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 14 of 51.
“This is because every Sitting is an opportunity for MPs, whether PAP or Opposition, to raise topics of their choice and to hold the Government to account, challenge policies and decisions and propose alternative policies through these mechanisms. They can do this through PQs, moving full Motions for debates, as NMPs are doing at this Sitting, or moving Adjournment Motions, as Mr Leong is doing today. This is already taking place. Mr Leong's next proposal is, in effect, that there should be unlimited time for PQs and COS cuts. While I can understand why, from his point of view he would like that, this would not be a good idea. It would be the surest way of triggering Parkinson's Law – the adage that work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion. We have already seen that happen with PQs. The time for PQs has increased considerably, given more Sittings. However, instead of allowing us to deal with more PQs, it has resulted in more, and often repetitive, supplementary questions on the same topic. Where flexibility is required, Mr Speaker has exercised his discretion to allow it, examples being the extension of time to enable supplementary questions on HDB's Ethnic Integration Policy and on Keppel Offshore & Marine. Parliament time is finite and questions and debates cannot go on without end. Setting time limits ensures that questions stay focused, answers stay on point and more can be accomplished. In fact, in the UK Parliament, Question Time is only one hour per Sitting day, inclusive of Prime Minister's Questions and they have 650 MPs!”
“Hence, in general, MPs have about a month to go through the Bill, which forms the basis of the Minister's Second Reading speech. Ministerial Statements are generally of two kinds. First, those with strong public interest, where multiple PQs have been filed and those addressing important matters which have to be dealt with expeditiously and at short notice or are not suitable to be dealt with under other mechanisms. MPs can seek clarifications from the Minister on the Ministerial Statement. Policy speeches delivered outside of Parliament, which are publicly reported, Members would have enough time to go through these and raise issues in Parliament. In most of these situations, MPs have more than ample opportunity to engage the Ministers on their speeches through a wide array of mechanisms: PQs, supplementary questions, Motions, Bills, Adjournment Motions, clarifications and COS cuts. In fact, if anything, the advantage is with the MPs, because most of these mechanisms are not time-bound. MPs may deploy these days, weeks, months and sometimes even years after the Minister's speech was delivered, as Mr Leong himself has done, for example, on manpower issues. Of course, there may be instances where notice is not possible, for example, when the Minister is responding in the course of an ongoing debate or market-sensitive matters, such as tax announcements. But what is possible is to ensure that there is enough time for MPs to digest what has been said, respond and then have an informed substantive debate. This, the Parliamentary procedure allows. For this same reason, there is no need to have an "Opposition hour".”
“At the end of the day, the key to better debate in Parliament lies in understanding the main issues at hand, acknowledging our fundamental realities and constraints and taking not just the easy decisions but also the hard ones. It is not through making unending requests for ever more detailed data, which are then used as an alibi for not offering more constructive ideas or better alternative policies during debates. In reality, we actually provide more data than most countries. During the last session of Parliament, more than 7,000 PQs were filed and most answers would have involved the provision of data in some form or another. Mr Leong says the Government must provide data in whatever format MPs want. I ask Mr Leong and Members to bear in mind that data collation, as well as slicing and dicing it in different ways and the need to check the data thereafter, costs time, money and effort. We will lean forward to provide what is reasonable and practicable, but we cannot fulfil every whim. Minister Tan See Leng explained this at an earlier Sitting. Next, Mr Leong requests that Ministers provide their speeches to MPs in advance. In exchange, he proposed MPs provide "drafts" only of their speeches beforehand. Mr Leong says this enables substantive debate. The reality is that the system is designed such that MPs can always engage and debate the Ministers, irrespective of when the Minister's speech is delivered. The Budget Statement is delivered at least a week before the Budget debate and COS, so, MPs have ample opportunity to think through their speeches and cuts. Bills are introduced during prior Sittings, except in cases of urgency, which are rare.”
“In PSP's 2020 manifesto, they said that the Government's response to the economy was, I quote, "a patchwork of policy tweaks without addressing the fundamental factors affecting Singaporeans" and what was needed was "a paradigm shift" and to "look for workable alternative solutions going forward". They said, and I quote again, "Progress Singapore Party's manifesto offers a better alternative to the current problems that we are facing as a nation" and their manifesto refers to various economic, social and political policies. Today, though, Mr Leong espouses the view that "The Opposition lacks access to the resources of our excellent Civil Service. Handicapped by this lack of resources, alternative policies created by the Opposition will not have the same breadth and depth of the Government's." That was his statement earlier. There is a marked contrast between the statements in PSP's manifesto and Mr Leong's statements in Parliament today. We do have an excellent Civil Service. However, Mr Leong's assertion misses the point. The Civil Service works with the elected government of the day. Ultimately, it is the Ministers who decide on the Government's agenda and set the major direction of policies being implemented. These policies are not presented by the Civil Service fully formed, with all the Ministers having to do is simply read out the policy speech in Parliament. Ministers provide political guidance to the Civil Service to deliver results and the Ministers have to take responsibility for the same. If Mr Leong needs more information, he can obtain those through PQs and during COS cuts; and he has done so.”
“The PAP backbenchers make do with exactly the same allowances as the elected WP MPs, save for the Leader of the Opposition (LO). In the case of the LO, having regard to the greater Opposition presence in Parliament after the last General Election and the designation of Mr Singh as "Leader of the Opposition" for this Parliament, it was appropriate to allocate more resources to him, given his expanded duties and responsibilities. I also wish to highlight that the LO gets more resources than the PAP backbenchers and the PAP Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) chairpersons. However, this is fair, given his role. This is an example of how we review and adjust according to the circumstances. Mr Leong has called for a research department to support all MPs, costing $1 million for a start. His justification is that, and I quote, "many MPs, from both sides of the House, do not come from a public policy or legal background and may require assistance to do such work". While many PAP MPs do not come from such backgrounds either, they are not asking for this. They have been able to work within the allowances currently allocated to them. They also often pool their Legislative Assistant allowances to hire full-time Legislative and/or Secretarial Assistants to support two or more MPs. They do not confine themselves to the Legislative Assistant allowance, but often also draw upon their MPs' allowance to top up the sum. It is quite open to Opposition MPs and NCMPs to do the same. What is of note, however, is that the absence of such research facilities has not, in any way, deterred the PSP from asserting its ability to advance policy positions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his speech and suggestions. I also thank him for providing his speech in advance, a departure from his norm in respect of his more recent Adjournment Motions and Motions, but quite understandable, given his proposal, and well appreciated. Mr Leong has put forward four proposals. First, to provide additional resources for MPs, NCMPs and NMPs; second, to provide Ministerial speeches in advance and opportunities for Opposition to raise matters; third, more flexibility in time keeping; and fourth, chairmanship of certain Select Committees. Let me address each of these in turn. First, on the issue of resources for Members, this is something that we review from time to time. On this, there are two separate points, namely, the difference between the allowances for elected MPs and NCMPs and NMPs; and the quantum of the allowances for hiring Legislative and Secretarial Assistants. On the first point, NCMPs have the same voting rights as MPs in Parliament, but it is indisputable that their workload is less than that of elected MPs, as they do not have the responsibility for a specific constituency or for dealing with Meet-the-People Session (MPS) cases of residents. As such, in principle, it is reasonable to differentiate between the support the elected MPs and NCMPs receive. On the second, in terms of the allowances given to elected MPs, whether it be the general allowance or the allowances for hiring a Legislative Assistant and a Secretarial Assistant, we do not differentiate between PAP MPs and Opposition MPs. The amount given to elected PAP MPs and the elected Opposition MPs is exactly the same, which is fair.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item No 1 in the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) so far as it is necessary to enable Minister of State Sun Xueling and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam to speak more than once? In the course of the debate, Members of Parliament have directed queries to both Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and Minister of State Sun Xueling, who had spoken on behalf of MinLaw and MSF respectively. I wish to move this Motion so that Minister of State Sun Xueling and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam can respond to Members' queries on the specific elements of the Bill and related matters.”
“Mr Speaker, I understand Minister Ong Ye Kung will be speaking next. May I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Ong's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "that, notwithstanding Standing Order 27(1), a date for the resumption of debate on the Address of Thanks be named by me in place of Mr Murali Pillai". Ordinarily the mover of the Motion would be the person to name the date of resumption. But Mr Pillai is engaged in a Court hearing which is still ongoing and he is not able to be here at this present time. So, I have discussed with him what to do in that event and he has no objections to my naming the date in his place. [(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That, notwithstanding Standing Order 27(1), a date for the resumption of debate on the Address of Thanks be named by the Leader of the House in place of Mr Murali Pillai." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to allow me to name the date for the resumption of this debate in place of Mr Murali Pillai. I have the consent of Mr Murali Pillai to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry, Mr Saktiandi appears to have stepped out. So, I do not think he heard the clarification. Perhaps he can respond to Mr Louis Chua later when he comes back.”
“Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.”
“Members can also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL mobile app. The relevant rules include the need: to respect the authority of the Chair, to refrain from making allegations which cannot be substantiated and to refrain from making statements outside Parliament which reflect on the character of the Speaker or any Member in their Parliamentary duties or roles, which falsely or scandalously defames the proceedings or the character of Parliament, or which contain false reports of Parliamentary proceedings. This note is not exhaustive. I urge Members to familiarise themselves with all the provisions of the PPIPA and the SOs. I hope that by reading, understanding and observing these rules, we can avoid a repeat of the incidents which occurred in the last session. Mr Speaker, let me conclude by saying that none of these rules inhibit robust debate. Robust debate and a contest of ideas are expected. The rules are there to ensure the focus remains on making points of substance. Making false or unsubstantiated statements, or casting baseless aspersions, only serve to erode trust and undermine our democracy. Members should pay attention to the responses given and engage on the points that are made. When we do so, our people will gain a deeper understanding of the issues and trade-offs at play. It will also strengthen trust in our Parliament. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1.35 pm”
“These rules are set out primarily in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of 1962 (or PPIPA), as well as the SOs of Parliament. The practice of Parliament, including past reports of the Committee of Privileges, are also relevant. I have prepared a short note highlighting some of the more pertinent rules, having regard to the recent incidents involving Mr Leong. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to request the Clerks to distribute copies of this note to all Members?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Point of Order could have been avoided, if the rules of Parliamentary conduct had been observed to begin with. As we start this Second Session of Parliament, this would be an opportune time to remind Members of their responsibilities in this regard. As such, Sir, with your permission, may I make some short remarks to direct Members' attention to the rules governing conduct, both within and outside of Parliament, which Members and others are required to observe?”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a Point of Order, about certain events that took place during the last session of Parliament and also, with Speaker's permission, to issue a reminder on how Members of Parliament (MPs) should conduct themselves both in and out of Parliament. On 20 March, Mr Leong Mun Wai made several statements both in and out of the Chamber, which were wrong and not proper, for the reasons explained by the Minister for Home Affairs during a Ministerial Statement on 22 March. During the clarifications on the Ministerial Statement, Mr Leong had also addressed yourself, Mr Speaker, in a manner that was disrespectful and disregarded the authority of the Chair, which drew a caution from me on the need to maintain proper demeanour in Parliament. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders (SOs) set out processes for dealing with Members who breach parliamentary privilege or disregard the authority of the Chair, and these could have been invoked. However, Mr Leong apologised to you, Mr Speaker, in the Chamber very shortly thereafter. Also, subsequent to that Sitting, Mr Leong withdrew various statements in his Facebook post, clarified that he had not intended to cast aspersions on the Ministers and admitted that he was wrong to make the suggestions in his statement in Parliament as he did. In light of this, it does not appear that there is a need to take further action on this matter. And I seek Mr Speaker's concurrence on this, having regard in particular to the fact that the issue of disregarding the authority of the Chair is a matter for Mr Speaker.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, as Leader of the House, I would just like to remind Members to conduct themselves in a Parliamentary manner. And the tone in which we address one another is important. I would, therefore, ask Mr Leong to be mindful of that.”
“The Census of Population published by the Department of Statistics provides the number of children born to ever-married resident women, by age group and highest qualification attained. The relevant figures published in the Census of Population 2020 are extracted below for reference. The relevant percentages can be ascertained from this publicly-available information.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim had a couple of clarifications with respect to the amendment to the Constitution, allowing the monies to be transferred from the Contingencies Fund back to the Consolidated Fund. As Ms Lim rightly noted, logically, there is no reason to object. But she wanted to know the process. She felt that it would be useful for the Minister to clarify the role of Parliament in the process and what form it would take, and how Members can participate. The transfer of funds, from the Contingencies Funds to the Consolidated Fund or Development Fund, does not involve the appropriation of funds for Government spending. They merely reflect how we classify the Government's resources for specified objectives, in accordance with the laws governing each fund, for the purposes of accounting and reporting. As such, it does not need to be specifically voted upon when we are returning it, and therefore, informing Parliament is sufficient, given that Parliament initially authorised the top-up of the Contingencies Fund via the supply process. So, in specific response to the question, the form it would take would be a Miscellaneous Paper from the Minister for Finance, which would be submitted to Parliament. I do not have the exact wording with me, but it will say something like "There will be a reduction of X dollars from Contingencies Fund returned to the Consolidated Fund", and Members can then, if they wish, ask Parliamentary Questions. That is the form that it would take.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim's speech.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Ong Ye Kung's speech – and I suppose for good measure, Minister Gan Kim Yong's as well.”
“Essentially, with a break-up of the fiancé-fiancée relationship, there is a breach of the fundamental eligibility condition of the family nucleus to buy a flat. Hence, the retention of the flat is not allowed and the flat is to be surrendered to HDB. If the flat owners refuse to surrender, then, of course, HDB will compulsorily acquire the flat. And then, specific to the question that Assoc Prof Lim raised, the only exception to allow one party to retain the flat is with parents who were originally listed in the application for purchase of the flat, as the retaining party with his or her parents would have qualified to buy the flat as a family nucleus even without the couple's marriage. So, that is the idea. Because with the other family member, they would have qualified on their own even without marriage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Protecting Our Marine Spaces and Southern Islands 8.11 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, there are quite number of speakers for this Motion and we are trying to finish as many as possible. I think we will have to go beyond 7.00 pm. So, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted from this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2. [(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted from this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Tan See Leng's speech.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech?”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the order of business for today's Sitting be varied, such that after the Introduction of Government Bills, the items of business be taken in the following order: first, Motion on Singapore’s COVID-19 Response; second, Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill; third, Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill; and fourth, Second Reading of the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, pursuant to Standing Order 10(2), the order of business for today's Sitting be varied, such that after the Introduction of Government Bills, the items of business be taken in the following order: first, Motion on Singapore’s COVID-19 Response; second, Second Reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill; third, Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill; and fourth, Second Reading of the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill." Mr Speaker, we will be debating the Motion on Singapore's COVID-19 Response later today. Our healthcare and frontline workers had been at the forefront of the battle against COVID-19. We have thus invited representative healthcare and frontline workers to attend Parliament when the Motion is moved, so that we can acknowledge their efforts and put on record our gratitude and appreciation to all the healthcare and frontline workers in their presence. Under the current Order of Business in the Order Paper, the commencement time of the Motion is variable, depending on the duration of the speeches and clarifications in the Second Readings of the three Bills. It would also likely start only in the evening. As such, I am moving to revise the Order of Business as stated earlier, to provide certainty in timetabling and not inconvenience these healthcare and frontline workers, many of whom may have had to take time off to attend. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to 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 beg to 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 beg to 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)]”
“Singapore is unique and special and we have come this far because our Parliaments before us did what was right for us. That task is now ours and we must discharge it to the best of our abilities.”
“However, at the end of the day, irrespective of our political stripes, we must have the same overriding objective, which is to improve the lives of Singaporeans and help Singapore prosper. Fourth, avoiding polarisation. We have seen the effect of this in other Parliaments and the outcomes are not pretty. Perhaps, the most shocking example of this was the US Capitol attack on 6 January 2021. Those were scenes we never expected to see in America, the bastion of democracy. But they happened and they happened as a result of deep polarisation. We can have different political philosophies. But what we must avoid in our Parliament is the politics of division. There is a difference between reflecting genuine ground concerns, which is our duty and the deliberate stoking of anger and creating or intensifying of divides, which is not only wrong, but dangerous. We must always strive to bring people forward in unity, even with diversity. I would add one more point to Mr Cheng's four principles, which is that we should consistently endeavour to do what is right and avoid a descent into populism. As Members of Parliament, we not only have to reflect the concerns of the people and give voice to the aspirations of Singaporeans, but also exercise our judgement on issues and speak up for what we believe in, even if it is contrary to the prevailing or most popular view, to persuade our fellow Members and the public at large as to what is the best solution to a difficult problem, or what is the most important issue before the country. Parliament's deliberations should shape the public discourse and set the direction for the country. We have to think not only about the here and now, but also for the future. We must think not only for one group, but for all Singaporeans.”
“This is important because decisions are made and opinions are influenced based on our deliberations. That is why Members are expected to be able to substantiate any statements made by them, if challenged. But beyond factual accuracy is the deeper underlying principle of honesty and integrity, because people must be able to trust what we say. Lying in Parliament, or to any Committee of Parliament, erodes trust and debilitates our democracy. What is less obvious, but equally dangerous and which we must also guard against, are half-truths, misleading statements and innuendos which suggest false things without actually saying so. Second, highlighting benefits and trade-offs. While some things are straightforward, a good deal of the issues confronting Singapore today are manifold and complex. Oversimplifying them does not give our people a true picture. Given our small size and limited resources, there are always trade-offs. Advocating a position, without at the same time highlighting relevant downsides, does our people a disservice. Advancing generous policies, without telling people how they will be paid for or where the money to pay for it ultimately comes from, creates false hopes which will ultimately end in disappointment. Seeking easy options, such as using up the reserves without good justification rather than creating sustainable revenue streams, undercuts our resilience and chips away at fundamental principles of prudence and responsibility. Third, being constructive. It is par for the course that matters brought before the House should be vigorously debated, questioned and scrutinised.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Nominated Member for his very pertinent speech, which was both thoughtful and incisive. It serves as a timely reminder of the importance of an effective Parliament in service of the nation and an opportunity to reflect on what being an effective Parliament really means. Parliament is where the Government is held to account, where issues of national importance are debated and matters of public interest are explained. It is where our laws are made and also where the direction of the country is set and the future of our people is determined, through the Bills and the Motions that Members of Parliament vote on. Parliament is also the place where our national identity and the character and soul of our society, is shaped through the values we espouse, words we say and the decisions we make. Thus, what we say and do in Parliament has a profound impact on the lives of Singaporeans and the future of Singapore. This is a privilege that must be exercised responsibly and in the best interest of our people and our country. We have seen what has happened in other countries, where their Parliaments are gridlocked, hamstrung or so hopelessly at loggerheads that the country cannot move forward. It is their people who pay the price. We must avoid going down that path. So, what makes for an effective Parliament? Certainly, there must be robust debate, so that policies and recommendations can be scrutinised and assumptions tested. But the quality and integrity of the debate also matters greatly. Mr Cheng suggested four principles to guide how issues should be brought up and debated. I agree with these and would add one more. But let me first address the four principles he raised. First, factual accuracy.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just a small point of order before I move to adjourn. This is in reference to Ms Carrie Tan's reference to her conversation with Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua. I just wish to remind Members that in the Chamber, we do not have conversations. In the Committee of Supply, we seek clarifications to which the relevant political office holder will respond. Just saying. [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 6 March 2023." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 8.17 pm.”
“And we have had a whole debate on affordability and accessibility. Singaporeans can rest assured that that is very much on our minds, and we are making sure that housing is available for those who wish to start families and have children. But the other findings, which were the key findings from this, you can see that this year's Budget, in particular, the Marriage and Parenthood measures are targeted squarely at that. The measures are directed towards financial support for parents. So, the increase in the Baby Bonus cash gift, the Child Development Account (CDA) top-up, the enhancement of the CDA co-matching. That addresses the financial concern. We have doubled the Government-Paid Paternity Leave, which addresses this finding that they wish to see more involvement of the fathers. And the other, which was said in the Budget and we have actually said many times but has not yet received as much attention, are the FWAs. FWAs are sometimes confused with work-from-home. But it is not equal to work-from-home. Work-from-home is a subset of FWAs, which form a much broader thing. This, I think, is what would help parents the most – that sense that they would be able to take time off, or to be able to arrange their work in such a way that allows them to care for young children. Also bearing in mind that many parents have to look after their own parents, the grandparents. So, FWAs will be key and, hence, that is why in my earlier answer, I indicated that we need a whole-of-society approach, where everyone is supportive of families and family well-being.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarifications. The survey results are, in fact, publicly available. Mr Perera may have missed them, but they are available. They were published by the Prime Minister's Office, so the survey is available online. I would encourage him to have a look at it. You will see – when you look the survey – that it actually contains quite a lot of information. The survey was conducted from February to June 2021, with respondents comprising 2,848 single – that means, never married – and 3,017 married Singapore residents, aged 21 to 45 years. In the annex to the survey, there are details of the profile of survey respondents. The highlights of the survey do not indicate housing prices, as Mr Perera mentioned. What was key on their mind were other reasons and let me just highlight them. The first thing among the key findings was that marriage and parenthood aspirations remained strong. So, Singaporeans do want to get married and do want to have children. In terms of the factors that affected having children, the survey showed that in making parenthood decisions, key considerations included the ability to manage the costs of child-raising, as well as to manage work and family commitments. Another key consideration was that fathers were equally important as caregivers and could play a greater role at home. And the third key finding was that many agreed that Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) make it easier for couples to start a family and have more children. So, we do understand that for young couples starting family, having a home is important and you would have seen that in the Budget, the measures to prioritise first-timer families, young families and married couples, are aimed at ensuring that they have a home.”
“Mr Speaker, the Government regularly engages Singaporeans to better understand attitudes and perceptions towards marriage and parenthood. According to the 2021 Marriage and Parenthood Survey of about 6,000 respondents, Singaporean women want to have at least two children on average. However, in practice, married female respondents had less than two children. Common reasons cited for not having more children include concerns over the financial cost and stress of raising children, and difficulties in managing work and family demands. These are issues that the Government is addressing, including through the latest enhancements to the marriage and parenthood measures in this year's Budget. However, beyond Government-initiated measures, we need a whole-of-society approach that is supportive of families, values family well-being, and acts accordingly. We encourage everyone to work toward building a Singapore that is Made for Families.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 2023/2024 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Mdm Chairperson, may I seek your consent to move "That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow."”
“Yes, I think the answer is that we will be open to it, but a lot of it depends on the feasibility. I know this because in my area, at Tiong Bahru, I have a number of flats which fall into that category. But when you look at the stairs, some of them are curving stairs, and then, the flat stairs are very steep. And I recall that many years ago, I had asked MND to look into this, which they did, and technically, it was not feasible, given the stair lifts at that time. So, if there is a good technical solution, making sure that safety is not compromised and that it actually does address the problem, I think we would be open to explore it. But we would have to see what the product actually is.”
“Sorry, can I just check with Mr Giam if I got the question correctly. He was asking whether we could explore alternative modes for the ease of going up and down stairs, if the lift is not possible, is that right?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Chairman. I just wanted to add to my response to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, which is that the suggestion of having space for delivery drivers is being piloted in some areas. I think this was reported back on 4 November 2021, where it said that delivery drivers who are handling high-volume parcels were doing a pilot. It is called the Pilot Courier Hub and it is being rolled out at two HDB car parks in Punggol and in Buangkok. The designated lots provide the delivery personnel with space, to sort and to handle the parcels. So, there is these two ongoing pilots which we are studying as well.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification, and I had implicitly addressed it, but maybe I gave my reply too quickly as well, so the Member might have missed it. For multi-storey car parks, we do have, where there is unutilised space, it is possible to have alternative uses. The alternative uses would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. So, I think not every multi-storey car park, for example, would need temporary parking for delivery riders. But if there is a need for it, and if the precinct assesses that this is something that they require, they are always free to put up the proposal to HDB. 6.30 pm”