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 24 of 51.
“Parents of Singaporean children are eligible for six days of childcare leave per year when their youngest child is aged below seven years old, or two days of extended childcare leave per year when their youngest child is between seven to 12 years old. This childcare leave can already be taken flexibly in durations shorter than one day, as long as there is mutual agreement between employers and employees. As there may be ad-hoc occasions where parents need to attend to childcare needs for short periods of time, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) remain key to helping working parents better manage their work and family responsibilities. Exercising flexibility will help employees utilise legislated leave provisions while ensuring that employers' business needs are met, and could help parents care for their children without having to take leave as well. Together with the tripartite partners, the Ministry of Manpower promotes the adoption of FWAs by recognising progressive employers through the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, publishing FWA implementation guides, and raising the awareness of FWAs through engagements and online marketing advertisements. The Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs also sets out good practices to guide employers in providing unpaid leave for employees when their immediate family members have urgent caregiving needs. In the past year, more employers have adopted FWAs such as staggered hours or work-from-home, as part of the measures to reduce interactions in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government will continue to work with tripartite partners to study ways to have FWAs become a norm at workplaces, to better support working parents in their caregiving responsibilities.”
“These numbers increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 as employers were required to implement work-from-home to reduce interactions in the workplace. As employers and workers become more accustomed to FWAs, the Tripartite Partners could look into ways to have FWAs become a norm at workplaces, to better support working parents in their caregiving needs. We will continue to work with Tripartite Partners on this front.”
“We have enhanced childcare leave provisions progressively over the years. Following the increase in Government-Paid Childcare Leave scheme from two to six days per year in 20081 for parents with children aged below seven years old, we introduced two days of Extended Childcare Leave per year for parents with children aged 7 to 12 in 20132. We have taken a practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions. Any enhancements to childcare leave, including according more leave to parents with more children, will need to balance the caregiving needs of parents with the manpower and operational needs of employers. We also have to consider whether the enhancements would affect the employability of parents. Nonetheless, we will continue to study this issue to better support parents in caring for their children. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is more important and sustainable for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment, to help parents manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities. The Tripartite Standards on Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs) and on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively, recognise progressive companies that provide additional support for employees’ personal or caregiving responsibilities. Tripartite partners are also implementing the recommendations of the Citizens’ Panel on Work-Life Harmony that were submitted in 2019. These include efforts to grow a community of Work Life Ambassadors, and developing a guide to facilitate companies’ implementation of FWAs. Today, the vast majority of employees are benefitting from FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of FWAs.”
“The Government subsidises over 90% of the cost of education from Primary school to Junior College/ITE, about 85% for polytechnics, and about 75% for autonomous universities. (e) Parental and Childcare Leave. Mothers and fathers of Singaporean children are entitled to 16 weeks of paid Maternity Leave and two weeks of paid Paternity Leave respectively. Each working parent can also tap on six days of paid Childcare Leave per year if their youngest child is below seven years, and two days of paid Extended Childcare Leave per year if their youngest child is aged between seven and 12 years. This is in addition to other leave benefits such as Unpaid Infant Care Leave. (f) Work-life harmony support. The Tripartite Standards on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) and on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs contain the workplace practices that all employers should implement to support their employees in managing their family and work responsibilities. More details on the Marriage and Parenthood Package may be found at go.gov.sg/mpbooklet. The take-up rates for most of the support schemes have been high. As at 7 December 2020, about 99% of eligible children from the 2015 to 2019 birth cohorts have enrolled for the Baby Bonus Scheme. The majority of parents also use their Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave, and Childcare Leave. We regularly review our support measures for parents in order to ensure a Singapore that is Made for Families.”
“Between 2015 and 2019, annually an average of 15,234 and 11,548 mothers had their first and second child respectively. On average, married women have close to two children. This data is consistent with the findings of the National Population and Talent Division’s 2016 Marriage and Parenthood survey, in which 92% of married respondents indicated that they intend to have at least two children. The Government is strongly committed to support Singaporeans who want to start or expand their families. The Marriage and Parenthood Package, which has been enhanced several times over the years, provides extensive support for families in areas such as: (a) Support for child-raising expenses. First- and second-born children qualify for a Baby Bonus Cash Gift of $8,000, and up to $6,000 in Government contributions in the Child Development Account. To encourage parents to have more children, higher birth order children receive more benefits. (b) Healthcare assistance. All newborns receive a $4,000 MediSave Grant, free childhood vaccinations (for vaccinations in the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule) and free developmental screenings at polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) General Practitioner clinics. (c) Preschool subsidies. Working mothers receive basic childcare subsidies of $600 per month for infant care and $300 per month for full-day childcare. They also receive an additional means-tested subsidy of up to $710 for full-day infant care and $467 for full-day childcare, if their gross monthly household income is $12,000 and below. This helps to make quality preschool more affordable for parents (d) Educational subsidies.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that Parliament do now adjourn. Mdm Deputy Speaker, to be more specific, I beg to move that Parliament do now adjourn to Tuesday, 16 February 2021. The Deputy Prime Minister looking very anxious so I should make sure that it is on 16 February! [Laughter.] [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Tuesday, 16 February 2021." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] Adjourned accordingly at 6.29 pm.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification. He is right. There is a trade-off, but we would not trade a child's life for something like that.”
“In the past year, more employers have adopted flexible work arrangements such as flexible work timings or remote work, as part of measures to reduce interactions in the workplace during the pandemic. We call upon employers to adopt the Tripartite Standards and to continue exercising flexibility, including allowing employees to work-from-home to care for their children who are issued medical leave. A sustainable way to help parents better juggle their work and childcare needs is to make flexible work arrangements a norm in our workplaces. Technology solutions and workplace practices put in place by employers to facilitate remote work during the COVID-19 period could also be extended beyond the crisis. The Government will work with the tripartite partners to study ways to foster a more family-friendly work environment and to better support working parents.”
“Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers and employees have had to make adjustments to work arrangements to cope with the evolving situation. In February 2020, the Ministry of Health advised doctors to issue five days of medical leave to patients with respiratory symptoms in order to reduce the risk of community spread. As a result, we recognise that working parents may face challenges balancing their work commitments and caring for a sick child at home. Today, each working parent of a Singaporean child is eligible for up to six days of paid childcare leave if their child is under the age of seven years, or two days of paid extended childcare leave if their child is between seven and 12 years. In addition, almost half of all employees in Singapore have more than 14 days of annual leave. Parents who are unable to work from home due to the nature of their work can avail themselves of these childcare or annual leave entitlements. We have taken a practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions. Any enhancements, even if time-limited, will need to account for the manpower and operational needs of employers, as well as the caregiving needs of parents. Rather than expanding leave provisions during this time, we encourage employers to provide a work environment that helps parents manage their work and family responsibilities. The Government, together with unions and employers, introduced a Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements in 2017, and a Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs in 2018, to establish good practices that all employers should implement to support their employees’ personal or caregiving responsibilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Preservation of Dover Forest in Ulu Pandan 8.46 pm”
“The Child Development Account (CDA) was introduced to support the development needs of children, such as for preschool and healthcare. Parents can use the CDA to pay for expenses at Approved Institutions such as childcare centres, kindergartens, hospitals and clinics. The Government regularly reviews the CDA scheme to consider feedback from parents and to better support the developmental needs of children. Parents have provided us feedback that they would find it helpful if the Government expands approved uses of CDA funds to cover Student Care Centre (SCC) expenses. We are thus already considering this as part of our ongoing review of the CDA scheme and we will provide an update on this in due course. The possible use of CDA funds are not the only way that parents are provided support for student care. To ensure the affordability of student care, MSF provides children from lower-income families with monthly subsidies of up to 98% (up to a maximum amount of $290) of student care fees and a one-off grant (up to $400) to offset enrolment costs under the ComCare Student Care Fee Assistance (SCFA) scheme. These subsidies are administered through MSF-registered SCCs. Since 1 July 2020, MSF has enhanced the SCFA scheme by: (a) Increasing the amount of subsidies such that eligible families receive up to $60 more in student care subsidies each month; and (b) Raising the monthly household income ceiling from $4,000 to $4,500 and per capita income ceiling from $1,000 to $1,125 so that more families qualify. These enhancements are part of the Government's ongoing efforts to ensure that lower-income families continue to be able to afford student care.”
“These numbers have increased during the COVID-19 period with employers required to implement work-from-home and FWAs for the safety of their workers. As employers and workers become more accustomed to FWAs, it is opportune for Tripartite Partners to study ways to evolve and entrench FWAs, to better support working parents in their caregiving needs.”
“We have enhanced parental leave provisions progressively over the years. Following the enhancement of the Government-Paid Childcare Leave scheme for parents with children aged below seven years old from two to six days per year in 20081, we introduced two days of Extended Childcare Leave per year to parents with children aged 7 to 12 in 20132. In 2017, we also increased paternity leave to two weeks, and enhanced shared parental leave from one to four weeks.2 We have taken a practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions. Any enhancements will need to balance the caregiving needs of parents with the manpower and operational needs of employers. In particular, given that childcare leave is provided for 12 years after birth, we are careful to avoid inadvertently affecting parents' employability. Beyond legislated leave provisions, it is important for employers to provide a family-friendly work environment, to help parents manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities. The Tripartite Standards on Flexible Working Arrangements (FWAs) and Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively, recognise progressive companies that provide additional support for employees' personal or caregiving responsibilities. Tripartite partners are also progressively implementing the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony that were submitted last year, such as growing a community of Work Life Ambassadors, and developing an FWA implementation guide to facilitate companies in implementing FWAs. Today, the vast majority of employees are benefitting from FWAs. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of FWAs.”
“Like other countries, Singapore monitors resident TFR because it measures how well the resident population, which comprises Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, is replacing itself through births. Resident TFR remained at 1.14 in 2019, the same as the year before. The Government does not compute the TFR of LTVP holders who are married to Singaporeans separately from the resident TFR, because it is difficult to compute it in a meaningful way. A meaningful computation of TFR will require the population included in the computation to be measured over the full childbearing age range. However, many LTVP spouses go on to become Permanent Residents and Singapore Citizens, before the end of their childbearing years. Therefore, we are unable to meaningfully compute the LTVP TFR, given the degree of change in the LTVP population, and because only a small proportion of LTVP spouses tends to be at the end of their childbearing years. In addition, resident TFR already accounts for births to LTVP holders who are married to Singaporeans. Resident TFR for any given year is calculated based on the residency status of parents, where the numerator corresponds to resident births and the denominator corresponds to all females who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents, or are Non-Residents married to men who are Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents. Births to at least one resident parent will contribute towards the resident TFR.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Providing More Help for Those Undergoing In-vitro Fertilisation”
“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 Speaker, Sir, I do not have the facts with respect to the 1997 case. But the point is that there does not seem to be anything in what Mr Singh has said which indicates why further action was not taken. We do not know at this point of time and I do not wish to speculate. The point I wish to make is that it is not at all clear that that has anything to do with the fact that the PP also has an AG role. I think where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from is that whatever the case in the prosecution, people must feel satisfied that the prosecutor in exercising his functions and duties, has done so properly. And I have given an example of how not in 1997 but many years down the line, where it is a case of the company and potential liability for individuals, company was pursued and the case against individuals is still open. So, you can see that whatever it is, the Public Prosecutor looks at it and where it is appropriate, takes the necessary action.”
“If the person has resigned from the political party, the person takes on the duties, knows the duties and has not given any cause for concern or acted in any way, then there is no reason why the public should feel alarmed. But and this is a big "but", if that person in any way shows that he or she is not acting in accordance with the duties, then appropriate action would have to be taken. That is how we can make sure that our system remains independent, remains strong and remains robust. But I welcome the debate because I understand what drives it, which is the desire to improve the system and to make one better for Singapore. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestions.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarifications. He raised three. Let me deal with them in turn. With respect to the first one, he mentioned a concern where he articulated that you go after the company and not the individuals. It so happens that in this case, I think if he is referring to the previous case of Keppel O&M, as I had explained in a previous answer in Parliament, that a conditional warning was issued to the company with various penalties. And in that case I had also explained that with respect to the individuals, evidence still needed to be gathered and that it was not a case where somebody had got off or not got off. But rather, it was a case where the Public Prosecutor was facing challenges in terms of getting the evidence. In fact, those investigations still continue. The Attorney-General's office or the Public Prosecutor's office has requested further information and it is still pending. That is out of our hands. The second point was with respect to the term. I am not sure if I got the point correctly. Just to extend the timing maybe to a longer period. Yes. You can take different terms, it depends on various countries. But the point I was making, and which is actually the more fundamental point, whatever the term is, during that term, nobody can interfere with that person's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion. And that is what guarantees the independence of the system. The third point, how the public perceives it if somebody who was a former politician becomes a Public Prosecutor, the answer is has that person given anyone any cause for concern?”
“If the argument is being made that he may have a conflict because of a political reason, would he have to charge somebody who, for example, was from the party previously whom he knows, that is a different argument. That is basically a situation where you see a conflict of interest in which case, the right thing, the proper thing to do is you recuse yourself. Which is exactly the approach that has been taken all along. It is standard procedure. Lawyers do that all the time. Mr Singh did point out that appearances are important, he referred to how in this case, it was mentioned that the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani and that he would recuse himself from any on-going review of the case. As Minister Shanmugam explained, the earlier part of the prosecution, Mr Wong had nothing to do with it at all. That was dealt with at a different level. And since the matter has surfaced, he has recused himself very properly. And the point I am making is that this is how the system works and that is the assurance that people can have, that if there is some conflict, that the Deputy Attorney-General or the Attorney-General will do the correct thing. So, I believe, Mr Speaker, I have addressed the points raised by Mr Singh. I just would conclude by saying that it seems that there is much in common. There are some differences in terms of the approach towards the Motion which Mr Murali's amendment addresses. I therefore support the amended Motion. [Applause.]”
“Because Ms Sylvia Lim before when she raised this point, talked about not having an ex-Member of Parliament, or MP, as the Attorney-General. But shifted slightly – now, it has just become only Public Prosecutor. But never mind. Let me let me deal with it in any event. The reason given by Mr Singh was this. He said firstly it would be natural for a former elected MP to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if the Public Prosecutor who was previously an MP does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot help but be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold. As a Public Prosecutor who was an MP of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, he is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways. On the face of it, yes, it sounds a little bit worrying. But let us ask ourselves, what does that actually mean? What are the political views of the party that Mr Hri Kumar used to be in, for example. Well, one of the views is we believe in meritocracy. As a member of the PAP, we believe in meritocracy. We believe in integrity. We believe in not having a corrupt system. We believe in access of justice. I am not sure how this would affect his prosecutorial functions. We also believe in a green and sustainable Singapore. I am not sure how that would affect his prosecutorial functions as well. I mean, what is it about the beliefs of the PAP that would somehow affect his prosecutorial functions? Nothing. There is nothing. Read our entire manifesto. There is nothing in there that would conflict with the ability of the Deputy Attorney-General to prosecute cases.”
“And in our case, it is not easy. And that gives the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor the assurance of knowing that he can carry out his duty without interference. Mr Singh then went on to say he had two suggestions for improvements, but the improvements are premised on being able to make out that there is a case that there was a conflict. And I have addressed why there is no conflict. But there is one point I want to address, which is security of tenure. Because I think the point that Mr Singh will likely make is that, well, you have all these safeguards, but if you have a relatively short term of tenure, then that sort of takes away from the ability to be independent. But actually, that is not the case either. There is no general rule for tenure. Some countries have a fixed tenure for their Attorneys-General, and some do not. Officers in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong have no security of tenure and typically serve predetermined terms which may be renewable. And in the US, there is no security of tenure at all. In the words of one of their former Attorney-Generals who was asked to resign, he said, "I serve at the pleasure of the President. I've understood that from the day I took the job". So, what is more important is the constitutional safeguards against removal, and those we have in Singapore. The third point that Mr Singh made was that he suggested that the system eschews the appointment of ex-Member of Parliament as a Public Prosecutor. And he did say that such an individual can be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. That too is a little bit different from the position advanced by Ms Sylvia Lim before.”
“But the Prime Minister cannot do it just as a whim. The Prime Minister does it in consultation with the Chief Justice, in consultation with the incumbent Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Appointment is one thing. The next thing is removal. It is very difficult under our system to remove the Attorney-General. Removal is by the President and this time not acting on advice. It is by the President, acting in his or her discretion, and if it concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice except if the AG is unable to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause or for misbehaviour. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 13, Correction by Written Statement section.] So, the Prime Minister cannot just say, "I advise you to get rid of the AG because I happen not to like the way he did this prosecution, or I wanted him to do this and he did not do it". He cannot. The Prime Minister is constrained by the constitutional provisions. And further, the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice without the concurrence of a tribunal, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the Supreme Court. So, our system has safeguards to ensure the independence of the Attorney-General and this is very different from other jurisdictions. In fact, in the US, for example, the Attorney-General's position is entirely at the President's pleasure. So, it is not so much about the appointment. It is about whether or not once that person is in place, how easy is it for you to remove him.”
“So, we have had no issue with prosecuting anybody, whether Government-linked or not, provided the PP sees that there is a case on the face of it to bring charges. Then, Mr Singh went on to say that it would be difficult, for example, if in the case of – it is a hypothetical example, not a current one – a future government, where the Prime Minister and the AG may be very chummy and therefore the Attorney-General or the PP may not wish to bring a prosecution, either against the Prime Minister if there was an offence committed or somebody close, that thereby, he may have a desire to keep his job for favours or simply because the hypothetical alleged future Prime Minister and the AG are cronies. Sir, section 22G of the Constitution provides that the Director of CPIB can go to the President if the Prime Minister refuses to proceed with a corruption investigation. The Constitution has many checks and balances. And it envisages that if such a situation may happen where the Prime Minister does not act in accordance with his duty, there is a check, there is a balance, and there is an avenue where corruption and other offences can be prosecuted. So, really, I have dealt with the alleged conflict. And the position is that there is no conflict between the two roles, for the reasons I have explained. Mr Singh did point out that in other countries and he named two. He did not name them, but we know who they are. He said that in both these countries that prominent cases of the Attorney-General being subject to political pressure. And that is precisely the point. Our system protects the Attorney-General from being subject to political pressure. First, with the appointment of the AG. The AG is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.”
“So, when he protects the Government's interest in legislation, that has nothing to do with his prosecutorial function. His other role as advisor is international affairs. When he is advising the Government on international affairs, that has nothing to do with prosecution. The third one – civil matters. When he is advising the Government on civil matters, that has nothing to do with his role as a prosecutor. And when it comes to his role as a prosecutor, we agree he must be able to prosecute without fear or favour – and he does. The track record shows that the Attorney-General has prosecuted high level people before, without fear or favour. This includes, for example, the prosecution of Mr Ng Boon Gay, the former director of the CNB; the prosecution of Mr Peter Lim, the former SCDF Commissioner; and more recently, the charges against Mr Pek Lian Guan, CEO and Executive Director of Tiong Seng Holdings, and Pay Teow Heng, Director of Tiong Seng Contractors (Private) Limited. So, there has never been an issue about being able to act independently. Mr Singh then raised a couple of examples of where there may be such conflict. And he talked about the difficulty the AG may have in prosecuting Government-linked companies, for example. But again, that is not the case because we have had no difficulty doing that. In 2017, seven former officers of ST Marine who had been charged were convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and/or for other offences. These officers included former Presidents of ST Marine See Leong Teck and Chang Cheow Teck. ST Marine is a subsidiary of ST Engineering, which is in turn, majority-owned by Temasek Holdings, which is a Government-linked company.”
“You take the Government's instructions on the civil matters, on the other matters, but not when it comes to the decision to prosecute. In responding to that, then Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also pointed out that the reason why the role is separate in other countries is because in those countries where the roles are separate – in countries such as UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – the Attorney-General holds political office. He is a political office holder or he sits in Cabinet. There is therefore the question of being subject to political pressures and the separation of the role of the Attorney-General from the public prosecutor in those jurisdictions has to be looked at in that context because he is subject to political pressure. Whereas here – and I will go on to discuss that in a bit more detail later – our situation is different because our Constitution has safeguards in that our AG does not hold political office. The constitutional safeguards ensure that he is protected from such political pressures, and it allows him to discharge both his roles as PP and the Government's legal advisor without fear or favour. I come back to Mr Singh's argument today. Previously, the argument was you should do it the same way as other countries because of independence. And then, of course, it was pointed out that in other countries, because the AG is a political office holder, that is why you have to separate it. So, today, the argument is that as the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. Well, yes and no. Because as Mr Singh pointed out, as the Government's legal advisor, the AG takes charge of legislation.”
“Indeed, she had, but not quite in the same way. So, what I want to do is firstly, address how Ms Sylvia Lim articulated it and then, I will go on to address how Mr Singh articulated it. To be fair, they both want to reach the same point, which is that there is a conflict so you should decouple them. But actually, the argument has evolved a little bit. Let me first start off with how Ms Sylvia Lim first put it. She put it in this way: "in order to further strengthen the system and shore up the independence of the Public Prosecutor", we should "consider splitting the two roles...to reside in two different offices, so that the person who is the Public Prosecutor or PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. I believe this separation exists in other countries to enhance the independence of the PP's office." So, the first point that she made was that, you must decouple it so that the person, who is the PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. But this argument is not correct because in non-criminal matters the Attorney-General advises the Government, the Government is his client. And similar to private sector matters, he takes in instructions on matters which are within the Government's purview. But in criminal matters, the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute. The Executive and the Cabinet have no say in that. So, there is no issue with the same person in both roles because the system ensures that in his PP role, the AG acts independently. And the thrust of that argument that Ms Sylvia Lim originally made was that, you are taking the Government's instructions.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when Ms Sylvia Lim moved this Motion, she said that she was not saying that the system is broken but it can be improved. She also said that today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts; far from it, it is about a desire to raise the system to the next level, which indeed I think is something that we can all agree on. The Workers' Party had put forward some suggestions. These have been debated. I would like in my speech to address the suggestions that were put forward by Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, specifically with regard to decoupling the function of the Attorney-General and the function of the Public Prosecutor. Mr Singh made three points. But actually, the second two points are really premised on the first. So, let me deal with the first one. His first point was that there is, allegedly, a weakness in our prosecutorial structure and that arises from the two roles of the AG: one being his role as the Government's legal advisor and the other being the role as a Public Prosecutor. In the first, he takes charge of three areas – legislation, international affairs and civil matters. In the second, as the Public Prosecutor, he has to prosecute without fear or favour. The essence of Mr Singh's argument is that there is a conflict, an inherent conflict in these two roles. And he articulated it in this form, that as the Government's legal advisor, the Attorney-General's duty is to protect the interests of the Government and as the Public Prosecutor, it is to represent the public and prosecute without fear or favour. In addressing this, he also mentioned that Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this point previously.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Mr Murali Pillai's speech so that he can explain.”
“Mr Speaker, I see Members looked hopeful when I got to my feet. I just wish to inform Members that I will be moving for us to continue past the moment of interruption.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (proc text)] [(proc text) (a) the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and (proc text)] [(proc text) (b) Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament". (proc text)]”
“Standing Order 50(2) provides that “[r]eference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice”, that is to say, matters which are pending before the Courts. In order to allow the Minister to give a full account of the matter to Parliament and so that Members will not be restricted in their ability to seek clarifications or to discuss or debate the case, which has raised issues of significant public interest, it is necessary to lift Standing Order 50(2). It is for this reason that I am moving this Motion to lift the application of Standing Order 50(2), so that the issues may be fully ventilated in this House today. In so doing, I wish to sound a cautionary note. The sub judice rule is one that we normally adhere to, for good reason. However, here, we will be discussing the issues because there is a clear public interest for the questions raised about our criminal justice system to be addressed sooner, rather than later. It is not clear when the existing proceedings will conclude, and it is not satisfactory to defer the Parliamentary discussion of the case for months or indefinitely. This should not be regarded as a general precedent, but something that is necessary for the present circumstances. I would also urge Members to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications, and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point they are making. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders: (a) the Minister for Home Affairs and Law may, in his statement on the Parti Liyani case, give Parliament a full account of the conduct of the police officers and prosecutors involved in that case, and clarifications may be sought and given on the account given by the Minister; and (b) Members may refer to and discuss the account given by the Minister when the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim is under consideration by Parliament.” Sir, the Parti Liyani case has generated significant public interest. Numerous questions were filed by Members after the High Court gave its judgment, including questions in relation to the Police investigations and/or the prosecution of the case by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and what would be done to address the issues that were identified in the High Court’s judgment. Ms Lim has also filed a motion relating to the justice system and I understand from public statements made by the Workers’ Party that this will also touch on the Parti Liyani matter. Given the significant public interest in these issues, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law will shortly be delivering a Ministerial Statement. The Minister intends that Members should be able to seek clarifications on his Statement. There is also the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim. Given the topic of Ms Lim’s Motion, it is also possible that in the debate on the Motion, Members may refer to matters in the Ministerial Statement. The speech, discussion and clarifications are likely to go into matters that may also be relevant to existing proceedings.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]”
“Mdm Deputy 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) so far as it is necessary to enable Minister Desmond Lee to speak more than once? This is because several queries have been directed to him in respect of his earlier speech and this is to enable the Minister to reply to the queries raised by Members.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2." – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]”
“We also considered the option of self-collection at the nearest Community Club or Centre, but this would create additional inconvenience for senior citizens, especially those with mobility issues. There may also be crowding at the collection points. On balance, we sent the grocery vouchers via registered mail for optimal convenience to the intended recipients. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for safe distancing, SingPost adopted contactless delivery measures earlier this year, including the redirection of registered mail services to the letterboxes. SingPost will monitor and verify successful deliveries to recipients' letterboxes, with a photo taken by the postman as proof of delivery. To mitigate theft and fraud, each voucher has unique features which enable us to identify the intended recipient and trace any voucher to specific locations and time of transaction. That said, we will continue to review the on-going disbursements to balance between security and convenience for recipients. 3.01 pm”
“The Grocery Vouchers scheme aims to help less well-off Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty. All Singaporeans aged 21 and above in 2020 living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats, who do not own more than one property, are eligible. This group of recipients is largely older, with the majority aged 55 and above. About 150,000 sets of Grocery Vouchers, each worth $150, were mailed out via tracked registered mail to eligible Singaporeans in October this year. Of these 150,000 sets, the vast majority reached their intended recipients smoothly. Two hundred and twenty-nine sets, or less than 0.2%, have been reported as stolen as of 28 October 2020. The Police are investigating the reported theft cases and have made 55 arrests as of 28 October 2020. Based on SPF's investigations, the thefts appear to be opportunistic and the cases are not linked. In some cases, the recipients had left their letter boxes unlocked. The small number of vouchers reported as stolen have been voided and replacement vouchers are being issued to eligible recipients. We encourage everyone to keep their letter boxes locked and repair any damaged letter boxes to avoid theft. On the choice of the delivery mode, we balanced between public health constraints amidst COVID-19, reasonable convenience for the recipients and security. Some of the recipients may not own a smartphone, have a mobile data plan, or be digitally ready. If digital vouchers were used, more time and effort would have been needed to first provide appropriate digital interfaces, before the recipients can receive the intended support with their household expenses. That said, as digital literacy improves among older Singaporeans, we may be able to consider digital vouchers for this group in future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Eradicating Mental Health Stigmatisation 7.57 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolution accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beyond the moment of interruption?”
“Mr Speaker, I had addressed the considerations that we had in mind with respect to single unwed parents.What I would reiterate – because I think the learned Member's concern is whether or not they would have adequate support. So, irrespective of whether they have the Baby Support Grant, if they are, indeed, struggling and if they are in need, please do approach the SSO. There are other schemes available and in place and we will look to see how we can support them.”
“I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his question. I think the approach that we would take is this. This particular scheme has a very specific policy intent, which is to encourage those who are delaying to proceed with their parenthood plans. So, for those who are already low income, proceeding with parenthood plans would add to some of the responsibilities that they have. If they are low income and they have children from 1 October onwards, they will get the Baby Support Grant. No issue. I think Mr Singh's question is: can we extend the Baby Support Grant to those born before 1 October who are low income. For those, what we will do is we will utilise the existing schemes that we have for the low-income to make sure that they are taken care of and their needs are taken care of, because we do actually have a very strong social support system. The SSOs were set up for this purpose, ComCare was put in place for this purpose and there are many different schemes which are aimed at that. So, the assurance that we can give is that if you are low income and you have had your child before 1 October and you have financial difficulties, we will help you. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of the Baby Support Grant, but we will still help you.”
“In 2016 and 2017, we further extended support to unwed parents, including the Government-Paid Maternity Leave and the Child Development Account which includes the CDA First Step, that is, the $3,000 I mentioned earlier, and the matched co-savings from the Government. These benefits aim to support the child's developmental and care-giving needs, as well as the parents' efforts to provide for the child. As society continues to evolve, our policies will be updated to keep pace with societal realities. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has made this a difficult year for everyone. Many groups of fellow Singaporeans need our support. Parents who have children, or are planning to have children, are one such group. Hence, I am heartened by the efforts of many corporates and community partners which have joined the Government’s efforts in further supporting Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I hope that many more will come on board. We do understand the difficulties that families, especially those with babies and young children, face during this period, and have implemented measures like the one I described earlier. We will continue to support families during these extraordinary times and I seek Members’ and fellow Singaporeans’ understanding about the start date for the Baby Support Grant, which is one additional measure among many. This Government remains committed to supporting the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans and we will continue to review and enhance the strong suite of measures already in place to help Singaporeans form and grow families.”
“Those included recommendations to further encourage and enable companies to provide flexible work arrangements, such as through recognition schemes as well as the nomination of Work-Life Ambassadors. The Panel also called for the shift of societal norms over time, to one where family time and other life priorities are placed above work and workplace practices become more progressive and family-friendly. So, we can see that the idea here is that it is not just about money but how to make Singapore a place that is conducive for families as a whole. Ms He had a specific question on singles and whether the Baby Support Grant, or BSG, would be applicable or whether they are eligible for it. The answer is that they would not be eligible for it. The BSG is a one-off grant to help reassure couples and minimise delays in their marriage and parenthood plans. The BSG is an add-on to the Baby Bonus Cash Gift which, in itself, was designed to encourage marriage and parenthood. So, it is not quite consistent to extend it to singles in this context. However, I would like to assure all that Government benefits that support the growth and development of children are given to all Singaporean children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. So, benefits that are available to all parents to support them in their care-giving responsibilities would include childcare and infant care subsidies, the MediSave Grant for newborns, MediShield Life coverage from birth, infant care and childcare leave, the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy concession and, in addition to the above, every Singaporean child will benefit from education and healthcare subsidies and has access to social assistance, regardless of their parents' marital status.”
“On top of this, we gave each parent with at least one citizen child aged 20 years and below as of 31 December 2020, an additional Care and Support – Cash payout of $300, that is an additional $600 per couple. Hence, a Singaporean couple with a child, including those with babies born before 1 October, could already receive up to $3,000 in additional cash support this year. In addition to these, all households with at least one Singaporean citizen member would have received the Solidarity Utilities Credit of $100. Eligible HDB households can also receive up to 2.5 times their regular GST Voucher – U-Save and up to 3.5 months of Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) Rebate. Such a household living in a 4-room flat with five or more can receive $800 in U-Save and 2.5 months of S&CC Rebate this financial year. On the support for jobs and salary, the Government has also provided significant support to ease concerns about employment. This includes employment and salary support through the SG United Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Support Scheme. I have listed the financial support, but we all do know, of course, that it is not just about the money or the finances because there are other things that are factored in when couples are deciding to have a child. In this regard, we have taken many steps to make sure that we provide additional support, from increasing the number of pre-school spaces to also working on flexible work arrangements. Ms He Ting Ru earlier spoke about a holistic approach and I am so glad that she agrees with us because these were exactly the recommendations of the Citizens' Panel on Work-Life Harmony.”
“This is about one third less than what they would have paid previously. When their child turns 18 months, the amount that the couple needs to pay for childcare at an Anchor Operator will further reduce to $280 per month. Next, free National Childhood Immunisation Schedule or NCIS vaccinations and developmental screenings. From 1 November 2020, that means next month, all Singaporean children – and this applies to all Singaporean children today regardless of when they were born – can also receive free childhood vaccinations on the national schedule and developmental screenings, at all Polyclinics and Community Health Assist Scheme General Practitioners or CHAS GPs. This extension of fully subsidised services at our CHAS GPs will improve affordability and accessibility for parents, who can now enjoy these services islandwide. Next, support for households, jobs and salary amidst COVID-19. The other source of concern on the part of many parents, like other Singaporeans, are the employment-related challenges and anxieties at this time. Raising children during the COVID-19 pandemic can be more challenging, especially if a member of the family has lost his or her job. We recognised this earlier in the year and provided more support for households, as well as jobs and salary support. To provide more assurance and support to Singaporeans with their household expenses during this period of economic uncertainty, the Government provided the Solidarity Payment and Care and Support – Cash payout in April and June, to every Singaporean aged 21 years and above. This amounted to $600 to $1,200 per Singaporean, depending on income.”
“While the extra Baby Support Grant is for babies born from 1 October 2020, parents whose babies were born before 1 October 2020 will receive, and in some cases, have already received cash and cash-like benefits, which were last enhanced in 2015 and 2016. They would have received, for example: (a) between $8,000 and $10,000 in the Baby Bonus Cash Gift; (b) $3,000 First Step Grant, deposited into the Child Development Account or the CDA, without parents having to first save into the CDA; (c) between $3,000 and $15,000 in Government co-savings for the CDA; and (d) a $4,000 grant which is deposited into the Medisave account that is open for every newborn, that is the Medisave Grant for Newborns. So, the total cash and cash-like support that parents can receive ranges from $18,000 for their first child to $32,000 for their fifth and subsequent children, even without the Baby Support Grant. This is over and above the other support in the Marriage & Parenthood Package, some of which we also enhanced this year. Let me highlight some of these. First, more subsidies for infant and childcare. There have been suggestions from the public that more help with affordable childcare will go further than a one-off cash grant. Since 1 January 2020, the household income ceiling for the Additional Subsidy has been raised from $7,500 per month to $12,000 per month. This means that many more households can receive this support. The amount of subsidies provided have also been increased. Today, after the enhanced subsidies, families can receive up to $1,310 each month in infant care subsidies or up to $767 each month in childcare subsidies. A working couple who earns a combined income of $8,000 a month, pays $524 per month per child for full-day infant care at an Anchor Operator pre-school.”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the Motion that the debate on Deputy Prime Minister’s Ministerial Statement be taken now. This will allow the House to resume its debate on the Ministerial Statement on Government's strategy to emerge stronger from the COVID-19 Pandemic given on 5 October and conclude on its consideration, before the House proceeds to vote on the sums contained in the Third Supplementary Estimates for FY 20/21 and the Third Supplementary Supply and Budget Adjustments (FY 2020) Bill.”