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 2 of 51.
“There was also a Straits Times article last month on Hsinchu City in Taiwan. It houses Hsinchu Science Park and is often known as the Silicon Valley of Taiwan. While Taiwan's TFR is projected to have fallen below 0.8 in 2025, Hsinchu's has stayed stable at 1.0 for several years. Experts attribute the higher birth rates to more family-friendly benefits provided by employers, rather than the Government, to attract and retain the best employees in a competitive environment. These include hybrid work arrangements, onsite baby care, baby bonuses and hampers for employees with newborns. This sends a strong signal that having children is supported and encouraged, and will not be negative for one's career. There are many other ways in which employers can be supportive, such as providing lactation rooms for nursing mothers, instituting systematic covering arrangements when an employee has to take time-off and holding regular dialogues with employees on how the workplace can be improved. I fully agree with Ms Cassandra Lee on the importance of investing in HR as they shape workplace norms and culture and support the last-mile implementation of family-friendly workplace practices, so that employees feel safe and supported to use these provisions. The Institute for Human Resource Professionals' Body of Competencies already includes a key component of holistic well-being which entails HR's ability to drive best practices that support employees to thrive, such as the design of flexible work options and family-related leave. We want a family-friendly workplace culture to become part of the DNA of all local companies. It should also be a shared responsibility – from senior management and HR managers to line managers, co-workers and the parent-employees themselves.”
“One parent described how frequent work travel made it difficult for her to be there for her children in their formative years. But not travelling would affect her career. Some found it difficult to request for flexible work arrangements, despite the Tripartite Guidelines. Others related having to choose between being present for important meetings or their child's key milestones, and difficulty in leaving work on time to pick their children up from childcare. Despite the mandatory leave provisions we have introduced and employment protections, we still hear anecdotes of how some employees are subtly discouraged from taking leave or how female employees are nudged to resign once they are pregnant. We fully recognise that employers have business objectives and financial bottom lines to meet. However, there is much more we can do to build progressive workplace cultures to align business priorities with family-friendly practices. Having supportive employers and workplaces makes a big difference to parents. But being a family-friendly workplace is not just good for employees; it also makes good business sense. When people feel supported at work, they are more motivated, more engaged and more likely to stay. An example is Mr Edmund Seah, whose employer allowed him to take his paternity leave in weekly blocks. Edmund took two weeks during his child's first month to support his wife's confinement and took the remaining two weeks of paternity leave together with his three weeks of Shared Parental Leave. This flexibility allowed him to be present for his wife and baby when it mattered. Having benefited from this flexibility, Mr Seah has paid it forward by covering his colleague's workload when she went on maternity leave.”
“To cater to students' varied abilities and talents and help our children develop more holistically, MOE has been making progressive changes over the years to develop multiple pathways. MOE has also made multiple shifts to reduce over-emphasis on academic results. MOE will also conduct a series of Education Conversations with students, parents, educators, researchers and academics to explore ways to mitigate the education "arms race", including by reducing the stakes of examinations. 6.00 pm But these structural reforms will only work if cultural attitudes towards competition and success shift in tandem. We must move away from viewing education in Singapore as a competition for limited prizes and instead see it as an open highway with many lanes and many different prizes suited to each child's unique talents and abilities. Parents who have high expectations of their children's academic performance may urge them to achieve good grades or over-react when they fall short of expectations, but such actions may cause unintended consequences, as a National University of Singapore study found in 2016. Children with intrusive parents tended to be overly critical of themselves and were at increased risk of developing depression and anxiety symptoms. Such pressure can therefore be detrimental to a child's well-being. Some competition and stress is natural but we should do our best to remove unrealistic expectations or social pressures which add unnecessary stress on parenthood. Third, we will work with employers to foster family-friendly workplace cultures and practices. As Ms Yeo Wan Ling noted, one of the top stressors for parents is trying to achieve a balance between work and family responsibilities.”
“Rather, it was about being willing to learn, adapt and grow alongside their children, doing the best that they can within their circumstances and relying on community support where possible, as Ms Nadia Samdin noted. For instance, the Families for Life Parents Telegram groups have enabled thriving online communities of parents within each local town. Through these local networks, parents can connect and exchange parenting tips, share about local family events and exchange pre-loved items with other parents in the community to help them better navigate parenting challenges. Practical resources and programmes to support families on their parenting journey from birth to growing through adolescence are also available on platforms, including Health Promotion Board's Parent Hub, the Parenting For Wellness Toolbox, parenting resources in the Ministry of Education's Parent's Gateway and the Families for Life Parenting website. We will work with various agencies and partners to regularly update and refine the resources on the platforms to ensure they meet parents' evolving needs. This pressure to be the perfect parent is perhaps most evident in the child's education. Many parents feel pressure to help their children excel academically, for fear that they may otherwise not succeed in life. They worry about coaching their children for major exams or finding the financial means to send their children to private tuition and enrichment programmes. If they are unable to do so, they feel that they have fallen short as parents. I understand that this pressure largely stems from the fear that there is only a narrow gate to success and if their children do not make it through that gate, they will have poor life outcomes. These are real anxieties that we want to help address.”
“In reality, finding a life partner, getting married and starting a family are major milestones that require time, energy and change. It is understandable and rightfully so, that entering into these commitments should be carefully considered. However, many Singaporean couples have demonstrated that having family and careers can co-exist alongside other life goals. Parenthood does take real effort and commitment, and while there will inevitably be compromises along the way, what is gained in terms of family relationships, love and fulfilment is both precious and priceless. We hope that as many Singaporeans as possible can experience the joys of marriage and parenthood. Ultimately, it is a personal choice. But we need a mindset change to encourage couples to consider a more balanced picture when exercising this choice. Mindset number two. In our engagements, another prevailing mindset was the immense pressure couples put on themselves to be the perfect parent. One young father, a doctor, felt guilty that he could not spend more time with his son because of his work schedule. He felt he was not being a good father. Another young woman, newly-wed, was hesitant to have a child because she was not sure if she could provide the best possible resources to ensure that her child would succeed in life. Wanting more time to spend with your children or providing them with the right resources stem from good intentions. However, in hindsight, many parents reflected that parenthood was not about providing the best for their children or having all the answers right from the start.”
“We will work with agencies to look into this. The areas I just shared are part of the Government's broader efforts to better support Singaporeans through their marriage and parenthood journey. Besides consultations that the Workgroup will have with members of the public, businesses and the people sector, we will also enhance our Marriage and Parenthood Survey this year to gain deeper insights on how attitudes and perceptions towards marriage and parenthood have evolved. The feedback and suggestions will inform the Workgroup's recommendations and shape the next bound of marriage and parenthood enhancements. Next, we will cultivate positive mindsets towards marriage and parenthood. Decisions on whether to get married and start a family are deeply personal. And as we have found in our engagements, mindsets matter a great deal when making these decisions. When we say we want to change mindsets, it is not about pushing a single "correct" path. Rather, as Ms Nadia Samdin shared, it is about creating an environment where decisions surrounding marriage and parenthood can be viewed optimistically and positively rather than with fear and anxiety. Mindset change has many aspects. But let me touch on two. There was a marked difference in mindsets between those who were still weighing whether or not to have children, and those who had already decided to have children. Those who were hesitant looked at parenthood through the lens of what they might lose – being held back in their careers, inability to pursue other life goals and loss of personal freedom. Those with children or intending to have them, on the other hand, saw parenthood in terms of what they had gained – the joy of family and the fulfilment and personal growth that come with being parents.”
“We will review the financial and non-financial support couples receive throughout their fertility journeys and work with employers to improve workplace support for employees undergoing fertility treatments. For a start, I encourage employers and HR departments to refer to the Workplace Fertility Support Guide produced by Fertility Support SG, which Ms Cassandra Lee highlighted. On Ms Valerie Lee's suggestion on support through miscarriages, psychosocial support like counselling is available in public healthcare institutions, but we agree that more can be done and will study her suggestions to see how we can better support those who experienced miscarriages. On Ms Elysa Chen's suggestion to enhance postpartum support for parents, there are ongoing initiatives at the public maternity hospitals and polyclinics to provide perinatal and postpartum support, such as scheduled telephone check-ins and follow-ups post-discharge. Mothers who require breastfeeding and lactation support can tap on services offered in polyclinics, such as the Breastfeeding Triple Support @NUHS polyclinics. They can also visit Family Nexus sites to find out more about parent-child bonding programmes and parenting support services. To identify women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus for timely management, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) has also updated the ACE Clinical Guideline to help healthcare professionals to assess the onset of pre-diabetes or diabetes post-partum. Mr Foo Cexiang also highlighted in his Budget Debate speech the need to better support adoptive parents. Today, adoptive parents receive benefits like biological parents such as parental leave provisions. Nonetheless, we recognise that more can be done to improve and streamline the adoption processes.”
“Today, these parents can tap on broad-based employment facilitation and skills training as well as career guidance programmes, such as Workforce Singapore's Mid-Career Pathways Programme and Career Conversion Programmes, to gain industry-relevant skills and support their transition into suitable job roles. The Government is also helping companies redesign jobs through initiatives like the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. Such support can help lower the barrier of re-entry for caregivers who wish to return to the workforce by helping companies strengthen organisational capability to offer more adaptable workforce models, including various forms of FWAs for employees. The Ministry of Manpower is also reviewing how we can better support job fractionalisation under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment. Having more fractionalised jobs will be helpful to parents seeking part-time work. Another important area spoken about is fertility health, as highlighted by several Members earlier, including Ms Kuah Boon Theng. Later marriages and births are becoming more common. In 2024, the median age of mothers at first birth was around 32 years old. As both male and female fertility declines with age, more couples may face fertility challenges. Today, about one in six people globally experience infertility. Many do not know where to seek help or are fearful of stigma attached to doing so. To help those with fertility issues we will work with other agencies to raise awareness of fertility health, including improving accessibility of information on existing support, encouraging fertility checks and normalising the seeking of medical attention for fertility issues. Those in need can refer to the Made For Families website for current support measures.”
“In Budget 2026, the Prime Minister announced that the income thresholds for preschool and student care subsidies will be revised so more families can benefit. Government agencies are also undertaking a review of the student care sector to better meet the caregiving needs of families with primary school-aged children. On work-life support, while take-up rates for the new Shared Parental Leave scheme are not yet available, initial feedback from parents has been positive. They appreciate being able to spend more time with their newborns. Some said that this has encouraged them to consider having another child. But we know that beyond infancy, parents require additional time-off from work to care for their children. Many parents and Members in this House like Ms Valerie Lee and Mr David Hoe have asked for more childcare leave. Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked how we can better support the sandwich generation who are caring for their children as well as their ageing parents or other family dependents. We will study the childcare leave suggestions carefully, bearing in mind the needs of employers, who are still adjusting to the recent parental leave enhancements. Even without any legislated requirement, many progressive employers have stepped up to introduce caregiving-related leave provisions as part of their strategy to attract and retain talent, such as adopting the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. Beyond leave, FWAs are another sustainable way to provide employees with greater flexibility in meeting their diverse caregiving needs. We also want to better support parents as they re-enter the workforce after taking a career break, as Mr Mark Lee and Ms Elysa Chen highlighted.”
“These include: (a) the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns; (b) doubling paternity leave and making it mandatory; (c) the new 10-week Shared Parental Leave; (d) the Large Families Scheme; and (e) this year, we will provide another $500 of Child LifeSG Credits for every Singaporean child aged 12 and below. Going forward, we will do more. Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Andre Low and Ms Hany Soh raised concerns and gave their suggestions about the costs of raising children. The Government is committed to helping parents with the cost of child-raising. Four years ago, parents received up to $32,000 per child under the Baby Bonus Scheme and MediSave Grant for Newborns. Today, with the addition of the Large Families Scheme, it is up to $54,000 per child. On the education front, every Singaporean child can receive over $200,000 in subsidies from preschool through to secondary school. We will look into enhancing this further and consider the different ideas that Members have suggested. On housing, as Mr David Hoe raised in his Budget debate speech and as Ms Hany Soh highlighted, we will enable couples who are ready to build a life together to secure and afford their own home. We are increasing the supply of BTO flats, with more Shorter Waiting Time flats so couples and young families can get their flats more quickly. MND has also reviewed how it can better support growing families who may need more space. We will share more at the MND COS. For preschool and caregiving, MSF has progressively lowered fee caps at Government-supported preschools and expanded preschool places. These moves have improved accessibility and affordability.”
“They did not sugarcoat the challenges and sacrifices of parenthood, but when they weighed these against the love and happiness they experienced, they were glad they had chosen to have children. However, they also expressed their hope for more support for families and better balance between work and family responsibilities. This was especially so for those caring for both young children and ageing parents. 5.45 pm If we are to change our trajectory, these are the issues we must tackle. They cannot be addressed by policy measures alone. What we need is a Marriage and Parenthood Reset, by which I mean a reset across society, on the following. First, how marriage and parenthood are viewed and supported. Second, how workplaces can evolve to better align work and family. And third, how everyone can play their part. To achieve this, we will form a new Workgroup with the relevant agencies to look into these issues holistically and engage widely across members of the public, businesses and the people sector. I will chair this Workgroup and will share more details in due course. But for now, let me set out the broad four-pronged approach that we will take. First, we will build on current efforts to enhance government support for marriage and parenthood. Second, we will cultivate positive mindsets about marriage and parenthood. Third, we will work with employers to foster workplace cultures and practices that are family friendly. And fourth, we will engage the whole of society in this effort. On the first one, the Government will build on current efforts to enhance support for marriage and parenthood. In recent years, we have significantly enhanced our Marriage and Parenthood Package.”
“The Millennials and Gen Zs shared that dating and marriage often took a backseat to their many other interests and goals. Some wanted to establish themselves in their careers before seeking a life partner. Others were looking for the right marriage partner but had yet to find the right person. Many shared they were looking for deeper and more meaningful connections but sometimes had difficulty meeting others and forging authentic in-person relationships after leaving school and entering the workforce. Next, there were those who are married but hesitant to have children. This group felt anxious about becoming parents. They were worried about not being able to live up to the expectations of being a good parent. Some feared that having children meant trading off their careers and other life goals. Others were concerned about the financial, emotional and mental demands of parenthood. Some women were anxious about how they would cope with the physical and emotional changes that come with pregnancy. Then, next there were the married, who want children but have fertility issues. On the flip side, these were married couples who very much want children but are unable to conceive. They spoke candidly about the challenges encountered in their fertility journey, including only realising the problem very late, not knowing where to get help, the fear of stigma, limited workplace support and difficulty in getting time off for fertility treatments, and the cost of fertility treatments. Then we have the parents with young children. Without exception, everyone in this group spoke about the joy their children had brought to their lives.”
“South Korea, which currently has the world’s lowest TFR, recently saw an increase in marriages and births. This could be due in part to the large cohort of children born to South Korea’s Baby Boomers who are now entering child-bearing age. It remains to be seen if their recent more family-friendly policies will have a lasting impact. However, it still gives us hope that fertility trends could shift and sustained efforts across multiple fronts may yield results over time. But what is really striking is if you look at the TFR of cities. As a city-state, Singapore's TFR may be more comparable to that of other metropolitan cities rather than other countries. In fact, the TFR of major cities tend to be much lower than their countries' overall TFR. In 2024, France's TFR was 1.62 but Paris's was 1.27. Japan's TFR was 1.15 but Tokyo's was 0.96. China's TFR was around 1.00 but Hong Kong's was 0.84 and Shanghai's was less than 0.8. Without over-generalising, cities typically have a faster, more intense pace of life and greater competition and stress. As a small city-state, Singapore experiences these effects more acutely. This is reflected in our Marriage and Parenthood surveys, where besides financial cost, other concerns such as the stress of raising children and difficulties in managing work and family demands are the most common reasons cited by married respondents when considering whether to have children. But there are other factors at play too. To unpack this further, I engaged various groups of Singaporeans at different life stages to hear their thoughts on this issue. And today, I want to share with you what I have learned from them. First, there are the singles.”
“Chairman, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated earlier, our preliminary resident TFR for 2025 was 0.87, lower than 0.97 in 2024. It is our lowest TFR to date. Resident births across all ethnic groups decreased, with the decrease in Chinese births being proportionately larger, at a drop of 15% compared to 2024. This is due in part to the typical post-Dragon Year decrease. The declining TFR means our citizen population growth has slowed. This is an existential challenge for us. Trying to raise our TFR has always been a priority but with the latest figures, this has acquired a new urgency. The Government is wholly committed to addressing this issue head on and we will spare no effort to arrest and reverse this decline. However, it cannot be the work of Government alone. We need all of society to play their part. To ensure that our plans are targeted and effective, we must first understand the drivers and factors that are inhibiting marriage and family formation. Declining TFR is not an issue unique to just Singapore. It is a global phenomenon. All over the world, more people are choosing to remain single or marry later, and those who marry are choosing to have fewer or no children at all. As the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, this issue is not simply economic. Some countries have spent a lot on a whole range of support schemes. Others provide very generous welfare systems. These measures can help at the margins, but they have not fundamentally reversed the trend. Countries like France and the Nordic countries, which have long been held up as exemplars of higher TFR, continue to see declines in their birth rates. In China, the number of deaths now exceed the number of births. Even in the region, the TFRs of Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are on the downtrend.”
“It is difficult to discern the impact of any single policy on our fertility rate, as the measures in our Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package are intended to work in combination to support Singaporeans in their M&P journey. From our surveys and engagements, we have found that the Baby Bonus Scheme and parental leave enhancements have been positively received. For example, parents and young couples shared that the parental leave enhancements would encourage more people to have children. Parents also perceived the increased financial support and time spent with their newborns to be helpful in their parenthood journey. We regularly monitor the efficacy of our measures and will continue to review our M&P package to better support parents in starting and raising families.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."”
“The Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR) is part of a broader package to support Singaporeans in their marriage and parenthood journey. We have over the years significantly increased financial support, such as the Baby Bonus Cash Gift and the Child Development Account First Step Grant, and enhanced parental leave provisions. We also introduced the new Shared Parental Leave scheme and the Large Families Scheme last year. All in, we expect these initiatives to cost the Government close to $7 billion in Financial Year (FY) 2026, up from over $4 billion in FY2020. About 9,500 working mothers paid higher income tax in Year of Assessment 2025 than they would have under the old WMCR basis. The change in basis of the WMCR to a fixed dollar relief was to provide equal support for children of the same child order regardless of the mother's income, which improves the progressivity of our support. We are unable to project the additional tax revenue from the WMCR change over the next 10 years, as this is dependent on many variables that could change over time, such as the working mother's income, the other qualifying reliefs and number of children she may eventually have. However, we expect the cost of the marriage and parenthood initiatives to far exceed any additional tax revenue from the WMCR change.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] An Industrial Policy in Finance”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Our assessment is that about 4,000 flats, and maybe just a little bit more, would be the right steady state. Because in tandem with this, we are also ramping up the Shorter Waiting Time flats. So, you have to see this together. In terms of whether that we are looking at additional flats, we are looking to see as many of the SERS vacant flats as we can. But there is a limited supply of vacant flats. For those that come back from the LBS, the ones that can be resold, those should be sold to those who can purchase. So, these are really ones that are available for rental. But as I said, the two strategies go in tandem. The PPHS ramp-up came about really because of the housing crunch due to the COVID period and the difficulties in meeting our building programme. But we have caught up with the building programme, we are having more of the Shorter Waiting Time flats, and so, we anticipate we should be able to get to a steady state for the PPHS flats. 3.02 pm”
“The Government has also kept preschools affordable by providing subsidies to parents of Singapore Citizen children and imposing fee caps at Government-supported Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) preschools. Currently, all Singapore Citizen children enrolled in a licensed preschool are eligible for a basic subsidy of up to $300 per month for childcare and up to $600 per month for infant care. To further lower costs, eligible families receive additional means-tested subsidies, with more for lower-income. We enhanced these additional subsidies in 2020, by raising the income ceiling from $7,500 to $12,000 and increasing subsidy amounts across all eligible income tiers. We have also progressively reduced fee caps in AOP and POPs. Fee caps were lowered for both full-day infant care and full-day childcare in 2023. They were further reduced for full-day childcare last year and at the start of this year. In addition, lower-income families benefit from further support through other targeted schemes, such as the Child Care Financial Assistance and Start-Up Grant. All these help defray the costs of the child at a younger age. We will continue to review our measures to strengthen support for parents in managing the costs of raising children.”
“The Government is strongly committed to supporting Singaporeans to realise their marriage and parenthood aspirations. We provide a suite of generous financial support for families with children, in the form of cash and cash-like payouts, grants, education and healthcare subsidies and tax benefits. We do not publish estimates of child-raising expenditure. Such standalone estimates would not be useful as child-raising expenditure varies greatly depending on a family's needs, parents' expectations and choices. Instead, in determining the quantum and cashflow for the Baby Bonus Scheme, we consider data, such as household income and expenditure, including child-related expenditure, as well as feedback from parents. For example, in 2023, in response to parents' feedback, we enhanced the Baby Bonus quantum and adjusted the payout structure to provide parents with sustained financial support until their child enters primary school. We recognise that the costs incurred by parents is higher when the child is younger. Hence, a larger portion of the Baby Bonus Cash Gift is paid to parents upfront to support the higher initial costs at birth and infancy, with regular payouts thereafter until the child turns 6.5 years old. Over and above the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, other support is provided within the first 36 months of a child's birth. Families also receive support through the Child Development Account (CDA) First Step Grant given at the child's birth, as well as Government co-matching of parents' savings into the CDA. CDA monies can be used for approved child-related expenses, such as infant care, preschool and medical fees.”
“There are various reasons why women may decide to delay childbirth. These include prioritisation of other life goals like career and concerns about whether they can manage the changes that come with parenthood. The Government provides a comprehensive Marriage and Parenthood package with support measures across areas, like housing, healthcare, parental leave and child caregiving, to help couples to start and raise families. Support measures are regularly reviewed to address the needs of parents. For instance, from 1 April this year, parents will have 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave on top of maternity and paternity leave to give them more time to bond with their newborns and adapt to the new routines of parenting. Pregnancy and labour, and the period after childbirth can be challenging to navigate especially for first-time parents. We have been strengthening support for them. For example, polyclinics now provide mothers with practical support in areas, such as antenatal education and post-natal recovery. Family Nexus sites also provide guidance on parenting programmes. Parents can also visit the Families for Life Parenting Portal or Parent Hub to access a wide range of resources on topics ranging from pregnancy to child health, to parenting tips. We will continue to look into ways to strengthen support for parents.”
“The Government regularly reviews the effectiveness of our schemes to ensure they continue to help Singaporeans manage cost-of-living concerns. Over the recent years, in response to higher inflationary pressures, we had progressively reviewed and enhanced the Assurance Package (AP) with additional cash, U-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges Rebate and Community Development Council Vouchers. In total, we increased the support delivered via the AP from the initial $6.6 billion in 2022 to more than $10 billion in 2025. These enhancements have fully offset the expenditure increase arising from higher inflation for lower-income households, and substantially offset the expenditure increase for middle-income households each year from 2022 to 2025. The Government also provides substantial structural support to help Singaporeans manage major cost concerns like education, healthcare and housing, and retirement. On top of this, we provide targeted structural support for vulnerable groups, such as Workfare for lower-wage workers, Fresh Start Housing Scheme for lower-income families and Silver Support for seniors who had low incomes in their working years. Where necessary, we complement these structural measures with additional one-off support for households. This approach allows us to provide more responsive and targeted support, while remaining fiscally prudent. In the longer term, the most sustainable way to help Singaporeans cope with cost pressures is through broad-based wage growth that outpaces inflation. The Government will continue to pursue this by growing the economy, creating good jobs and supporting Singaporeans in upgrading their skills through continuing education and training.”
“A working parent with a Singaporean child under the age of seven has six days of Government-Paid Childcare Leave (GPCL) a year. This means that a working couple has a total of 12 days of GPCL to care for their child, on top of their annual leave provisions. The Government does not track the reasons for which parents take GPCL, and we do not have data on whether the leave usage of parents due to childcare centre closures or their children falling ill exceeds the current GPCL entitlements. As employers only claim reimbursement for those who take more than three days of GPCL, we only have data for this group of parents. In 2023, the proportion of eligible working mothers and fathers who took more than three days of GPCL was 58% and 53%, respectively. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Clarification section.] Of this group, the vast majority of mothers and fathers took all six days of GPCL each. Data for 2024 is not yet available. Beyond parental leave provisions, the Government has also introduced the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which parents can tap on to manage their work and child caregiving responsibilities. We will continue to review our parental leave provisions and work with Tripartite Partners to foster more family-friendly workplaces.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(3) to enable Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann and Minister of State Mr Baey Yam Keng to speak more than once in respect of their speeches for the Second Reading of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill; and also, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limits in respect of Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann's and Minister of State Mr Baey Yam Keng's speeches for the Second Reading of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill. Ordinarily, a Member, other than the mover of the Bill, will only have the right to speak once. Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow will be moving the Second Reading of the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill and will speak on the amendments pertaining to the Electronic Road Pricing 2.0 system and serious vehicular offences. I understand Minister of State Mr Baey Yam Keng will speak on the active mobility related amendments and Senior Minister of State Ms Sim Ann, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, will speak on the new offences and increase in penalties relating to the speed limiters and other miscellaneous amendments. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and Minister of State Baey will, in the course of the debate, have to respond to queries and clarifications from Members, and although their speeches, they assure me, are short and keeping it tight, they may not be able to complete within the time limit. And so, as a matter of precaution, I am asking to lift the time limit in respect of their speeches.”
“Mr Speaker, as we have gone past the usual time for Parliamentary Questions, but at the same time, this is a topic of some public interest, I wish to seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question No 20, including relevant supplementary questions thereon.”
“I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94A does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94A of the Legal Profession Act.”
“I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94 does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94 of the Legal Profession Act. [Please refer to "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No. 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 14 January 2026. My statement should read as follows:”
“Mr Speaker, that pretty much speaks for itself. 6.43 pm”
“Perhaps Mr Low could just clarify what his position is on all six limbs of the Motion?”
“I have noted Mr Low's statements. I just wondered how he was able to disagree with it, when he was not a witness or a party to the Court proceedings.”
“On the point of that meeting occurred and the statement having been made. So, that being the case, it has implications because we could have proceeded back when the original Report was made, we could have proceeded at the time. We did not need the Court findings. But what you have is where the Court findings have confirmed that the meeting took place and the statement was made. That is why it has implications. That is all. That is all that this Motion does: to note that it has implications. But Ms Lim may want to take that up the next time when the next Motion comes. And with respect to the point about the difference between Ms Khan's and Mr Perera's case, Ms Lim said that the difference was that, in their case, they admitted their wrongdoing. That is a really interesting point, because that means that everybody who goes to Court and who basically, puts up a defence and is found guilty, so long as they did not admit, it means that they are not guilty. But what kind of rule of law is that? And what kind of system is that? You cannot go simply on the basis of, "Has the person admitted or not?" Here you have a system, where you have a society, you have a Court system. The Court makes an adjudication, and as Parliament, we have to take note of that and act accordingly.”
“Parliament is sovereign. And this sovereign Parliament has a Select Committee that has made a report from a Committee of Privileges, finding that Mr Singh had made the statement, that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were there, and that they had lied to the COP. The question on everybody's minds is: "Well, Mr Singh's case is going to Court. Let the Court make its findings, then we have the benefit of that. And we find that the Court findings are pretty much the same as the COP's findings —”
“Let me just clarify. Mr Singh did not say that the document is supreme. He said Parliament is supreme, and I am talking —”
“I thank Ms Lim for her clarifications. It is correct that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did not appear in the Court proceedings. But Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did appear and give evidence before the COP, and they gave evidence under oath. And the COP found that, in respect of the making of the Grave Statement, in other words, the telling of Ms Khan "to take it to the grave", the COP found that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had lied about what had happened there. So, you have a COP Report where that finding is there. What today's Motion does is it refers to the Court finding, because you see, the point is simply this: did the meeting happen and were the words said? The COP found that meeting happened. Those words were said, found all three of them were present. The COP Report is a report which, according to Mr Singh, should be a supreme document. This is Parliament.”
“Thank you, Sir. The President who opened this House was not convicted of any offence of dishonesty. With respect to him, it was a matter of negligence. And the point really is, that in this case, you have a Court judgment. Mr Singh has said that he disagrees with it. He may do so, but that does not mean that the Court findings should not be noted. That does not mean that the conduct that was found in the Court judgments should not be regarded as dishonourable or unbecoming. And it does not mean that we cannot express a view on his suitability. And when you have a conviction for lying, before a COP and guiding a junior MP to lie, or to maintain an Untruth – that brings into question suitability for the position of a Leader of the Opposition. And Mr Singh is right. We are not infallible. All of us are not infallible. And the PAP is certainly not infallible. But the question is when something goes wrong, what do you do? And at that crossroads of doing right and wrong, if you take one direction, it goes a certain path, and if you take another direction, it goes another path. And as I mentioned earlier, in the case of Ms Khan, she was led along a certain path, with the consequences that we see today. And the other point he made was that what is important is that we perform our role lawfully. And that is the point, is it not? Because lying before the COP cannot be said to be performing that role lawfully.”
“With respect to the last point, I do not have the number of briefings, but it was not a matter of quantity. The point about the Leader of the Opposition role is that it gets certain specific privileges, and that was one of them. And that was the point I was making. Not about the quantity of them. Then, the other point that Mr Singh had made about the WP being a judge of their own cause. I think that is exactly what we have seen today. He has been a judge in his own cause. And the other point that he made was that the Opposition was not infallible. That I understand — 6.33 pm”
“The WP talks about the rule of law, but they set themselves above it. The WP calls for accountability, but they will not call their own member to account. I hope the WP will remember that every time they stand up in Parliament, from this day onwards and speak about accountability, they will be reminded of their standard of accountability. And every time they stand in Parliament and tell us about the rule of law and how we must abide by it, we will remind them how they have abided by the rule of law today. We now have a much clearer idea of what the WP stands for, which is simply that the rules and the law apply to everyone else but not to them. But Mr Speaker, this cannot be the standard that we set for our Parliament. We have a duty to Singaporeans and to Singapore to ensure that the high standards are maintained. We cannot endorse dishonourable conduct or ignore the Court judgment. And we cannot talk about a First World Parliament and effective checks and balances when fundamental values of honesty, integrity and accountability are not upheld. As MPs, we have a solemn duty to make sure that politics in Singapore remains upright and honourable. This Motion goes beyond an individual or party or their actions. This Motion is about upholding the integrity and standing of Parliament, upholding the standard of conduct of our MPs and how it reflects on our Parliament, and upholding our responsibilities as elected Members of this House to honour the trust of our people and always do the right thing by them, even if it is politically inconvenient to do so. If Members care about this, then I urge Members to support the Motion.”
“Somehow, in Ms Khan's case, lying was suddenly a very serious offence for the WP. In Mr Leon Perera's case, he also had to step down because he had lied to the WP leadership, so it was very serious there. But somehow, for the WP, when you have a case of their leader lying to the COP – and under oath at that – they seem to regard it differently. And that is very odd. The only possible conclusion when you compare this and the previous cases with Ms Khan and Mr Perera is that in those cases, the WP has made a political calculation as to whether those Members should be kept or not. Ms Khan was a liability. Mr Perera was dropped like a hot potato. But they have made or appear to have made a political calculation with respect to Mr Singh and then, hope maybe over time, people will forget – instead of taking a principled stance on their party leaders' conduct, which could be politically costly. So, Ms Khan and Mr Perera were expendable. Mr Singh, it would appear, not. That is why in today's Motion, we have been hearing the equivocating and the temporising and the avoiding, of doing what they must know in their heart of hearts is the right thing to do. But that is not leadership, nor is it responsibility. That is not what Singaporeans expect of political leaders and parties. That is not the way to build a First World Parliament or even a two-party system. That is not the way to build a party that aspires to offer an alternative government to Singaporeans one day. The WP MPs must surely know this, but they are all going along with the party line. It is not good for the WP. It is not good for the Opposition cause. And it is not good for Singapore. At the end of the day, we have a scenario where Mr Singh says he respects and accepts the judgment, but does not agree with it.”
“He wanted to give him some time to settle constituency matters, settle family matters, but it was clear that as Speaker, he would have had to step down. Whether they should resign their seats, initially, that was something to be thought about. But when it became clear that the conduct had not stopped, then Prime Minister said, you must step down, and Ms Cheng had to step down too. So, they resigned their seats. Mr Tan took responsibility. I believe he had apologised to Singaporeans that it had happened. Here, Mr Singh is not even being asked to resign his seat – at least, not by us. And he does not seem to think that there is a problem with continuing as the Leader of the Opposition. There is no equivalence at all in those examples. I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94 does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94 of the Legal Profession Act. [Please refer to "Clarification by Leader of the House", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Correction By Written Statement section.] That brings me back to today's Motion. We have to ask ourselves about the reasons that have been put forward by the WP. And having examined them, they do not hold water. We really do have to look at how the WP had dealt with Ms Raeesah Khan before and Mr Leon Perera. In the case of Ms Khan, she was told she had to resign within 24 hours, otherwise she would be expelled. Or rather, she would be expelled within 24 hours if she did not resign.”
“When you have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company and, let us say, he has been charged and convicted of a matter of a crime of dishonesty, how many companies actually say, "Yes, it is okay, Mr CEO, please continue"? How many? Not very many. Why? In fact, probably not at all. Why? Because those companies value their reputation. They know that every time they go out and do business, people look at them and wonder, "You are a company and your CEO has been convicted for lying and dishonesty, what sort of company are you?" That is the issue that is being discussed here. We have a Parliament where you have the Leader of the Opposition, which is a significant position and role, who has been convicted of two counts of lying before a Committee of Parliament. How does that look to other people outside? How can we then say that for someone to whom this has happened, is suitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition? For the PAP side of the House, we say it is very difficult. But somehow, the WP does not seem to have a difficulty with this, which tells us something about the WP's values. Then, Mr Kenneth Tiong raised the question of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and asked, oh, nothing happened there; why is that the case that it was alright there and not here? I am frankly very disappointed in that stance. But it also shows that Mr Tiong does not quite understand the issue. In Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's case, he was asked to step down. As a matter of party discipline, he was told to resign his seat. Initially, if you read the Hansard carefully, then Prime Minister has said it was clear in his mind he would have had to step down as Speaker.”
“But I just wanted to make sure that in this Motion, that we note that and we will come back. We will not take too long. Mr Giam had asked whether this would take a very long time. It should not take a long time. But today, we wanted to deal with a specific topic. I hope that addresses the issues with regard to the limb. Because it has implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. With respect to Mr Faisal, there was a bit of an attempt to muddy the waters here, because it was said that the Police have already issued an Advisory to Mr Faisal and therefore, the matter should be considered close. But Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for a different matter. With Mr Faisal, there were three things. One, when he was before the COP, he had flat out refused to answer some of their queries. That is actually an offence. For that, he was referred to the PP. Then, there were two other remaining outstanding issues with respect to Mr Faisal. These are similar to the ones for Ms Lim: one, for lying to the COP that the statement "take it to the grave" was not made; and secondly, for his involvement in guiding Ms Khan to hide the Untruth. The first one, that is dealt with. That is not the subject matter here. But the second two we agreed to defer, pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. And for the same reasons as for Ms Lim, it has implications, because Mr Faisal was present at that meeting too. In the COP hearing, he had denied that such a statement was made. So, that deals with that. Ms Lim and I think Mr Giam have attempted to suggest that this is political punishment, that Mr Singh is being punished twice. Actually, that is not the case. It is a very simple point.”
“When the COP Report came out, there were two things in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Let me deal with Ms Lim first. One was that she had lied to the COP that the statement to "take it to the grave" was never said, that that did not happen. So, one count was for lying to the COP. The other was for her involvement in guiding Ms Raeesah Khan to hide the Untruth. Because if you tell somebody or if you agree with "taking it to the grave", you are basically guiding somebody to keep it quiet. For those two points, Parliament said, we would defer a decision on that until the outcome of Mr Singh's case. In other words, there are two outstanding things. Of course, Ms Lim had disputed the COP findings. Ms Lim is correct. She was not a witness, she was not a party to the Court proceedings. But the point is that the Court had found that the statement was made and that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were present when it was made. Therefore, it must follow from there that the Court findings are actually consistent with the COP Report. That is why it has implications. Because what is before Parliament – which had been deferred – is the COP Report, which found that she lied and had been involved in guiding Ms Khan. And we said, wait until the outcome of the case. Then, you look at the case and the Court has looked at it. The Court says, yes, the meeting took place, they were both there, that Statement was made. So, it must follow, logically. That is why the Court judgment has implications. As to what we should do with regard to Ms Lim, that is something that should be dealt with separately. The Speaker has already indicated that if you are making assertions or if you are dealing with a particular Member, that should be the subject matter of a separate Motion.”
“The telling of the Untruth was a significant event for the WP, given the potentially serious political fallout if it were not properly managed. Yet, it is common ground that between the 8 August meeting and the 3 October Meeting, nothing was said between the appellant and Ms Khan or among the WP leaders about making preparations for a clarification of the Untruth. The complete absence of any discussion during this period is entirely consistent with Ms Khan's evidence, that at the 8 August Meeting, the appellant had told her to take the Untruth to the grave, where the upshot of the Grave Statement was that nothing further needed to be done about the Untruth. The appellant's complete inaction between the 8 August Meeting and the 3 October Meeting stands in stark contrast with the appellant's involvement in drafting Ms Khan's personal statement between 15 and 30 October 2021, following the meeting with Mr Low on 11 October", and so on. So, the point is this. The Court did not say that it was a matter of just "delay". The Court found that the explanation for "delay" was not believable and rejected it. That was what led the Court to believe, amongst other things, that the statement had, in fact, been made. Then, I come to Ms Lim's point, where Ms Lim argues that basically she has not been charged in Court; this does not really affect her and is not relevant to her. I go back to the terms of the Motion. All I am asking here is to ask the House to note that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, which have to be considered separately. I had actually in my earlier speech explained the linkage. It would have been clear from my reading of the Court judgment but let me just connect the dots for everyone.”
“There is the District Court finding that he had guided Ms Khan to lie, and we have the COP Report – do not forget, Parliament is supreme – which has found that he had lied. So, what are we to do in those circumstances? So, I have to say that the first point that Mr Singh has made is not really persuasive, and it does not answer the Motion. I come now to the second part of what he said. Mr Singh said that what he does accept is that he was guilty of taking too long to respond to Ms Khan's lie in Parliament. That, he takes responsibility for. He had mentioned that in his media interview. He repeated it again today. But that actually is not the crux of the Court finding because the Court did not find that he was liable because he took too long. In fact, the reasons that he gave for taking too long, in other words, allowing Ms Khan to go and speak to her parents and so on, the Court actually did not accept. And let me read what the Court had said. The High Court essentially did not accept Mr Singh's account of that. He said, "A person's reaction or inaction to significant events is usually revealing of his or her understanding of the events. In this case, I find that the appellant's complete failure to follow up with Ms Khan or the other WP leaders on the Untruth for around two months after the 8 August meeting up unitl the 3 October Meeting is probative of the making of the Grave Statement during the 8 August Meeting and the appellant's prevailing understanding that there was no need to proactively clarify the Untruth in Parliament. If indeed, if it was the appellant's view that Ms Khan should, at some point, clarify the untruth, one would expect that steps would have been taken to decide what, when and how such clarification should be made.”
“He went to the High Court. The High Court heard, again, the points which he wished to canvass, and he had the fullest opportunity to argue his case before the Courts; and the High Court, too, reached the same conclusion. Basically, what Mr Singh is saying today is that "Despite all of this, despite the fact that I had the fullest opportunity, every opportunity, to contest this and bring evidence, they are wrong." I accept that Mr Singh may not agree with it, but the point is this. In every society, there will be disputes. And when there are disputes, somebody has to decide, because if one person says A and another person says B, who do you believe? And that is the reason why you have Courts. That is the reason why you have Courts as a neutral and independent arbiter, with the opportunity for parties to bring the evidence and set out their case, and then the Court decides. And so, here we are today, with a Court judgment basically having found Mr Singh guilty of lying and we are being asked to note this. And in the light of this, how do we say that such conduct is acceptable? So, when each of us go internationally and we are asked, "Oh, your Leader of the Opposition, he has been convicted for lying twice. How come? Is that okay?" And our answer should be, "Oh yes, it is okay, because he says he is right. A Court judgment does not matter." How would people regard Singapore in that situation? This is not about Mr Singh per se. It is about the fact that his conduct has been adjudicated on by the Courts. The Courts have made a finding, and we are now left with a situation where, as a Parliament, we have a Leader of the Opposition who has been found guilty of two counts of lying on oath.”
“They do. And when Mr Singh says something, the question is, what are we to understand of it? And we have seen what the Courts understood of it, and we have seen what the Courts ruled that Ms Khan understood of it. We have also seen what the COP understood of it. So, fundamentally, despite the fact that he has had the full opportunity to canvass his case, he is basically saying that he does not accept the Court judgment. And this is really strange. Do you know why? It is strange because when the COP Report was brought to Parliament, Mr Singh vehemently disputed it at that time – and do not forget that this is a COP that has sat on it – and Mr Singh has come to this Parliament, today, to say, as he has said many times, Parliament is supreme. When you have a Select Committee of Parliament that makes a finding, it should be supreme. But no. If the finding affects Mr Singh, it is not supreme. It is wrong. And at that time, we agreed to refer it to the PP, basically to allow him the benefit of canvassing his case in full, and so that we would have the benefit of a full finding so that it could not be said that this Parliament somehow, unilaterally made a decision based purely on the findings of the COP. And Mr Singh had the opportunity to – well, firstly, the PP looked at it, took an independent view and found that on the face of it, charges were made out. It went to the District Court. The District Court had the benefit of seeing witnesses, hearing evidence, Mr Singh had the benefit of counsel. He had the right and the ability to cross-examine the witnesses, to show whether their evidence was really right or wrong. And the Courts listened to that, and the District Court could not accept what he said and found that he had lied to the COP. Mr Singh was dissatisfied with that.”
“After the High Court decision, Mr Singh said, "I respect and accept the judgment fully and without reservation". On the face of it, accepting the judgment should mean that he accepts the verdict but, of course, Mr Singh now tells us that that is not the case. In fact, he had an issue because he said that I did not highlight what he said earlier about the judgment also, because at that same interview, he had said that the verdict was disappointing. That is true. I looked very carefully at the media statement. He said it was disappointing, and then he went on to say – let me just look at that. He went on to say that, "I have always had deep respect for the independence, rigour and professionalism of the Courts." He said that while he was disappointed with the verdict, he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation. Actually, at that time, he never said that he disagreed with the verdict. He just said it was disappointing and there is a big difference between saying that something is disappointing and saying that you disagree with it. But on record, he had said it was disappointing. Then he went on to say that he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation. But today, he comes to Parliament to say that, actually, what he really means is that he just accepts that the Courts are there, but he does not agree that they are correct. And earlier, of course, you will notice when Mr Speaker made his ruling, Mr Singh also said that it was disappointing, but he accepted it fully and without reservation. So, I think we all know today that when Mr Singh tells you that he accepts what you say fully and without reservation, he means you are wrong. Words matter.”
“Today, they have all had a problem noting the findings of the COP. But I think they may have forgotten that when the COP Report was actually presented to Parliament several years ago, Parliament actually did resolve to note the COP Report. So, this does not do anything more than call on Parliament to do something it has already done. But then, apart from that, having agreed that honesty and integrity are fundamental, having agreed that we must act with integrity at all times and respect and abide by the law, they are somehow unable to agree that lying to the COP and guiding an MP to continue with her Untruth to Parliament is dishonourable conduct and unbecoming of an MP or to express any regret about it. That is really very puzzling. They are also unable to consider, or they find themselves unable to consider, that an MP who has been convicted by the Court for lying and for misconducting himself in the manner described is unsuitable for the role of the Leader of the Opposition. It is troubling that WP cannot see what must surely be apparent to everyone, the inherent contradictions in their position and how much of a credibility gap there is. You cannot, on the one hand, say "I uphold the highest standards", then, on the other hand, say that "I have a problem saying that conduct like this is dishonourable." It is just inconsistent. But anyway, let us examine the reasons that the WP Members have put forward for their position, and I will go through them one by one. So, the first point is Mr Singh basically is saying that he disagrees with the High Court decision over the Court decisions. We know that the Courts have found Mr Singh guilty on two counts of lying to the COP and they made other findings, which I referred to in my earlier speech.”