswaran will depend on whether or not Parliament resolves to suspend him in the first place. This, in turn, will depend on the outcome of my Motion and Ms Poa's other Motion, which I will be asking to be debated simultaneously. I am, therefore, moving to revise the Order of Business such that Ms Poa's Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the PPIPA will be taken immediately after the proceedings on my Motion and Ms Poa's other Motion have concluded. This would be a more logical flow and allow for more efficient conduct of parliamentary business. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill by Ms Hazel Poa be taken immediately after the proceedings on the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' have been concluded." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill by Ms Hazel Poa be taken immediately after the proceedings on the Motions on 'Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament' and 'Suspension of Member' have been concluded." Mr Speaker, as Members are aware, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Ms Hazel Poa, has filed two Motions. In her first Motion titled "Suspension of Member", she is moving to suspend Minister Iswaran from service of Parliament with the consequence that no Member of Parliament (MP) allowance shall be paid to him for the period of suspension. Her second Motion is for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of 1962, or the PPIPA. Specifically, she is seeking to amend the Act to allow Parliament to back pay Mr Iswaran should he be subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing and resume his official duties. This being an amendment of a Bill by a Private Member, leave of Parliament to introduce the Bill is necessary under Standing Order 66(1). I have separately filed a Motion titled "Consideration of Matters Regarding Member of Parliament" which deals with Members' standard of conduct, calls for firm and fair dealings with Members under investigation for wrongdoing and proposes that the matters relating to Mr Iswaran be considered when the outcome of the investigation is known. All three Motions are scheduled to be dealt with today. In the normal Order of Business, under the Standing Orders, Motions for leave to introduce Bills would be dealt with before Motions on matters to be debated.”
“We regularly review our parental leave policies and other measures to better support the caregiving needs of parents of young children. In 2017, Mr Ng had raised this issue of increasing leave for parents with multiple or pre-term births. We recognise that these parents may have greater caregiving needs. As such, the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs was introduced in 2018. Employers who adopt this Standard commit to provide additional unpaid leave of up to four weeks per year for parents with a child below the age of two who is (a) born preterm, with congenital conditions or as part of multiple births, or (b) has any other medical conditions, subject to mutual agreement with the employer. As announced at Budget earlier this year, we will double the Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks for eligible working fathers from 1 January 2024. Unpaid Infant Care Leave will also be doubled from six to 12 days per year per parent, in the child’s first two years. Parents with multiple or pre-term births can tap on these enhanced leave provisions to have more time to care for and bond with their newborns, or to settle caregiving arrangements. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment and show understanding towards parents who may require more time to care for their children after birth. The Government will continue to work closely with the Tripartite Partners to promote family-friendly workplace practices.”
“So, for example, in 1985, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as you know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam.”
“So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as you know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to "Impartial Speaker of Parliament", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with 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 2 August 2023. My statement should read as follows:”
“I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had since 2020, organised 19 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 19 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [(proc text) (b) The following statement was made by the Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the Motion, “Impartial Speaker of Parliament”, at the Sitting of 2 August 2023: (proc text)]”
“I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had since 2020, organised 18 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 18 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [Please refer to "CPIB Investigation Involving Minister S Iswaran and the Resignations of Former Speaker and a PAP MP", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Ministerial Statements section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with 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 2 August 2023. My statement should read as follows:”
“] Then, in 1989, Mr Chiam See Tong had this to say of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, who was Speaker and also a PAP MP – and not a lawyer. Mr Chiam said, "Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just allow me a moment also to convey my congratulations on your elevation to the Speakership. Sir, I think it would not be complete if it is just the Leader of the House conveying his congratulations to you. This is to make it complete. You have the approval of the whole House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the previous Speaker who had a very good rapport with the Opposition." And also, speaking when Mr Tan Soo Khoon ended his appointment as Speaker in 2002 after 13 years in that role, Mr Low Thia Khiang from the WP rose to record his views as follows, "Mr Tan Soo Khoon, as Speaker of the House, has won my respect for being fair most of the time, if not all the time" and that "Being a non-PAP Member, I have not felt discriminated and I think this is important as he was the Speaker." So, that Mr Speaker, concludes the essential premise, which I am making – which is at the end of the day, it is about the individual how he or she conducts themselves and about making sure that all of us do our part in Parliament.”
“So, it works both ways for Parliament of function effectively, properly and importantly, to gain the respect of people. The Speaker has to do his job, but equally, all MPs and Ministers have to do their jobs. In conclusion, what I would like to do is to just highlight some quotes in respect of previous Speakers, which really illustrate the point that I am making, which is at the end of the day, it is about the individuals. It is about how the individual in the Speaker's Chair conducts himself or herself. Previous Speakers of Parliament in Singapore have earned praise and respect from both sides of the House, even though they were a member of a political party. So, for example, in 1995, Mr JB Jeyaretnam said when he spoke on the reappointment of Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng as Speaker, and Dr Yeoh, as Members know, was a PAP MP. Mr JB Jeyaretnam said this, “Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years, you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact with which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials.” That was Mr JB Jeyaretnam. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.”
“And also, he had separately had complaints levelled against him for bullying. This does not have to do with his rulings in the Chamber, but he was the subject matter of an Independent Expert Panel. And they found that his behaviour "fell very far below that which the public had a right to expect from any Member of Parliament", and it was so serious that, "had he still been a Member of Parliament" – because the Committee's rulings came out after he stepped down – the Committee said, "we would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it is, we recommend that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate." So, having somebody who is non-partisan, not a member of a political party, does not guarantee you the results that you want. At the end of the day, it boils down to how the individual holding the office of Speaker conducts himself or herself, and it is very important that the Speaker is mindful of the duties and obligations that come with the office. But equally, it is important for the MPs to be mindful of the duties and obligations that come with their office – whether they be Ministers or backbenchers – and to not make it difficult for the Speaker, because in making it difficult for the Speaker, you also force the Speaker to have to make rulings. It is incumbent upon MPs to not disregard the authority of the Chair, to be familiar with the Standing Orders, to know what the Standing Orders mean and, if referring to articles or principles or sections, to actually know which articles and sections they are referring to, and to not misrepresent proceedings in Parliament and essentially, comply with the Standing Orders.”
“And it is not always a given that a nominee from the majority party will always be able to command the support of the majority of the MPs or that the nominee may necessarily be from the majority party. For example, the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives was appointed as Speaker only after 15 ballots were taken, despite receiving his party's nomination for Speaker earlier. So, for the first 14 ballots, he did not manage to obtain a majority of the votes. This is not the only system in practice. There are different ways of doing it and our practice is in sync with other major democracies. Each country has to decide what works best for them. More importantly, the Parliaments have to choose the right individuals. So, just having someone who is non-partisan or not a member of any political party does not guarantee you the outcome that you would like. The UK, for example, has a convention where the Speaker resigns from his or her political party upon being appointed as Speaker. So, ostensibly neutral, ostensibly bipartisan. The convention also extends to the Speaker's seat not being contested by the major political parties and the Speaker not campaigning on political issues. But even though the UK has taken these steps, that does not guarantee the desired outcomes. As Mr Lim Biow Chuan highlighted earlier, the UK system did not prevent one of their former Speakers from being put in a position where he was accused of bias. The former Speaker was mired in controversy by accepting certain procedural amendments and rulings. I do not need to go into details, but in short, he was alleged of bias on issues, that is, of not supporting Brexit as opposed to remaining. So, you can have bias on issues or alleged bias on issues.”
“The second point is: what is the practice and the reality around the world? Actually, you will find that in most of the major Westminster-style democracies like ours, the Speaker comes from the majority party. And this is true of the current Speakers of the Australian House of Representatives, the Canadian House of Commons and the New Zealand House of Representatives, all of whom are from the majority party in those Parliaments. In the US, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is also usually from the majority party in that House. The identity of the Speaker is typically determined by the party members at the organising caucuses held soon after the new Congress is elected. So, in short, the Speaker is somebody who can receive the support from the majority of the House and that will very often be somebody from the majority party. And this arrangement reflects the reality that the person has to receive a majority of the votes in Parliament to be appointed Speaker. And it is quite natural for a candidate from the majority party to be in a position to receive the majority of votes. It is also important to bear in mind that the majority party would have derived its majority from the voters. You do not get to be a majority party without the majority of votes. It is the electorate; it is the voters who put the PAP in Parliament as a majority. So, you have to bear in mind that the mandate of the majority party is drawn directly from the people. And the person put up for election as the Speaker, if he or she has the confidence of the majority, then he or she gets appointed as the Speaker.”
“I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his clarification. So, let me move on to the first point about the need for the Speaker to be fair and impartial. The major Commonwealth democracies all recognise the need for the person holding the role of Speaker to act in an impartial manner when discharging his or her duties, and Singapore is no different. Speakers must behave in an impartial manner in the discharge of their duties and successive Speakers of our Parliament have acknowledged this. The question is – how is this to be achieved? The underlying assumption or presupposition put forward by PSP is that you can only achieve this if the Speaker is independent of any political party. That is their underlying premise. The premise is that the Speaker should not have any political association, so he or she can be perceived to be completely neutral. Well, what does our law provide? The Constitution sets out the eligibility requirements for the Speaker. MPs, except those who are Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, are eligible. And non-MPs are also eligible, but the Constitution requires that such persons must be persons who are qualified for election as an MP, such as being a Singapore Citizen above the age of 21 and a resident in Singapore for at least 10 years in aggregate. So, our Constitution also recognises that MPs can be the Speaker, that is, members of a political party. Thus, under our law, any person who meets these eligibility requirements can be elected as the Speaker. So, PSP's proposal to require a Speaker to be independent in the sense of not being a member of a political party or not being an MP is actually not in accordance with and much more limiting than the Constitutional requirements. That is the first point.”
“In this regard, before I go on to explain why I support the amended Motion, may I just clarify with Assoc Prof Jamus Lim because I heard him say that he supported the Motion, but I was not sure whether he meant the original Motion or whether he meant the amended Motion?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate. The Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai is that "This House reaffirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to be independent and impartial and for Parliament to be a fair arena for all". Insofar as what he means by "independent" though, it was clear from his speech that, by "independent", he meant either non-partisan or not a member of a political party. So, to that extent, I cannot agree with this Motion. But I do agree that a Speaker needs to be fair, impartial and to act independently. So, for that reason I would be able to agree with the first part of the amendment which Mr Vikram Nair has moved, which is that "This House affirms its commitment to the need for the Speaker of Parliament to discharge his duties independently and impartially". The second part of Mr Leong's Motion seeks the House's affirmation that Parliament should be a fair arena for all. That, too, I agree, except that when it comes to being a fair arena for all, it means that all Members must participate in this and act and conduct themselves appropriately. Hence, we have the Standing Orders, which are supposed to govern the conduct of Members vis-à-vis one another, and also, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act which sets out what Members should and should not do, and what it means when you have privileges as an MP, how you should act and not abuse them. And, therefore, I agree with the second part of the amendment moved by Mr Vikram Nair, which is that "This House should also affirm its commitment to uphold the Standing Orders of Parliament and the obligations under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act", and if we all conducted ourselves accordingly, you would have a fair arena for all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just a quick point of order. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke just now on a point of order, he said, or he claimed he was doing no more than the PAP MPs in making extended speeches with respect to the previous matter, which I think was the Ridout Road matter. I was present for that debate, and I recall quite distinctly the PAP MPs, when seeking clarifications, did not make long speeches. They asked their clarifications. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Ms Denise Phua. I recall that too. Ms Denise Phua asked a clarification, and it was directed obviously to the Prime Minister's Office. The Ministerial Statement was made by Senior Minister Teo. But because it is under Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister responded to that. When he responded, he was giving a response to the clarification and he can, therefore, give a longer answer. He was not making a long speech on a clarification. Just a point of order and I wanted to clarify that.”
“After the last General Election, I had sought Leader of the Opposition's nominations for the Opposition MPs, because the rules provide that for Standing Select Committees, the proportion of the ratio of majority MPs and Opposition MPs should be roughly the proportion that they are represented in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me address the clarification which the Leader of the Opposition posed on Parliamentary trips or official trips. Since the last General Election, former Speaker Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, had gone on five official overseas trips and three working trips. Working trips would be, for example, for the Olympic Games and so on. Of the five official overseas trips, only one was where Miss Cheng Li Hui was present as well. That was the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) General Assembly trip to Cambodia in 2022. There were 15 MP delegates in total for this trip. I understand that the Parliament Secretariat had, since 2020, organised 18 overseas Parliamentary trips, including the AIPA General Assembly one in August, the upcoming one in 2023; and 60 MPs have participated in these visits across the years since 2020. Of the 18 visits, Miss Cheng Li Hui only participated in one overseas trip and that is the AIPA General Assembly one held in Cambodia in 2022, but she did not attend more overseas trips than other MPs. With regard to her selection for that trip, I understand that the name was put up by the staffing officer and approved. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 2 August 2023, Vol 95, Issue 109, Correction By Written Statement section.] With respect to the House Committee, there are several Standing Select Committees. The names for the composition of the Committees are put forward, in the case of the PAP representation, by myself.”
“With respect to the second question, whether I think that there was a mistake at that time, that is not something which is really before this House. I do not intend to revisit previous matters that were or were not decided upon. As far as I am aware, it was not brought to the Speaker. He did not have to make a ruling. In this particular instance, it is not just a rude remark per se. It involved an expletive. It had to do with the decorum and propriety of this House. And that is why I felt it was necessary to address it. And in the case of the remark by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, I noticed that Mr Leong had accepted the apology; just as in this case, Assoc Prof Lim has accepted the apology. And if Mr Leong wishes to take that matter further, it would be up to him, except that I am not sure whether he still is within the time for his matter, but I am sure he will take the appropriate advice on the regulations and the rules and do what is necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his question. In the normal case, it is the Speaker who has conduct of such matters and makes the ruling. And also, in the normal case, it would be the person who has the right to complain who would raise this. So, in all the cases which I had referred to earlier, in the case of Mr Ling and Assoc Prof Ong, you will notice that the Speaker acted when a complaint was made. So, actually, in this particular instance that Mr Leong has referred to, if a formal apology was required, it would have been incumbent on Mr Leong to raise the matter as the complainant. I have raised it here simply because it was the former Speaker who had uttered the words and other Members can raise a complaint if they wish, but I felt that was appropriate that as Leader, I should address it. And of course, he is no longer here in Parliament to deal with it, so somebody has to raise it.”
“I thank the Member for her question. The answer is no, I was not exercising any authority over him. What I wanted to do was to indicate to him that, in my view, as Leader, at the very minimum, withdrawal of the comment and an apology should be required. Which is why I was at some pains, earlier on in my statement, to say that it was my view that the specific matter did not require further action, but I am not saying that I have the power to conclude it. If any Member thinks otherwise or wishes to do otherwise, it is open to another Member to do so. And I was not, in fact, seeking a ruling either. So, it was a statement that this was my view.”
“I think Mr Singh is aware that one only refers matters for investigation by the Police if an offence has been committed. The Police do not generally investigate things which are not offences. So, I still struggle with what exactly one is to ask them to investigate. Because the release of a video at a later stage is not, per se, an offence. So, maybe I can just close this matter or the answer to this question by saying that if an offence is disclosed, if there is credible material on which to refer the matter to the Police, then, of course, one should do so. At the moment, it is not apparent to me that there is an offence. But should something further come up which indicates that an offence may have occurred, then the matter can be reconsidered at that time.”
“As I have said, one refers matters which are offences. So, coming back to the first one on this particular hot mic video, again, if something is released subsequently, I do not know that releasing something subsequently, which really did happen, constitutes an offence. I mean, if somebody considers that it does, there is nothing to prevent that person from referring it to the Police. But at the moment, as matters stand, it is not immediately apparent to me which offence has been disclosed. Perhaps Mr Singh could clarify what offence he has in mind?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. With regard to the question by the Leader of the Opposition, I think he was asking if I am minded to refer to the Police. One refers to the Police matters which are offences because the Police, obviously, investigates offences. I have not considered, but I am not entirely sure that making something louder is an offence. Because if the words were said, which I believe Mr Tan has admitted, the only difference is that on the livestream, it could not be heard. But if the words were actually said, and what the person has done is to make it louder, then you cannot deny that the words were said. I am not sure that amplification per se is an offence, because if that were the case, then, many videos that are put out by many people would be an offence. So, I have to say, it had not occurred to me, because I was not sure that an offence has been disclosed.”
“In my view, that should be the approach also in this case, even though it was the Speaker who uttered the offending words in the Chair. I have read Mr Tan’s Facebook post and his letter of resignation, and I note that Mr Tan Chuan-Jin had apologised generally to the public at large and directly to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. However, as the incident took place in Parliament, I am of the view that a formal apology and withdrawal of the comment by Mr Tan to this House is necessary, over and above the apologies he has already made. I have communicated this to Mr Tan, who has readily agreed to do so. As he is no longer a Member of this House, he has asked me to read the following apology to Members on his behalf: "I unreservedly withdraw the comment directed at Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and sincerely apologise to the House for the unparliamentary language that I used, and for not respecting the dignity and decorum of the House." Mr Speaker, Sir, as Mr Tan has acknowledged his lapse and apologised three times – to the public, to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and now to this House – the necessary steps have been taken to redress this incident. As such, my view is that the specific matter of Mr Tan’s use of unparliamentary language does not require any further action and this regrettable incident can be brought to a close. I wish to conclude with a reminder to all Members, on the need to maintain proper decorum and to behave in a courteous manner in this House, even as we engage in robust debates on issues of public significance. Not all of us may share the same views on the matters debated, but we can agree to disagree and to do so in a manner that meets the standards of decorum and propriety required of a legislative chamber that is the representative of the people.”
“Some 10 years later, in March 2005, a Nominated Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Ong Soh Khim, uttered certain unparliamentary words during a sitting. The words were not captured on Hansard, so we have no official record of what they were. She also interrupted the Chair while Deputy Speaker was speaking. Several complaints were filed against her. The then-Speaker spoke to her at a subsequent Sitting and informed her that she had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House. She agreed unreservedly to apologise to the House for her use of unparliamentary language and did do so. That was the end of the matter. Other Parliaments have also had such incidents. In December 2022, the then-Prime Minister of New Zealand, Ms Jacinda Ardern, after responding in Parliament to a question from a political opponent, Mr David Seymour, resumed her seat and referred to him using a term commonly understood to refer to a male body part, not realising the microphone was still on. Mr Seymour petitioned the Speaker for a withdrawal of the remark and an apology. The New Zealand Speaker declined because by then, the Prime Minister had left the House and he had not seen if the remark was caught on Hansard. However, Ms Ardern later apologised directly to Mr Seymour, and her apology was accepted by him. Western Australian Premier Mr Mark McGowan too was caught in a hot mic incident earlier this year when in Parliament, he described certain issues as a “storm in an [expletive] teacup”. He later apologised in Parliament for his language. Mr Speaker, having regard to these and other examples, the usual approach regarding the use of unparliamentary language in the Chamber is to require a withdrawal of the offending remarks and an apology in order to put the matter right.”
“Rude and unparliamentary language, and expletives, in particular, certainly do not meet the standards expected of all Members and lower the dignity and decorum of the House. The question is how this should be dealt with. There are precedents on how unparliamentary language in Parliament is dealt with, which on the one hand provide us with a reference point on how to deal with such matters, but on the other hand, show that such incidents happen more often than they should. There have been several prior incidents of unparliamentary language in this House, but it suffices to highlight two. First, on 3 November 1995, then-MP Mr Ling How Doong was recorded using certain unparliamentary words in Parliament. When called to order by the Speaker and told to resume his seat, Mr Ling remained standing, asserting “When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him?” He did not apologise during that Sitting. A formal complaint was filed against Mr Ling. The complaint alleged that Mr Ling had described the speech made by another MP in vulgar terms, called the other MP a word questioning the legitimacy of his birth and referred to him using an anatomical term. Mr Ling, in response, admitted to using certain words but said he could not recall the rest. The then-Speaker called Mr Ling for a meeting in his chambers and informed him that no matter what the provocation, he had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House. Mr Ling agreed unreservedly to withdraw his unparliamentary remarks and to apologise to the House, and did do so at a subsequent Sitting. He also apologised for disregarding the authority of the Chair when asked to resume his seat. With his apology, that was the end of the matter.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. That concludes the first Point of Order. Let me now address the second Point of Order. On or around 11 July 2023, a video circulated on the Internet which captured the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, reacting to a speech by Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP), Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in which Mr Tan was heard using an expletive followed by the word “populist”. This remark was not fully audible on the normal livestream, save for a slight burble of sound at the end and, as far as I am aware, it was not audible to Members in the Chamber at the time the words were uttered. However, that burble of sound on the livestream was obviously noticed. It was amplified and circulated some three months later, which then brought the incident to the attention of Members and the public. Responding on 11 July, Mr Tan put up a Facebook post explaining that what he had said were his private thoughts, but acknowledging that he should not have said them. He apologised, both publicly and also personally to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who graciously accepted his apology. Subsequently, arising from other events, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin tendered his resignation as Speaker of Parliament and as a Member of Parliament on 17 July 2023. In his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, he admitted his mistake in uttering words which were rude and unparliamentary, and acknowledged that it was wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very regrettable incident. As Members of Parliament (MPs), it is incumbent upon us to uphold proper standards of conduct, and especially so the Speaker who chairs the proceedings in this House and has the duty of ruling on the conduct of other Members.”
“Thank you, Sir. On the first matter, Members will recall that at the last Sitting on 6 July 2023, I had requested PSP to take down an edited video and Facebook post which gave a misleading impression of proceedings in Parliament, and to extend an apology in terms acceptable to Parliament by 10.00 pm that evening. I wish to update the House that PSP did remove the edited video and Facebook post, and also made an apology in the terms requested, within the stipulated time. That being the case, I do not see a need to take further action on this matter and I respectfully seek Mr Speaker’s concurrence on this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, if I may, to raise a Point of Order to update Parliament on a matter which arose at the last Sitting, that is, the edited video and Facebook post put up by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP). I also wish to address the comment made by the former Speaker, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, in what is commonly referred to as the “hot mic” incident.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, congratulations once again on your election and our best wishes as you take up the chairmanship of proceedings in this House. 11.07 am”
“This is especially pertinent because you are taking the Chair at a time when, having regard to recent events and the circumstances in which the Speaker’s seat became vacant, it is imperative to ensure that MPs and Singaporeans alike can continue to have trust and confidence in the office of the Speaker, and be assured that the duties and functions of the Speaker will be carried out firmly, fairly and impartially. In this, I am encouraged by your response to the media at the time your nomination was announced, when you said that your intention was to know your role well and discharge your duties responsibly and fairly. I understand that, for now, you will continue to work at NTUC Enterprise while serving as Speaker. However, I also understand that you are making plans to step down from your current job at NTUC Enterprise, which is expected to be within this year. In the meantime, you will be making the necessary adjustments to enable you to carry out your duties as Speaker properly and fully. With the Speaker’s seat filled, we can once again focus our attention on the pressing issues that are at the top of people’s minds and push ahead with the Government’s agenda for the remainder of this term of Parliament. Sir, before I conclude, may I also take this opportunity to welcome the new cohort of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) to this House. Among them is Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, who is, of course, already known to us. This will be his second term as an NMP. The eight new NMPs are: Ms Usha Chandradas, Mr Keith Chua, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim, Ms See Jinli Jean and Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi. To our NMPs, a warm welcome and we look forward to your participation in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the House, may I extend warm congratulations to you on your election as the 11th Speaker of Parliament. Sir, you bring a wealth of experience to the Chair. You have served as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC) since 2006, and since that time you have given voice to the aspirations and concerns of your residents and Singaporeans in this House. As a Labour MP, you have been a strong advocate for the Labour Movement. You have made many contributions in Parliament over the last 16 years, including: (a) twice successfully moving a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Maintenance of Parents Act, the first time in 2010 and the second, just last month at the July Sitting. Both times, you led the review workgroup, and consulted extensively with members of the public and various stakeholders; and (b) serving as Chairperson of two Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) – first for Community, Youth and Sports, and second, more recently, for Social and Family Development, though that ends today with your election as Speaker. You have also served in various Committees of Parliament, including as Chair of the Estimates Committee, and as a member of the Committee of Privileges and the Standing Orders Committee. More importantly, Sir, you are no stranger to the Speaker’s Chair, having previously served as Deputy Speaker from 2011 to 2016.”
“And it must function on the basis that the Members of Parliament and their political parties will speak truthfully to people and give accurate representations of what happened in Parliament because that determines the kind of society we are. And if you are a political party which has misrepresented what has happened in Parliament which is a direct strike at the values that underpin this Parliament, then you should apologise, because it is not the right thing to do. And that is the reason why we still require an apology.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, when a video is put out and when a post is put out, it is obviously intended to communicate something. Very few people actually put out something that means a hundred million different things to a hundred million different people – unless, of course, it is a piece of artwork. But in this case, a political party putting out a post and a video clearly has political objectives and, therefore, it also has a political narrative. That will be measured by an objective standard and that is the standard that will be applied. I have explained what, on an objective view, that video or the words of the text convey and the impression that it creates. Two, the fact that PSP has, in fact, made some changes is already an acknowledgement that the original post and video, as it stood, was not acceptable. Three, on the need to make an apology, the answer is yes and the reason is this. The Parliamentary Privileges, the conduct of Parliament, are important things. They underpin our democracy. Why do we have the rules in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act? Why do we say that you should not falsely represent proceedings in Parliament? Why do we say that you should not mislead the public about what happened in Parliament? Why do we say that you should not misrepresent or falsely defame the Speaker or another Member of Parliament? Why do you think those rules are there? Those rules are there for a reason. And the reason is that for any democracy to function properly, it must function on the basis of a Parliament that it can trust.”
“If I may just respond very briefly to Mr Leong's remarks. He said that "if there was a factual inaccuracy, we have corrected that". They have put in some additional data to say how long the session was. They have mentioned the six hours, four of which were devoted to clarification. But as I explained, that does not address the real problem of the matter, which is the suggestion that the Deputy Speaker would not allow for issues to be fully ventilated and that, therefore, views or questions were being prevented and a full discussion was being suppressed. That is the heart of the matter. And it is in both the post as well as the video. With respect to what Mr Leong said that the first caption or quote was only in the post and not the video, the simple matter is that when you put a post, the text is there and then you have the video underneath. The obvious thing is that you want people to look at both. People will read the text first and then that will prompt them to click on the video. You cannot separate the two. People do not look at Facebook posts and look at either the video or the text. You take in its entirety. I note what Mr Leong has said, that they will go back and look at it. But let me just say this. I have sent the letter. It has a deadline of 10.00 pm. The matter really is not available for further negotiation.”
“I will leave this part in, which still continues to create a misleading impression, but I can say that I have edited the video and somehow, I have done something about it." It takes up a lot of time. You would think that other things could be done with that time. You would wish that it would not be necessary to try to perpetrate a wrong impression of Parliament, just to advance one's own party. I really wish that that is not done. But in any case, that having been done, I have since written to Mr Leong Mun Wai to formally request that he and the PSP remove the revised post and edited video, and post an apology on PSP's Facebook page and all the other social media pages in which the video appear by 10.00 pm this evening, and provide a form of apology which would be acceptable. I hope that this would be done, because, otherwise, I will have no choice but to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.”
“There is a clear distinction between the two types of procedures, which Members in this House, most of whom do appreciate the difference; members of the public may not. Therefore, to suggest that a debate was not allowed, without explaining the context, without clarifying that it was actually incorrect to call for a debate and to thereby suggest that a debate is not allowed, creates a misleading or false impression that issues could not be ventilated and that Deputy Speaker, Mr Christopher de Souza, actually shut down the questions by Mr Leong and other Members on the topic that was of some importance. You have to ask oneself, why would you do this? Why, out of the 10 other interventions that Mr Leong made, you would highlight this particular section and that particular quote, without giving the context, knowing full well that the public could be misled? There is only one reasonable conclusion, which is that it was intended to cast aspersions on the manner in which Parliamentary proceedings were conducted and to suggest that the Deputy Speaker was not carrying out his duties neutrally or fairly or in a proper manner. Thus, it still continues the misleading impression and that is perpetuated in the text superimposed on the video. I just also want to say a few words, Mdm Deputy Speaker, on how much time and effort it takes to deal with something like this. I had brought to this Parliament what was clearly a problematic video which was not in compliance with the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. We explained what is wrong. We set out what will be necessary to do the right thing and put it right. What PSP does is it does what it considers is a clever sort of side move, "I will just change some words here.”
“And it was also clear that when they referred to that event or occasion, the words that followed were a reference to Mr Leong and Ms Poa. So, it was two people, not just one person. But Mr Leong has said that it referred to him. I find it odd that it would have referred to him even in the original video because what political party puts up a video referring to its own Secretary General as "sia suay", understanding and knowing the kind of memes and labels that it would generate following that. But be that as it may, it would appear that PSP and Mr Leong have embraced this label and the new or edited video says that it refers to him. It says that "In what some online commenters are calling another 'sia suay' moment by NCMP Leong Mun Wai." Since they have embraced the term and appropriated it for themselves and for Mr Leong, it is not for me to gainsay that; and I will leave the matter at that. But that is not the gravamen of this situation. That is not the key thrust that is a problem. Because what still remains in the revised Facebook post is this statement that "Mr Leong Mun Wai was informed by Deputy Speaker that Members are allowed to seek clarification but not debate about the Ministerial Statements concerning the Ridout Road incident", and then it is followed by a statement saying that they were here to do whatever it takes to raise important issues. Members of the public are not familiar, necessarily, with the Standing Orders or of our Rules of Procedure. It is quite clear that under our Rules of Procedure, there are two different types of procedures. When you have a Motion, you have a full debate. The speeches are longer. When you have Ministerial Statements, the general rule is that there are clarifications, meaning you ask questions.”
“The first block of text superimposed on the video states this: "Parliament discussed about Ridout Road on 3 July 2023. The discussion lasted over six hours, with two hours dedicated to the Ministerial Statement and almost four hours devoted to clarification." The second block of text that was superimposed says, "The Deputy Speaker reminded Mr Leong Mun Wai that he should not start a debate during a Ministerial Statement after he urged the Deputy Speaker not to end the debate early because this is an important topic" and then it carries the quote, "Point of Order, Sir. This is an important issue. All Singaporeans are watching this debate." The third block of text superimposed on the video states, "This short video is an excerpt taken from the full Parliamentary session and is not to be taken as a representation of the entire discussion that took place in the House on 3 July 2023." On the face of it, it may appear that some edits have been done to make it seem like it is in compliance with the request, but upon a deeper examination, that is not the case. Let me deal with the first one, which is less of an issue now, but let me explain it first. This is on the topic of "sia suay". Members will recall that in the original post, what was stated was this: "In what some commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment" and then, it goes on to talk about Mr Leong and Ms Hazel Poa. Yesterday, Members will recall that Mr Leong said that "sia suay" referred to him, and not to the proceedings. I have some difficulty accepting this, simply because the original caption said, "In what some commentators are calling another 'sia suay' moment". They were not referring to a person. They were referring to an event, because it was a moment. So, it is either an event or occasion.”
“Members will recall that yesterday, I had referred to a video put up by the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) and I had asked that the video be taken down and an apology be tendered in a form acceptable to Parliament. Since that time, what has happened is as follows. PSP has taken down the original video and the Facebook post has been removed, but they have put up a new one and an edited video. Let me, first, go through the revised Facebook post. And then, I will explain what has happened to the edited video and further inform the House why it is that it is our view that this does not satisfy or comply with the request that was made yesterday and why it is still a breach of Parliamentary rules. The revised Facebook post states as follows: "In what some online commenters are calling another 'sia suay' moment by NCMP Leong Mun Wai, our NCMP Leong Mun Wai was informed by the Deputy Speaker that Members are allowed to seek clarifications but not debate about the Ministerial Statements concerning the Ridout Road incident. The PSP's Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa Koon Koon are here to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people is heard. This short video is an excerpt taken from the full Parliamentary session and is not to be taken as a representation of the entire discussion that took place in the House on 3 July 2023” and “The livestream of the Parliamentary session on 3 July 2023 can be viewed here." And a link is inserted. So, that is the new or revised post. Then, the edited video is an excerpt from the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) livestream. It contains the same excerpt, but it also has captions superimposed on the video. It has text superimposed on the video. And there are three blocks of text.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I did say earlier that there were a couple of matters I had to deal with. So, I have dealt with one. There is a second matter. I do need to update this House on the Point of Order which I had raised yesterday in this Chamber. So, I am coming back to the Chamber to inform the House of what has happened. If I may proceed, Mdm Deputy Speaker?”
“In his economic and manpower portfolios, he pushed for inclusive growth that translates into good jobs and wages for all Singaporeans. He led the SkillsFuture programme to encourage lifelong learning and upskilling among Singaporeans. The Senior Minister also paid special attention to uplift wages and improve retirement adequacy, especially for the lower-wage workers, through measures, such as the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), Wage Credit Scheme, Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and refining our Central Provident Fund (CPF) system. More recently, during the pandemic, the Senior Minister chaired the National Jobs Council to safeguard jobs and create employment and training opportunities for Singaporeans. We will miss Senior Minister Tharman in this Chamber, not least, his commanding presence and his erudite speeches. I think Senior Minister's greatest gift is really in making very complex economic principles sound simple. At least, I thought it sounded simple. They sounded very profound; you were not quite sure exactly what he was saying, but it sounded like they made a lot of sense. [Laughter.] But we also will miss his wit and his dry humour. I think, most of all, we will miss a friend and a fellow Member of Parliament. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of this House, I would like to place on record our appreciation to the NMPs and Senior Minister Tharman for their contributions to this House and service to the nation. [Applause.] 7.45 pm”
“In that time, he has made many contributions through his different Ministerial appointments, including Minister for Education, Minister for Finance, Deputy Prime Minister, Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social Policies and, most recently, Senior Minister. The Senior Minister was also Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Deputy Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and chaired its Investment Strategies Committee, and was Chairman of the Economic Development Board's International Advisory Council. As Minister for Finance, Senior Minister Tharman, through his many Budget Statements in this Parliament, boosted our economic growth and helped steer Singapore through the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009. He oversaw economic restructuring efforts, including chairing the Economic Strategies Committee post-crisis, to promote inclusive and resilient economic growth, and ensured fiscal sustainability. He introduced the Net Investment Returns, or NIR, framework which provided additional resources for Government spending to benefit Singaporeans, while balancing today's needs and savings for the future needs of generations to come. He also introduced the permanent GST Voucher scheme to help lower- to middle-income Singaporeans cope with their GST expenses. As Minister for Education, the Senior Minister broadened the definition of merit and provided students with more educational pathways and opportunities to explore their diverse talents and excel in their chosen fields. He initiated major policy changes, including the introduction of the Direct School Admission scheme and removal of streaming at primary levels.”
“At the last Parliament Sitting, three NMPs tabled the Motion on Supporting Healthcare to call for the Government to provide consistent and sustainable support for healthcare beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. They have presented their views passionately and contributed constructively to the robust debates in this House over the last two years. They were also mindful of what this Parliament represents and stands for. In the Committee of Supply earlier this year, Mr Cheng Hsing Yao made an important cut on "An Effective Parliament" and what that means, as well as the values and principles which underpin it. The NMPs are leaving this House in very different circumstances from when they first joined. We are now back in DORSCON Green. Things have stabilised and life is mostly back to normal. While as a country and a people, we still face many challenges, we are in a much better place than we were two to three years ago and we are now poised to bring forward with the Forward SG exercise to refresh our social compact and make Singapore a fairer and more inclusive society. By their participation in this Parliament, they have helped to achieve this current state of affairs. I hope the NMPs will remember their time in Parliament fondly and that they will continue to give close attention to issues of national interest, follow Parliamentary proceedings and contribute to our nation-building efforts in their personal or professional capacities. Now, let me say a few words on Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Today is his last Sitting day as he has announced his intention to step down as a Member of Parliament. Senior Minister Tharman has served as a Member of Parliament for more than two decades, since 2001. In fact, we entered Parliament at the same time, in the same batch.”
“The current cohort of NMPs – Mr Abdul Samad Bin Abdul Wahab, Ms Janet Ang Guat Har; Mr Chay Jung Jun, Mark; Prof Hoon Hian Teck; Mr Cheng Hsing Yao; Prof Koh Lian Pin; Mr Raj Joshua Thomas; Dr Shahira Binte Abdullah and Dr Tan Yia Swam – joined us in Parliament in the most unusual circumstances. It was in the midst of a global pandemic and while we were still in DORSCON Orange. Their first experience of Parliament was one where all had to be masked and we had split seating: first, two seats apart, with some Members having to sit in up the Galleries; and this gradually changed to one seat apart, with all having to speak from the central table behind glass enclosures and having to wipe microphones and the tabletop with disinfectant wipes. The fact that this all now seems to be in the distant past shows how far we have come and what an amazing journey was made in these last two-and-a-half years, a journey that this cohort of NMPs walked with us. They covered several important milestones with us during their tenure: (a) measures to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and position Singapore for a post-pandemic future; (b) support to households through rising costs of living; (c) Singapore's Green Plan; (d) the White Paper on women's development; (e) the repeal of section 377A and the Constitutional amendment regarding challenges to the definition of marriage; and (f) support for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill, thereby ensuring the viability of publicly funded healthcare for Singaporeans in the years ahead, as our population ages. They championed causes they cared deeply about, ranging from economic growth and employment opportunities, healthcare, sports and sustainability.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, we are nearly at the end of today's Sitting, but there are a couple of matters that need to be attended to first before we adjourn. First, today is also the end of the term for this cohort of Nominated Members of Parliament, or NMPs, and it is also Senior Minister Tharman's last Sitting day in Parliament, with his last day in office being tomorrow. With your permission, I would like to make a few remarks in recognition of their service to this House.”
“We have put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to support Singaporeans at every stage of their Marriage and Parenthood journey. Our surveys and engagements have found that these measures, including the Baby Bonus Scheme, have been helpful in providing reassurance to couples and supporting them with the costs and pressures of child-raising. The one-off Baby Support Grant introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic had also given some couples the assurance to proceed with their parenthood plans. In a 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey of over 3,000 married respondents, about three in four said that the Baby Bonus Scheme made it easier for them to have children. In another survey of 1,500 married Singaporeans in 2021, of those who said they intended to delay their parenthood plans due to COVID-19, about seven in 10 said they were influenced by the Baby Support Grant to have a child earlier. However, it is not meaningful to review the effect of the Baby Bonus Scheme or the Baby Support Grant in isolation from the impact of other measures in place to support marriage and parenthood. Moreover, parenthood decisions are complex and based on many different factors. These include the costs of raising children and being able to manage work and caregiving commitments, as well as exogenous factors, such as the overall economic climate. Beyond Government measures, it is, therefore, also important to continue our whole-of-society effort to strengthen support for marriage and parenthood and build a Singapore Made For Families.”