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 15 of 51.
“We also spoke to the old Police officers who had gone through the Police Academy. And there will be a part of it which will be retained there. And if you look at the URA long-term plan review, there was a segment which was the Paya Lebar Air Base, we can see how, this is still at the concept stage, but they tried very hard to make sure that parts of the runway would still be there so as to preserve that association. So, if I had to sum it up, I would say that our approach is really heart, home and heritage.”
“Mdm Chairman, may I just address the second clarification which Ms Tin Pei Ling put forward? She has identified something where we need to maintain a balance. We have got green spaces. There are brownfield sites. At the same time, there is heritage. And in the early days, where it was largely just greenfield, it was not an issue. You just expanded into the green spaces. But now, we find that that is becoming increasingly scarce and we have to try and make sure that we preserve green spaces. But at the same time, there is a need for development. So, we have got to balance the two. But brownfield sites are actually quite exciting. They are exciting because it gives you an opportunity to redevelop and build on something which exists. And the big thing now for anybody who is in the infrastructure space is how do you take something which is an existing building and make it sustainable. And there are a lot of technologies and solutions that are going into this so that you actually turn something which is brown green again. Then, you may also have to tear down something which is existing and build afresh on it, redevelop it. And when you do that, that is when I think some of us, depending on the building, its location and what it was associated with, then you may lose some of the heritage and that cultural association. So, we have to have a good balance and we assess the buildings and the site. And if there is a heritage value, then we have to see whether you preserve the whole thing or whether you might have to redevelop it but you preserve some parts of it, for example, the old Police Academy where we are going to have residential buildings. But we did not want to raze it completely. So, we consulted, we got public feedback.”
“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?”
“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)]”
“Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Perera for his clarification. But actually, this procedure is a very long-standing procedure, not just ours, but it is a feature of the Westminster model and parliamentary democracies. In other words, these procedures, you may call it elaborate. It is a polite way of coming to Parliament to say that you need the Government's support. Many of the things which have its roots in parliamentary procedure from the Westminster model come from these – you could say, these courtesies of the past. The New Zealanders, as I described, are a little bit more direct about it. It is just a government "veto certificate". "Nope" and that is it. But we are doing it in a polite way. We signify whether the President has given her recommendation. Whether or not the President gives her recommendation, would depend on whether or not the Government gives its support. It does not in any way affect the standing of the President. It was a very early feature of our Constitution. And you will find it, if you check, you will find it in many different ways, shapes or forms in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. And so, it is not so much a question of box-ticking, certainly not the case. It is very much a case of observing certain proprieties which are laid out and, in a way, that has a long-standing tradition.”
“Sorry, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to clarify something to make sure I was absolutely accurate in my answer to Mr Leon Perera earlier, about when the President consults the Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA). I just wanted to clarify that the President must consult the Council before exercising any discretionary power, unless it is one of the excluded matters in Article 37I(A)2, that she only needed to consult in some situations.”
“00 pm And secondly, Mr Leong suggested that there is no need to say raiding the reserves, not one time but many, many times. The answer is that, if your proposals do actually intend to draw down the reserves not one time but many, many times, then, inevitably, it will draw the reaction that you are raiding not one time but many, many times. So, it all depends on your proposal.”
“There is also the Public Accounts Committee. It is also subject to independent audits by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). The Public Accounts Committee also examines the Government's accounts and the AGO's report and calls on the relevant agencies to explain particular issues or to take corrective actions. For the second question on the extent of funds paid out every year, since that is a very specific question requiring certain data, perhaps the Member can file a question on that. I do not have that offhand. The third question was, I think the Member put it this way – he said does it mean that if the Government has a set of rules, we cannot debate it because he said we can always say it is not in line. He also said that there was no need to say that it is raiding one time but all the time. Let me deal with the two separately. The first one – does it mean that we have a set of rules? The answer is yes. We do have a set of rules. Does it mean that you cannot debate the rules? No. If you want to change the reserves framework, by all means, you can debate that. You can suggest that it should be changed. But so long as the rules are in place and so long as what is proposed is not in conformance with those rules and is a draw on the reserves, then it means that it falls outside or breaches, if you like, or it is not in accordance with the rules. So, there are two things. You have a set of rules. And if you want to debate whether that should or should not be the rule, that is entirely up to that Member's prerogative. But if what you happen to be proposing does not fall within the rules, then the Government is entitled to say that it would be a draw or, put it in a slightly easier to understand form, it will be a raid on the reserves. 7.”
“I thank the Member for his clarifications. I think his first question is related to what authority does the Government have and what is the relationship with Parliament and the degree of oversight. I should start off with the first premise, which is that when the people elect the Government, it is to govern. It is to run the Government. Therefore, there are quite a large scope of things which is under the authority of the Government. The Government, obviously, has to be accountable. Hence, when the Government is accountable, it has to come back to Parliament for various things. But when it comes to Parliament, it is usually to scrutinise broad policy and not the day-to-day operational matters. So, the debate that we just had, for example, the Budget debate we call it the Budget debate but actually, people forget what it actually is. It is a Motion to ask this House to approve the Government's financial policy. You approve the financial policy, all those broad headings and the broad expenditure that is agreed to by Parliament, but the details of how that is to be spent if it is within the block budget, that is really within the Ministries' purview. But if it is thought, for example, that the Ministry has not done well in its expenditure, that can be queried in Parliament either through Parliamentary Questions, and we also have the Estimates Committee, which is a standing Parliamentary Select Committee which examines the Government's Budget and raises questions thereon. I think that is available to the Member as well. So, we have a whole series of checks and balances. You have got the Constitution, which sets the framework. The fiscal policy or financial policy is subject to Parliamentary approval and subject to debate. We have got the Estimates Committee.”
“Mr Leong may not be aware, because he was not a Member of this House in 2018 when I answered it, but actually, the bulk of what he has asked about what the company did and actions taken against the employees were, in fact, done prior to 2018 before they entered into the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). So, I would ask the Member to read the Hansard and secondly, to also read the DPA. I do not have it with me today, but there is a paragraph in there, which says that Keppel investigated at the material time when this thing came up. Some employees were terminated, some were put on counselling. I had better check, but for some, there were penalties or sanctions, in terms of whether their bonuses — okay, I do not want to be inaccurate. So, please check the DPA, but there were definitely actions and steps taken against the employees. And as part of the DPA, in order to arrive at that agreement, the US Attorney's Office and the US Department of Justice required a very extensive corporate ethics and governance programme, which KOM was required to comply with before the charges would be withdrawn. And those were complied with, because when the DPA expired, the charges were withdrawn, which means that KOM did comply.”
“Yes, so, again, my answer has not changed. When CPIB goes in, they look for commission of an offence and people who may have committed an offence. And if something is not an offence, then obviously they would not be pursuing that. That is as much as I can say.”
“As to the second question, I have answered it. This will be the third time I am answering it, and the answer is the same. I was asked that question, I believe, by Mr Louis Chua, if I am not mistaken. And my answer was, I do not know. I did not conduct the investigations. CPIB has conducted the investigations. They have matters within their knowledge. They do not disclose this to the Executive. They investigate independently. And this is a very odd thing because for all that some political parties talk about independence and separation of the Executive, they keep trying to get into what ought to be an independent activity. The CPIB has made its investigations, they have arrived at the conclusion that six individuals are implicated and that is as far as I can go. I do not know the answer to that. For this particular answer, it is not that I am not permitted in law to tell you. The answer is, I do not know. And if you ask, should I go and ask CPIB this, the answer is, it is not appropriate. I should not be interfering in a CPIB investigation. The Executive should not interfere with an investigation. And that is something which is very important for Members in this House to understand. Let the agencies do their work independently, and we should not be going and interfering with their investigations. What was the first one she reiterated, I am sorry?”
“So, they clearly feel that something is not quite right, but they just cannot clear the evidentiary hurdle. What that tells us is that CPIB has done as much as it can within the remit of the law and that remains the position. So, even if the Member were to ask the question again, the answer will not differ.”
“I thank the Member for her clarification. The Member may ask the question again, but I do not think the answer is going to be any different and let me explain why. Our investigating agencies investigate offences. They do not, in the course of investigating an offence, go and look for things which are not offences. And what I explained earlier in response, was that, when CPIB is investigating the Keppel case, they are looking to see whether corruption has been committed, and if so, who's committing it. So I explained that part. I also said – she may not have heard the answer – I said, what I can share is that CPIB looked into the six individuals and the boards of KOM as well as their parent entity Keppel Corporation Limited. And after looking into all of that, the investigations established the involvement of the six individuals. So, six individuals, insofar as offences under the PCA are concerned. Because when an agency goes in, an agency has to investigate something which is under its remit. You do not go and investigate, let us say, theft, and then start asking whether somebody has committed adultery or whether somebody has committed some other form of offence, unless it has come to your attention. And they are only supposed to investigate offences. So, the short answer is: they have looked at the corporations, they have looked at individuals and they have narrowed it down to these six individuals. And these six individuals, who they feel are implicated; they cannot clear the evidentiary burden. When you ask me, did they authorise? My answer is the same. The investigations are carried out by the investigation agencies. I am not privy to the investigations. But the investigation agencies obviously felt that there was reason enough to issue a stern warning.”
“I thank the Member for the clarification. The first thing I want to clarify, and I hope that everybody in the Chamber will pay attention to is, that the figure is not a target. It is a planning parameter and it keeps coming up every time people ask the question, "Is 6.9 million a target?" or "Is the other figure a target?" It is not a target. I just feel like asking the Chamber, "Everybody, all together now. It is not a target. It is a planning parameter." It has been mentioned so many times. I think that subliminally and subconsciously people think of it that way. But I really do hope that people understand that it is a guideline, along which we plan; not something that we set out to achieve. With respect to the Member's suggestion, what we do is, at regular intervals, the Ministries look to see what needs to be done in planning terms. And I think that what we will do is whenever appropriate, the relevant agencies and Ministries will put out the figures or the data that they think is necessary. In terms of engaging people, as to what should go into those plans, we will do that as well.”
“Sorry, could I just clarify with the Member, because she was describing about the young people but I was not sure I heard the question at the end of it.”
“Mr Chairman, with respect to paternity leave, indeed it is a whole-of-society effort and we want to encourage employers and employees in all occupations. So, the areas that Mr Louis Ng has identified would certainly include areas where we want to encourage more take-up of paternity leave. With respect to his second cut which was for public servants, we always look into the suggestions of Mr Louis Ng with all due seriousness and we will do so in this case.”
“By adopting a strong anti-corruption culture and actively reporting corrupt behaviour, companies in Singapore will reinforce our anti-corruption efforts and advance the reputation of Singapore as a trusted business and investment hub. The findings from the recent CPIB's 2022 Public Perception Survey affirms our national anti-corruption strategy. Ninety-six percent of the respondents surveyed rated Singapore's corruption control efforts to be effective – an increase from 90% in 2016. Mr Chairman, incorruptibility is a key part of the Singapore DNA. This did not happen by chance but is the hardearned result of our strong political will, effective anti-corruption laws, the society's unwavering support for zero-tolerance towards corruption and an effective CPIB that is committed to investigate any allegation of corruption, without fear or favour.”
“I should also mention that there is a spectrum of complementary legal and regulatory provisions in place to ensure that companies, directors and their officers have good corporate governance practices and do not engage in corruption. First, listed companies are subject to the listing rule requirements and principles under the code of corporate governance. Those require them to have internal controls and risk management frameworks, as I mentioned. Second, companies act through their directors and key executive personnel, who owe fiduciary duties to the company. Directors are required under the Companies Act to discharge their duties honestly and with reasonable due diligence. A director who takes a completely lackadaisical attitude towards the company's affairs or actively encourages its officers to engage in criminal activities could face criminal liability for acting in breach of his or her duties owed. Of course, there are other statutes that apply. CPIB has also been proactively engaging companies to strengthen their controls against corruption. For example, the Anti-Corruption Partnership Network (ACPN) was established in 2018 to encourage the private sector to take ownership of the need to prevent corruption. Besides sharing best practices, companies in the ACPN are encouraged to undergo the ISO 37001: Anti-Bribery Management Systems certification, which I mentioned earlier. Ultimately, businesses have the responsibility to keep their own houses clean and to comply with the prevailing laws and regulations of jurisdictions where they operate.”
“What they were not able to do was that they could not cross the evidentiary burden that they feel or they had been advised is necessary in law, in order to make out the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it is not that CPIB could not find people. They did. They had investigations. They narrowed it down. And as I explained in my earlier reply, the bulk of the evidence and the oral testimony which is crucial is not available in Singapore and we cannot compel the people to come here. That is the obstacle. That is not something which is lacking on the part of CPIB, but it is the nature of cross-border international corruption cases. That said, I take the point about the need for good corporate governance. In the case of Keppel, I understand that they had followed up as a result of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). I mentioned this before. They were required to put in place a whole slew of improved corporate governance measures. They have also, I believe, the entire Keppel Group, taken on board the global best practice to mitigate bribery risks in an organisation. I think that is referred to as the ISO37001: Anti-Bribery Management Systems. In respect to the broader corporate landscape, listed companies are required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules and principles under the code of corporate governance, to put in place sound internal controls and risk management frameworks. They are expected to institute and disclose whistleblowing and anti-corruption policies. Boards are also expected to establish the appropriate culture, values and ethical standards of conduct at all levels that support the prevention, detection and reporting of wrongdoing.”
“What it means is that we set up a committee, open to the public and we ask everybody "what questions do you want to ask". And then, because she is not saying, "Come back to the Chamber to ask the question", she is saying "Let us ask these of the agencies". So, this is something which every investigating office in the Police and other investigation agencies should take note of because it would mean that your entire investigation file will be open for questions. It is also something that every AGC officer should take notice of, because your entire file will also be open to question. It is also something that every witness who has given or will be giving evidence in response to a request to assist the Police or any investigation agency: everything that you say, everything that you would have told them, even before it is brought, to Court, even before it is proven, could well go out to a committee who will be asking you, "What about this? What about that?" And all of these before it is proven in Court. That is the ambit of the question that has been asked. And the answer is that it is not appropriate to do something like that. The proper process is that MPs, knowing what the ground or the public wish to know, come to Parliament, raise this in due process and the Minister will answer to the best of his or her ability. I turn now to the questions and comments raised by Mr Dennis Tan. Essentially, his broader thrust was about corporate governance in general. But he did make a point where he said that the public found it difficult to understand how, in the Keppel case, CPIB could not find a single person that they could charge. That is not correct. 5.30 pm They found six individuals who were implicated.”
“And I said that I did not know all the details, but I did know that, for the latest ones, there had been no response. So, that question was answered fully. Next, Ms Poa said that when asked about the witness who changed his tune, my answer was allegedly uncertain. She claimed I said, "I think the answer is yes" and "I do not have details of what exactly was said." That is a summary of something I said right at the end. Ms Poa did not inform this House of what I said at the beginning. It would be helpful if I do that, because again, it would be good if you are going to quote somebody, to quote them fully. With respect to that witness, I had said, "So, the question is, has he said something different here?" And I said, "I think the answer is yes. But I will not go into details. Firstly, I do not have details of what exactly was said." And then, I went on to say, "What I do know and I am able to say" is that "based on what has been informed to me, is that in this particular case, what was said in the US and what had been told to CPIB, there are differences." So, that was the question that was put to me and that was the question that I answered. Hence, I wish to put on record that the questions that were put to me were answered and answered fully to the extent that I was able to and within the ambit of the law. Let me come back to the point that Ms Poa has raised and her suggestion about a committee. Her suggestion is whether we could appoint a committee to consult the public on what questions they want answered and to get the answers to those questions from the relevant agencies. I would like the Chamber and all Singaporeans to understand what this request actually means.”
“And my reply, which still applies, is that CPIB investigates offences under the PCA. So, there is no doubt on this, what I can share is that CPIB did look into the six individuals and the boards of KOM as well as their parent entity Keppel Corporation Limited (KCL). CPIB's investigations established the involvement of the six individuals, and no one else was implicated. In the case of the six individuals, CPIB did not have sufficient evidence to justify prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt for the reasons I have already explained. Next, I think Ms Poa raised the question of mutual legal assistance (MLA). She said that, when asked about MLA requests, I replied I did not know all the details of the MLA but that, for at least one or two of the latest ones, there were no response. That is not quite accurate. If the Member wishes to quote me, I would be grateful if the Member quotes me accurately. If you look at the record, what I had said on the MLA was that AGC and CPIB had sent three MLA requests to Brazil to secure evidence that was needed. AGC and CPIB also sent an MLA request to another relevant foreign authority to interview another potential material witness. And then, I said the contents and outcome of these MLA requests are confidential, but I can inform the House that they have either not yielded evidence that could be used to secure a conviction before our Courts, or the responses have not been helpful in advancing the case. In other words, whatever the number of MLA requests, the outcome of these were that the information produced did not yield evidence that could be used to secure conviction, or they were not helpful in advancing the case. And that does answer the question. Then, I was asked a supplementary question about the MLA.”
“They do not, as a general rule, provide details of investigations, for good reasons, including to avoid prejudicing any action that may have to be taken subsequently if new material facts come to light, or adversely affecting informants or witnesses who may then become less willing to offer assistance. As explained before, where there is public interest in knowing more details, Members may file questions in this House and the relevant Minister will, after consulting the PP, answer the questions to the extent permitted by law. It is the role of Members of Parliament (MPs) to raise relevant and appropriate questions. We do not set up committees to find out questions. As to answering of questions involving investigations, the Minister answers to the extent permissible. The Minister is not involved in the investigations or charging decision and therefore would not have personal knowledge of the details. Ms Poa raised several assertions as to the answers that I gave in Parliament earlier. She said that answers had either not been given or were evasive and raised a couple of examples. I will deal with those examples in a minute. But first, I would like to remind the House that there were 16 Parliamentary Questions and I answered all of them. The questions that came up subsequently were supplementary questions of which I had not been given any prior notice. And of those, I had to deal with the questions as and when they were put to me in the Chamber. The first of these was raised by Ms Poa. She referred to the Leader of the Opposition's question as to whether investigations included determining the constructive knowledge of the Keppel board at that time. I sought clarification from him and he had confirmed he was not suggesting that this was an offence under the PCA.”
“Where a person has been convicted of corruption, the PCA provides for the disgorgement of the gratification received. In addition, there are existing powers to confiscate outside of a conviction, which apply if qualifying circumstances are met. As Mr Murali noted, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 allows for confiscation without conviction, but only where the accused person is deceased or has absconded. Further, under the Organised Crime Act 2015, it is possible to obtain a non-conviction-based confiscation order to disgorge ill-gotten gains from a person involved in organised crime activity, which includes corruption-related activities. The Government is committed to disgorging any financial benefit derived from offenders' predicate offences, which include corruption. But in the same vein, we need to ensure that the power is fairly scoped, particularly where the Court has not arrived at a determination of guilt. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and CPIB will review the non-conviction-based confiscation mechanism further. Ms Poa made several observations. And she also asked whether we could consider appointing a committee to consult the public on what questions they want answered and to get the answers to those questions from the relevant agencies. I think the Member may not be familiar with how such matters are dealt with. CPIB conducts its investigations independently. The investigation process and the evidence obtained in the course of investigations, is confidential.”
“For companies incorporated in Singapore, such individuals can be both Singaporean or non-Singaporean. Where these individuals are Singapore Citizens, the PCA is currently of extra-territorial application. The CPIB is empowered to take action against them irrespective of whether they committed the corrupt acts in Singapore or abroad. In fact, this applies even if they are officers of companies not incorporated here. The current extra-territorial reach of the PCA is therefore already quite broad and effective. The practical impact of Mr Murali's proposal is that if a company is incorporated in Singapore but involved in corrupt activities conducted overseas by non-Singaporean individuals and there is little connection to Singapore other than the fact that the company is incorporated here, the CPIB will nonetheless be obligated to investigate. While Singapore is firmly committed towards international anti-corruption cooperation consistent with our legal framework and international commitments, it would be a stretch to empower or require the CPIB to investigate activities taking place entirely outside Singapore, involving non-Singaporean actors. We have already seen the challenges in investigating activities by Singaporeans committed abroad. Investigating the activities of non-Singaporeans abroad will be even more so. We have to take a realistic view of the efficacy of doing so, given the evidential difficulties we can expect where material evidence and key witnesses reside outside of Singapore, and out of CPIB's reach. Mr Murali also suggested a review to allow for a non-conviction-based confiscation mechanism to deal with assets believed to be acquired through proceeds from corruption. We thank Mr Pillai for his suggestion.”
“Mr Chairman, I will now address the cuts from Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Dennis Tan, pertaining to our anti-corruption efforts and on corporate governance. I wish to thank Mr Murali Pillai for his support for CPIB's work and continuing interest in improving our anti-corruption efforts. With regard to Mr Murali's suggestion that corruption-related Penal Code offences be sited within the PCA, CPIB's assessment is that there is currently no compelling need to do so, as CPIB officers possess the requisite powers to investigate offences under the Penal Code. Mr Murali gave an example where, due to the overlap in jurisdiction between the Police and CPIB, there could be a risk of senior officers taking retaliatory action against one another. Under our system of criminal justice, charging decisions are decided by the Public Prosecutor (PP), who makes these decisions independently. Therefore, Mr Murali can rest assured that there is no room for Police or CPIB officers to raise trumped-up charges against one another, or against any one for that matter. Mr Murali renewed his call for CPIB to consider extending the extra-territorial reach of the PCA, to companies incorporated in Singapore. Insofar as companies are concerned, the CPIB expects Singapore-incorporated companies operating overseas to operate in compliance with the laws of the countries that they have a presence in. For corruption-related offences, one needs to establish the mens rea of the alleged offender, to show the requisite corrupt intent. Where the alleged offender is a company, the focus of investigations would generally be on the individuals who are the controlling minds or decision-makers of the company.”
“This is a delicate balance and much will depend on how circumstances evolve. But we will continue to work hard to build a Singapore with the well-being of Singaporeans at the heart of it, with opportunities for all, a society where families matter and are supported and where we can be united even in diversity. Everyone – individuals, families, communities, businesses and Government – has a role to play in ensuring that Singapore continues to be a home with opportunities, assurances and a strong sense of solidarity. Together, let us work towards a better future for all Singaporeans.”
“For instance, we need manpower to build our homes or care for our seniors, but the numbers could change with evolving family structures and the health of our ageing population. Our businesses’ manpower needs may vary, depending on the types of industries in our economy and ongoing economic transformation efforts. As our workforce continues to evolve in tandem with economic transformation, their needs too will change. As such, we do not plan on a single population planning parameter. Instead, increasingly we develop various scenarios to stress-test our assumptions and allow for a range of possible outcomes. In 2018, we provided an update that our total population is likely to be significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. Based on the various scenarios we have, this remains the case. The planning parameter of 6.9 million remains relevant for the 2030s. Our aim is, as it always has been, to build better lives for current and future generations of Singaporeans. Our population policies are all aimed at this objective. Looking beyond 2030, it is critical that we will continue to plan ahead of time, to maintain the flexibility to adjust our plans, respond to new trends and safeguard options for the future. This will help us to provide a good quality living environment and home for all Singaporeans. Mr Chairman, in conclusion, I have laid out our population strategies and the key considerations behind them. In the coming years, our demographic realities will only become more keenly felt. Our ability to nurture a high-quality workforce while attracting the complementary foreign manpower we need, and to integrate newcomers into our society while maintaining social cohesion, will become ever more important for Singapore's future.”
“Margaret in turn pays it forward by helping other newcomers to integrate into the local community through chat groups, monthly meet-ups and monthly sports or family activities involving local Singaporeans. Such friendships show us how both locals and newcomers can make efforts to foster integration and how we can come together to strengthen our bonds with each other and our sense of belonging to Singapore despite being from different backgrounds. This is what the Unite pillar of the Forward Singapore exercise is all about. We continue to plan for the long term and steward our scarce resources for both present and future generations. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked whether the Government has long-term projections to understand how we should adjust our population policies to achieve desired outcomes for Singapore in the future and how Singaporeans can be involved in the process. We have engaged Singaporeans in thinking about our future. For example, as part of the Long-Term Plan review, we engaged Singaporeans of different age groups and backgrounds extensively to better understand how our land and infrastructure plans can meet their aspirations and future needs. Through the Build and Steward Pillars of Forward Singapore, we will further explore how we as a society can build a greener, more liveable and more sustainable home for all. Planning for the future is a complex process. We will have to consider what our future population will look like, not just in terms of size but also composition and make-up. 5.00 pm And this is contingent on many factors – various demographic trends, such as birth rates, life expectancies, and migration, as well as future social and economic needs.”
“During the Forward Singapore engagements, Singaporeans reiterated the importance of safeguarding our identity as a multicultural and diverse society. To do so, we must remain open to people of different backgrounds and cultures. But it takes two hands to clap. We must welcome newcomers and help them integrate into our society. At the same time, newcomers should respect our values and norms and make an effort to adapt to our way of life. The Government has been working with our partners to develop resources and conduct activities to help foreigners settle in and understand our local norms and culture. This is a whole-of-society effort where different stakeholders including newcomers, Singaporeans, community groups and businesses all have a role to play. To illustrate this better, let me share the story about the friendship between Margaret and Heidi. Ms Margaret Hou became a Permanent Resident last year. She has lived in Singapore for the last 10 years. She regularly volunteers at community events and interacts with residents from different social and ethnic backgrounds. She takes the effort to interact and forge friendships with locals. Her ex-colleague turned friend, Ms Heidi Yeo, who is Singaporean, appreciates Ms Margaret's willingness to help whenever they had to work closely together in their respective job areas. They continue to meet up and help each other even though they are no longer colleagues and their friendship has blossomed over the years. Heidi shares Singapore culture and history with Margaret, which helps Margaret to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of Singapore.”
“Since the tightening of our immigration framework in late 2009, we have maintained a measured and stable pace of immigration. Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about trends in the number of new citizenships and Permanent Residencies granted. In 2022, we granted about 23,100 new citizenships, including about 1,300 to children born overseas to Singaporean parents. We also granted about 34,500 new Permanent Residencies (PRs). The numbers of new citizenships and PRs granted in 2022 were slightly higher than pre-COVID-19. At last year's Committee of Supply, I explained how COVID-19-related travel restrictions and safe management measures had slowed down in-person processes for the grant of citizenship or PR. A number of approved applicants in 2020 and 2021 had yet to complete the in-person processes and some applicants who had intended to apply during that period were also unable to complete their own processes to submit their applications. Hence, some of these applications were rolled over into 2022. We consider very carefully who we take in as immigrants. When granting PR or citizenship, we look at a comprehensive set of factors, including an individual's family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, qualifications, family profile, age and how long they have stayed in Singapore. This ensures that new immigrants are rooted, able to integrate and contribute meaningfully here. All new adult citizens come from within our pool of Permanent Residents. This means they have been in Singapore for some time already. Second-generation Permanent Residents serve National Service and in the process, forge bonds with other locals and contribute to the nation's defence.”
“Next, I will talk about the need to strengthen solidarity and maintain a cohesive society in Singapore. I had earlier spoken about how one in three citizen marriages is transnational. As Singaporeans venture overseas for school, work and travel, they may meet and marry non-Singaporeans. Some return to Singapore to start and raise a family here. There are also others who meet and marry foreigners based in Singapore. Singapore is also an attractive place for skilled people who come here to work, given our connectedness, security and quality of life. Over time, some of them may share our aspirations and ideals, and may want to make Singapore their home. We should welcome those who are prepared to make the long-term commitment to Singapore. Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about reducing our old-age dependency ratio by boosting our birth rates as well as taking in new Permanent Residents and citizens to support our ageing population. This has been the Government's approach. While our policies do not seek to achieve any optimal old-age dependency ratio, welcoming such immigrants continues to play an important role in moderating the impact of ageing and low birth rates in our population. Most of our Permanent Residents and New Citizens granted each year are aged 40 and below. Immigration has to be managed delicately. We have seen how tensions over immigration in other countries have led to fissures and divisions in society. We must not let that happen here in Singapore. While most Singaporeans understand why we need immigrants, there are, understandably, concerns over competition for jobs and other resources and how the texture and character of our society could change and whether our infrastructure can keep up.”
“Pass, also bring in investments, new business operations, technology and job opportunities for Singaporeans. We fully understand Singaporeans' concerns about job competition and we remain committed to ensuring that Singaporeans can compete fairly and strongly. We have raised qualifying salaries over the years and introduced the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS). These measures ensure that the foreign workforce complements rather than displaces the local workforce. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) protects workers from discriminatory hiring practices. We will be enshrining the TAFEP guidelines into law. We will also continue to transform our economy and industries to create better jobs for Singaporeans. Under the Industry Transformation Maps, we are pressing on with economic restructuring, automation and redesigning jobs for higher productivity. The Government will continue to work with our unions to support industry and our workers as we transform our economy. We must be prepared to work together as a society to smoothen the transition. There will be new technologies and processes to adapt to. Some roles could be replaced with new ones and so we must all reskill and take on new functions. Also, with higher wages, a part of increased business costs may be passed to consumers. While these cost increases may be calibrated to manage the impact on overall cost of living, we must still be prepared to pay more in the longer term to fairly value the work and services provided by our fellow Singaporeans in jobs currently with lower wages. We will benefit in the long run with a more productive economy, better jobs and higher wages for Singaporeans.”
“Indeed, with a slowing resident workforce growth and a maturing economy, we will have to work harder to restructure the economy to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is driven by new ideas, new technologies and output from the work of people. Even as we strengthen efforts to enhance our overall productivity, there will be a limit to economic growth if companies do not have enough workers with the necessary skills to support their businesses and activities here. Under the Empower and Equip pillars of Forward Singapore, the Government is looking into ways to further develop our local workforce. This includes preparing our students well for jobs of the future by providing access to good quality education and diversifying pathways in schools. We invest heavily in the upskilling of Singaporeans and help them to strengthen career health and reach their full potential. We also want to build a stronger pipeline of Singaporeans for leadership positions across different sectors of the economy. Even as we strengthen the quality of our local workforce, there are not enough Singaporeans to meet all our economic and social needs. Remaining open to foreign manpower brings benefits to countries by filling skill shortages in the labour market, boosting the productive capacity of the economy and supporting innovation. This is true too for Singapore. Some segments of the foreign workforce support the caregiving needs of Singaporeans. Other foreigners help companies in Singapore grow by filling manpower gaps. Businesses know this well. Companies, including Singaporean-owned ones, have been raising concerns about the lack of sufficient local workers and the need for foreign manpower. Global talent, such as those coming in on the Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass or Tech.”
“Beyond these measures, there were other suggestions to improve support for parents and to better recognise their efforts in bringing up their children. We have received feedback from parents about the difficulties they face in accessing reliable infant care arrangements when they return to work. Under the Forward Singapore Care Pillar efforts, we will be reviewing how we can better support new parents in caring for their infants. We will share more when ready. Mr Faisal Manap asked about expanding the approved uses of the Child Development Account to purchase items such as infant formula and diapers. We have just enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift by $3,000. This should help in defraying expenditure in these areas. Ms Hazel Poa suggested recognising the contributions of stay-at-home parents through CPF top-ups. Many of our marriage and parenthood measures are given regardless of the parents' employment status, including our recently enhanced Baby Bonus Cash Gift and Child Development Account. In addition, we also provide a tax relief of up to $8,000 per calendar year to individuals who make a cash top-up to their loved ones' CPF savings. I hope these enhancements and plans will give greater assurance to Singaporeans. Second, we want to grow opportunities for Singaporeans amidst a more uncertain global economic outlook. Economic growth over the past few decades has generated good employment and business opportunities for Singaporeans as well as the resources to support public infrastructure, healthcare and education. Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about the decline in the number of Singaporeans in the working ages and asked how we will achieve economic growth to generate more opportunities for Singaporeans.”
“They recognised that staff like security guards have to be on site and leveraged technology like roving robots to reduce manhours. CBM also set up a floating team of covering officers to take over from staff who have urgent family or caregiving duties. CBM shared that with FWAs, their employees are more productive, more focused and happier at work as they are better able to adjust their work schedules to manage both work and personal commitments. Employers also benefit from offering FWAs. While there may be adjustments to work processes and costs of implementing FWAs in the short term, FWAs can increase productivity, lower absenteeism and turnover, and increase employee engagement in the long term if implemented well. Embracing FWAs as a workplace norm will help Singapore companies stay ahead of the competition and better attract and retain talent. The tripartite partners have developed a set of best practices for employers to voluntarily adopt under the Tripartite Standard on FWAs. To further encourage the adoption of FWAs, we will roll out the Tripartite Guidelines on FWAs in 2024, which will require employers to fairly and properly consider FWA requests. Mr Ng asked if we can implement these Guidelines earlier as well as consider legislating them. Even as we encourage more FWAs, we need to make sure workplace harmony is maintained. The best way to achieve this win-win outcome is not by taking a legalistic approach at the onset but to focus on shaping norms and fostering workplace trust. Tripartite partners are developing the scope of the guidelines and we should also give them enough time to consult stakeholders. We will thus introduce the Guidelines by 2024, as committed in the White Paper on Singapore Women's Development.”
“I encourage every employer to consider providing this additional paternity leave and I urge supervisors and colleagues to be supportive when fathers take time off from work to care for their children. We will also double Unpaid Infant Care Leave for parents with children below two years old from 1 January 2024 onwards. Each parent will be able to benefit from an additional six days of Unpaid Infant Care Leave per year in the child’s first two years. Taken together, eligible parents will be able to take up to 26 weeks of parental leave in their child’s first year. Mr Louis Ng asked if we can increase childcare leave provisions to cover needs such as caring for sick children or provide leave for couples to seek fertility treatments. We are aware that employees need time off from work for these and other personal needs and commitments. Apart from leave, another important strategy we are focusing on is to increase the adoption of flexible work arrangements (FWAs). These include but are not limited to Work-From-Home, which Prof Hoon Hian Teck spoke about. FWAs are a sustainable way of providing more flexibility for workers. This is critical not only for caregivers of children but also for caregivers of the elderly. A company that has put in commendable effort to make FWAs work for their employees is CBM Private Limited. A facilities management company with 1,900 employees, CBM Private Limited has been adopting staggered working hours and Work-From-Home arrangements since 2017. 4.45 pm During the pandemic, they further tweaked the staggered working hours arrangement to give employees more flexibility in their start times to avoid peak hour congestion.”
“This targeted financial help is in addition to existing subsidies for preschool, education and healthcare for all Singaporean children, and regular top-ups in each child’s CDA, Edusave and Post-Secondary Education account, including the most recent top-ups announced at Budget this year. We will also increase support for parents in managing their work and family commitments. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced in Budget, we will double Government-paid Paternity Leave for eligible working fathers of children born on or after 1 January 2024 onwards, something that Mr Louis Ng had long asked for. This is a big step towards normalising and enabling fathers to play a bigger role in raising our children. As mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Wong, we intend to mandate the additional Government-Paid Paternity Leave in time to come. Mr Ng asked about efforts to increase the use of paternity leave and proposed equalising the amount of maternity and paternity leave. Mr Louis Chua also spoke about shared parental leave. Our focus for now is to encourage and enable fathers to use the paternity leave that is available to them. Even as the Government increases paternity leave and stands behind fathers in playing a more active role in child-raising, we need shifts in societal mindsets and norms to encourage and support fathers in taking up this leave. Workplace culture, in particular, the attitudes and mindsets of supervisors and colleagues will make a big difference in helping fathers feel assured about using their leave. The take-up rate for paternity leave has gone up over the years and I hope to see it continue to increase.”
“We are doing more to enable young Singaporeans to achieve their housing aspirations. First-timer families with children as well as younger married couples will receive greater priority in their BTO flat applications, including an additional ballot. We have also increased the CPF Housing Grant for first-timers purchasing resale flats. Minister Desmond Lee will share more on these plans at Ministry of National Development’s (MND) Committee of Supply (COS). We are increasing financial support for the early years of raising a child where it is most needed by parents. We have increased the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Child Development Account (CDA) First Step Grant for all eligible Singaporean children. In addition, we have raised the CDA Government co-matching cap for the first and second child. These enhancements apply to eligible Singaporean children born from 14 February 2023 onwards. We have also extended the Baby Support Grant for eligible Singaporean children born from 1 October 2022 to 13 February 2023. With these enhancements, parents can now receive up to $24,000 in financial support for their first child and up to $37,000 for their subsequent children. This represents an increase of up to $6,000 per child up to before the age of seven. I hope this provides more assurance to couples like newly-weds Mr Ng Jia Jing and Ms Chia Shi Min, who are planning to have a child next year. They are looking forward to the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme which will help with their child-raising costs.”
“Our population strategies take into account these views and seek to achieve a stronger social compact by strengthening assurance for Singaporeans throughout their lives, growing opportunities for Singaporeans through a vibrant and resilient economy and strengthening solidarity for a more cohesive society; as well as planning ahead for a better home for ourselves and for generations to come. Let me elaborate on each of these in turn. First, we will continue to strengthen assurance for Singaporeans. A key aspect of this is the support we give to help Singaporeans realise their marriage and parenthood aspirations, among other life goals. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what we can learn from other countries’ best practices to encourage Singaporeans to settle down. Key elements that have made a difference elsewhere include societal norms that embrace children and families and encourage shared parental responsibility as well as a family-friendly workplace culture. We need a whole-of-society effort to foster such norms and to build a conducive environment that values and supports families. For individuals, this is often about finding a work-life rhythm that is suitable for our different life stages as we pursue our family, career and other life goals. And for employers, it is also about valuing employees’ family and overall well-being that could at the same time result in stronger talent attraction, retention and higher productivity for the employer. It is also about everyone doing our part to strengthen the overall ecosystem of support so that we have a family-friendly environment. On the part of the Government, as Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced in the Budget statement, we are providing more support for the early stages of family formulation in a few areas.”
“At the same time, we are living longer. Resident life expectancy at birth has risen from about 72 years in 1980 to more than 83 years today. By 2030, about one in four Singapore citizens will be aged 65 and above. With an ageing population, we will find it increasingly challenging to sustain economic growth as the growth of our resident workforce slows. Caregiving needs will intensify as family sizes shrink and more Singaporeans will face the dual pressures of raising young children while caring for their elderly parents – and in fact this is already happening. We are also becoming a more diverse society. We have always been multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural. While the proportions of our main racial groups remain stable among our citizens, our social fabric continues to evolve. In recent years, around one in three citizen marriages each year were transnational and around one in six, inter-ethnic. It is therefore even more important to that we recognise this diversity as a core part of our identity, appreciate different cultures and their practices more and make this multicultural aspect of living in Singapore and being Singaporean, a strength. These trends show the complexities and challenges on the population front. Our population strategies are key to managing these challenges. Ms Mariam Jaafar asked how these strategies relate to the Forward Singapore exercise. Through these conversations, Singaporeans have shared their views on the kind of Singapore we want to be and how we can forge our future together.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their questions and suggestions. There were two categories on population and fertility as well as on corruption. I will take the cuts on population and fertility first, and Ms Hazel Poa’s cut on corruption, I will address later when I respond to the cuts on corruption. Under the Forward Singapore exercise, we have spoken to many Singaporeans who have shared their views and aspirations for the future. As we work towards building the future we aspire to, it is important to understand the key population trends affecting us and how we must work together as one people to address them. As Ms Ng Ling Ling mentioned, countries around the world are facing demographic challenges brought about by ageing populations and declining fertility rates. South Korea’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR), currently the world’s lowest, dropped to a new low of 0.78 last year. China’s population also shrank for the first time in more than six decades, and their annual number of births nearly halved compared to six years ago. Births in Japan have plunged to a record low. Even Norway and Finland, who were previously successful in improving their fertility rates, are finding it difficult to sustain these gains. Like other advanced societies, Singapore’s TFR has been declining for many years. In 2022, our resident TFR reached a new historic low of 1.05. This was partly due to the Tiger year in the lunar calendar, which is generally associated with lower births among the Chinese. But beyond that, there are longer-term global societal trends at play, which apply to us too. While the aspiration to marry and have children remains strong, more are postponing marriage and more are also postponing having children or having fewer children.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, did you wish me to extend the time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Impact of Relocating Bukit View Primary School”
“Mr 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 Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that, "The debate be now adjourned."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Leader, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption, please?”