Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 28.
“MHA would prefer to take a risk-calibrated approach by imposing the ROs on Joint-Alternate accounts and exempting Joint-All accounts given their lower risk of being depleted through scams. However, the banks have informed us that it would be operationally challenging for them to implement such a proposal. Hence, we have decided to impose the ROs on both types of joint accounts for a start. This is not ideal, but we have decided to go ahead with the Bill at this juncture to provide victims with the necessary protection at the soonest. We will continue to work with the banks to explore the possibility of putting in place technical solutions to facilitate such exemptions in the future. We will notify all joint account holders should an RO be imposed. We will also facilitate their access of monies in the joint accounts. Members have asked how family members of individuals would be involved and consulted when an RO is being issued, cancelled or renewed, and whether family members or banks can initiate for Police to consider issuing an RO. Mr Sharael Taha asked if the issuance of an RO should be contingent on a valid complaint lodged by a credible party, such as a family member. Members of the public, including a victim’s family members, can make a Police report, when they suspect that an individual or their family member has encountered a scam. The Police will conduct investigations and assess if an RO should be issued. In determining whether an RO should be issued, the Police may engage the victim’s family members, to assess if there is reason to believe that the victim is being scammed, and to explore whether it would suffice for the family to intervene and convince the individual that he or she is the victim of a scam without the need for an RO.”
“Officers will issue an RO if they have reason to believe that the individual will make monetary transfers to a scammer, withdraw any money and give it to a scammer, or apply for or draw down from any credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. The RO will only restrict banking transactions and credit facilities of the individual, but not that of a third party assisting an individual to make monetary transfers. However, if the third party is also an unwitting victim of the scammer and similarly, at risk of making monetary transfers of his or her own to the scammer, then the officers may similarly consider whether that individual should be the subject of a separate RO. Mr Sharael Taha asked how ROs can be issued in an efficient manner, such that it is effective in preventing victims from transferring further funds to scammers. We recognise that speed is of essence in preventing losses, but the Police must also conduct the necessary investigations to determine if a case has met the threshold for issuance of an RO. The Police will also work closely with the banks, which are co-located at the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom), in their investigations and in effecting the restrictions on the victim’s bank account. Ms Hazel Poa asked if ROs would be applicable to joint accounts and noted that doing so would inconvenience the joint account holders who are not subject to an RO. There are two types of joint accounts: Joint-Alternate accounts where each account holder can perform banking transactions without the consent of the other account holders and Joint-All accounts where all account holders must give their instruction for any bank transaction.”
“Ms Hazel Poa suggested to allow individuals to opt out of the RO regime, given that they have the right to determine the use of their monies. As pointed out by Ms Ng and Ms Poa, it is indeed our policy intent to balance between protecting an individual from harm and respecting the individual's autonomy and personal responsibility. And this is why the RO is meant to be a measure of last resort and is only issued temporarily – for a maximum of 30 days at the outset and extended up to five times if necessary. The RO will lapse after the maximum number of renewals, even if the individual remains set on transferring monies to the scammer. As I had mentioned in my opening speech, we cannot handhold the victim indefinitely. But we will do all that we can while the RO is in force to bring the individual to his senses. If the individual persists in making transfers to scammers after the maximum RO period, the responsibility must lie with the individual. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Government would consider lowering the threshold to issue an RO, in order to minimise scam losses. He also asked if a third party would be subject to an RO, if the third party assists an individual who is subjected to an RO to transfer monies to the scammers. Indeed, the authorities have to intervene decisively in scam cases, in order to protect the individual and minimise losses. However, imposing an RO entails causing significant inconvenience to the individual subjected to the RO. It is therefore important for officers to carry out due diligence so that they can assess whether an RO is warranted and avoid, or at least minimise, the mistakes in blocking an account that Mr Yip cautioned against. Our view is that the current threshold stipulated in the Bill is appropriate.”
“Second, an RO is necessary to protect a scam victim, having regard to the time required to engage the victim and implement risk mitigation measures. Officers will assess every case based on the specific facts and circumstances. This is what the Police are trained to do in the course of any investigation. As an example, in their assessment, the Police will consider factors such as: one, whether the victim is still in communication with a scammer; two, whether the victim has transferred monies to the scammer; three, whether the victim continues to believe the scammer; and four, whether the victim is likely to transfer money to a scammer. Assoc Prof Razwana asked about what it means for the attempts by the Police to convince the individual having been "exhausted". Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether parents can be involved in the risk mitigation measures and what "other circumstances" we have in mind when determining whether an RO is required to protect the victim. Our policy intent is for the RO to be issued as a last resort. By extension, this means that wherever feasible, we intend to explore other interventions first, and to only issue an RO if these other interventions fail. These interventions could include engaging the relatives of the victim or other persons, which could include the victim's parents where appropriate. We have drafted the legal provision broadly to empower the Police to take into account the specific circumstances of the case, which can vary significantly, when making their assessments. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked whether the responsibility should ultimately rest with the victim, if the Police are unable to convince the victim of the scam.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill and their suggestions. They have raised important questions, which I will now address. First, on the scope of the Bill. Ms Ng Ling Ling asked if the RO could be expanded to include other entities, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, remittance companies and e-wallet providers, should scammers shift their tactics to exploit these platforms. MHA recognises that there is a risk that such entities can also serve as intermediaries in the scam chain. However, as a start, we will impose restrictions only on bank accounts and credit facilities, which would address a significant number of scam cases and reduce the risk of fund flows to scammers. We will continue to work with MAS to monitor the scam situation and consider expanding the scope of the Restriction Order in future, if necessary. Mr Neil Parekh asked about the criteria and process for including new scam offences into the Schedule to the Bill. We will consider including a new offence into the Schedule if it has nexus to scams, such as offences related to cheating or fraud. The Minister for Home Affairs can amend the Schedule to include the new offences. Mr Neil Parekh also asked what the minimum threshold for issuing an RO would be. Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Usha Chandradas asked how the threshold of "reasonable belief" would be established, when assessing whether an RO should be issued, renewed or cancelled. An RO can be issued once two conditions are satisfied. First, there is reason to believe that the victim is likely to make a monetary transfer to a scammer, withdraw money and give it to a scammer, or apply for a draw down from a credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer.”
“The individual can also apply to withdraw a fixed amount of money for the purposes of daily living, or to pay medical bills and insurance premiums. We believe that this Bill is necessary as it enables us to stem scam losses and prevent scam victims from losing their life savings due to a moment of impulse or fear. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Such scams exploit an individual’s respect for authority, human desires and longing for companionship and love. In some cases, the victims were so taken in by the scammers’ deceit that they refused to believe that they were being scammed, despite being repeatedly advised by their family, the banks or the Police. The Police and the banks have no legal powers to stop victims from making further transfers, so victims may continue to transfer money to scammers until they finally realise that they have been scammed, or until they have lost their life savings. Not only are the victims affected, their families, spouses, children and parents may also need to support the victims financially and emotionally. In some of these cases, families have to appeal to the Government for financial assistance. The authorities need the powers to intervene decisively, which is why the introduction of the Protection from Scam Bill is necessary. This Bill allows the Police to step in and stem further scam losses. Through ROs, if there is reason to believe that an individual will transfer money to a scammer, the Police can work with the banks to restrict the individual's banking transactions and use of credit facilities. The RO will only be issued as a last resort, after all other efforts to convince the individual have failed. According to the Bill, the RO is valid up to 30 days at the outset and can be extended up to five times. The total duration will not exceed 180 days. During this period, the Police will work with the individual’s friends or family to gather more evidence. The individual may also be referred to a counsellor or social service agency for support.”
“MHA acknowledges these concerns. As I explained earlier, the RO will only be issued temporarily and only as a last resort. Specified officers would have conducted investigations to satisfy themselves that the individual is indeed being targeted by a scammer and would have futilely engaged the individual before issuing the RO. We will also put in place safeguards to ensure that the powers are used judiciously. Mr Speaker, the Police have a duty to protect the public from harm and to prevent crime. The cost of falling prey to scams does not only affect the scam victim. Often times, their family members and even Government finances are needed to support scam victims in the aftermath. We thus have a collective responsibility to protect potential scam victims. This Bill allows the Police to act decisively and close a gap in our arsenal against scammers. While this Bill alone may not significantly dent the total number of scams, it will save some individuals and their loved ones much agony and pain. I hope the Members of this House will support the Bill. But even as we continue to work on providing protection to scam victims, we must remember that scam prevention and mitigation is not the responsibility of the Government alone, nor can we succeed alone. Combating scams requires the whole-of-society, and we must all continue to work together to protect ourselves and our loved ones from scams. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would now like to speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] From January to September 2024, cases where victims willingly transferred monies to scammers accounted for 86 percent of all scam reports and 94 percent of losses.”
“Clause 5 also empowers a Specified Officer to extend the RO for up to 30 days at a time, up to a maximum of five extensions, if the officer assesses that more time is required to persuade the individual. The initial RO and five potential extensions will last up to a maximum of 180 days. After this, the RO must lapse. The RO will not be extended further, even if the victim is still at risk of transferring more money to the scammer and may well do so after the restriction order lapses. MHA takes a practical approach to this. We cannot handhold the victim indefinitely, nor do we have the resources to do so, but we will do all that we can, while the RO is enforced, to bring the individual to his senses. Third, clause 5 empowers a Specified Officer to vary the RO temporarily to allow the individual to have access to the money in his bank accounts. For example, upon application by the individual, a Specified Officer will allow him to withdraw a fixed amount of money for the purposes of daily living or to pay medical bills or insurance premiums. Fourth, clause 7 provides for an appeal process so that an individual can appeal against the issuance of an RO to the Commissioner of Police, whose decision is final. Given that the RO will remain active pending the assessment of the appeal, MHA will ensure that the appeal process is expeditious. MHA has conducted public consultations on the Bill. Around 90% of the respondents expressed support for the proposals. Some recounted past experiences, where their family members or friends were scammed and commented that the RO would have been useful in those situations. A minority of the respondents, however, highlighted the need to respect individual autonomy and were concerned that such powers would be intrusive.”
“The Bill takes this into consideration and has put in place four sets of safeguards. First, clause 4 of the Bill requires that an RO be issued only if necessary for the protection of the victim. An RO is, thus, issued as a last resort. Where there are still other options available for protecting the victim, the Police will first explore these options. Let me give you an example. The Police are notified by the bank that a person is making large transactions to an account linked to a love scammer. Despite multiple engagements by the Police, the victim refuses to believe the Police and continues to make transfers to the scammer. As part of their engagements with the victim, the Police find out that the victim has a sibling whom he is close to and he trusts. A Specified Officer may not issue an RO to restrict the victim's banking transactions or use of credit facilities, if the victim and the sibling agree to an arrangement where the sibling will monitor the victim's transactions via a joint account and can advise the victim against making further transfers to the scammer. Second, clause 5 of the Bill limits the duration of an RO to a maximum of thirty days at the outset. This provides assurance that the restrictions will not be imposed for longer than is necessary to protect the individual, while ensuring that the Police have sufficient time to further engage and convince the individual. During this period, the Police may work with the individual's friends or family members and gather further evidence. The individual may also be referred to a counsellor or a social service agency for support. A Specified Officer may cancel the RO ahead of the 30-day limit if the officer assesses that the individual is no longer at risk of making money transfers to the scammer.”
“First, the Specified Officer must have reason to believe that the individual will transfer money to a scammer, withdraw money and give it to a scammer or apply for drawdown from a credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. Second, the Specified Officer must determine that the RO is necessary for the protection of the individual. With the amendment to remove the word "substantially" from the definition of a scammer in clause 2, the legal power to issue ROs would, technically, extend beyond remote scams to more traditional cheating cases, which involve mostly physical interactions and where the other party is known to the individual in real life. Traditional cheating cases are more complex. They require deeper investigation to establish if there is, indeed, an offence. For example, in a case of cheating alleged to be committed by a real friend or real lover, it is not always clear at the outset whether a criminal offence is disclosed, unlike in remote scams. Hence, the threshold to issue ROs in such cases will be higher. A Specified Officer will only issue an RO in an exceptional case when there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that a relevant offence is disclosed. Similarly, the Specified Officer must determine that the RO is necessary for the protection of an individual. The decision to issue an RO will be made solely by the Police, based on a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case. While the wishes of the individual and his family members may be taken into consideration, the Police will make the final decision. MHA is mindful of the need to strike a balance between protecting an individual from further harm and not unduly inconveniencing him.”
“Clause 2 of the Bill defines a scammer as a person who has interacted with the scam victim substantially via remote communication, for the purposes of committing or facilitating the commission of a scam offence. MHA has filed a Notice of Amendment, to remove the word "substantially" from the definition of a scammer in clause 2, as well as to remove the words of "conducted remotely" from the long title. The MHA's policy intent in introducing the power to issue ROs is primarily to protect victims from remote scams. However, the Police have observed some cases where scammers introduce elements of physical interaction to strengthen the deception. These amendments will remove ambiguity over whether ROs can be issued in such cases. Clause 3 empowers a Specified Officer to issue an RO to a bank. The RO will direct the bank not to execute any banking transaction from an individual's bank account and not to allow any drawdown of credit facilities. In other words, an individual who is subjected to an RO will have his bank accounts, automated teller machine (ATM) facilities and credit facilities suspended. Nevertheless, the individual will be provided access to his monies for daily living expenses. This will be covered in clause 5 of the Bill, which I will elaborate on later. Operationally, the RO will be issued to the seven Domestic Systemically Important Banks, or DSIBs in short, which account for the vast majority of consumer bank accounts in Singapore. The RO will also be issued to a non-DSIB, if there is reasonable suspicion that the victim will effect transfers to a scammer from a non-DSIB account or withdraw money from it to give it to a scammer. Clause 4 specifies the threshold that must be crossed before an RO can be issued.”
“These are but two examples of the cases of victims that the Police have encountered. In these cases, the Police and the banks have no legal powers to stop the victim from making further transactions. The victim would continue to lose more money to the scammers until he or she is eventually convinced that he or she is being scammed. In some of these cases, the victims have appealed to the Government for financial assistance. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not just the victim who suffers. Their loved ones – spouses, children, parents – suffer too. They often have to support the victim emotionally and financially as he deals with the loss, sometimes amounting to a lifetime of savings. These family and friends, they feel frustrated and helpless. They wish that more could have been done to protect their loved ones. In such situations, the authorities should have powers to intervene decisively. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has, therefore, tabled this Bill to introduce new powers for the authorities to step in and stem further scam losses. This Bill empowers Specified Officers, including Police Officers and Commercial Affairs Officers, to issue a Restriction Order (RO) to banks to restrict the banking transactions of an individual, if there is reason to believe that he will make money transfers to a scammer, withdraw any money and give it to a scammer or apply for a drawdown from any credit facility with the intention of benefiting a scammer. The intent is to buy the Police more time to engage and convince the individual that he is being scammed, including through enlisting the help of his family members. ROs will only be issued as a last resort, if all other efforts to convince the individual has failed.”
“In a love scam case, a 64-year-old female victim befriended the scammer on a social media platform and entered into an online relationship with him. The scammer claimed to be working on an offshore oil rig project outside Singapore and told the victim that once his project was completed, he could come to Singapore to marry her. Over the course of about two years, the scammer repeatedly asked for money from the victim, claiming it was to buy equipment for the project or to pay his workers' salaries. Each time, the victim transferred the money to various bank accounts designated by the scammer. Despite attempts by the Police and her family to convince her that she was being scammed, she continued to make money transfers to the scammer. It was only after multiple engagements by the Police that the victim was finally convinced that she was being scammed. And by that time, unfortunately, the victim had already lost about $400,000 to the scammer. In another case and this is an example of a love and investment scam, a 33-year-old male victim met the scammer on an online dating platform. The scammer slowly gained the victim's trust, eventually deceiving the victim into believing that they were in a relationship. The scammer then introduced the victim to a fake investment opportunity promising substantial profits. Believing that the investment opportunity was legitimate, the victim made several transactions to multiple bank accounts on the scammer's instructions. The transactions amounted to a total of $200,000. Despite being engaged by both banks and the Police, the victim remained unconvinced that the person was a scammer. He subsequently even attempted to borrow money from his parents to fund the "investment". It took multiple attempts by the Police before he was convinced.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I move that, "The Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the scams situation continues to be of grave concern in Singapore. Preliminary indicators show that the number of scam cases and losses would have increased by about 10% and 40% respectively, in 2024, compared to 2023. Over the past few years, Government agencies have worked closely with banks to put in place measures to safeguard the public from scams. For example, we have the Money Lock, which allows bank customers to set aside a portion of their funds in their bank accounts that cannot be transferred digitally; and we also have the Kill Switch, which allows bank customers to suspend their accounts quickly if they suspect that their bank accounts have been compromised. Despite the safeguards and extensive public education efforts, we still see a high number of scams involving self-effected transfers, where individuals willingly transfer monies to scammers. From January to September 2024, self-effected transfers accounted for 86% of all scams reports and 94% of losses. These include government official impersonation scams, investment scams and Internet love scams. Such scams rely on social engineering and prey on respect for authority, greed and the human desire for companionship and love. In some cases, the Police have observed that the victims were so taken in by the scammers' deceit, that they refused to believe that they were being scammed, despite being repeatedly advised by family, friends, their bank and even the Police. By the time these victims realised the truth, the scammers had siphoned their monies out of Singapore. Let me give you a few examples.”
“Their actions prevented further casualties and minimised the injury to the priest before the authorities arrived on the scene. We must therefore continue to systematically build up the resilience of our society to emergencies, and we have been doing this over the years. The Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force work with building owners and managers across Singapore via the Safety and Security Watch Group to conduct security audits, share best practices and deliver training on building safety and security awareness. Exercises are regularly conducted to test contingency response plans and ground readiness in the event of emergencies. We also work closely with community and religious organisations, including places of worship, through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's Crisis Preparedness for Religious Organisations Programme, where religious organisations participate in security self-assessments, develop contingency plans and attend counter-terrorism seminars to understand the threat better. Finally, MHA, together with our partner agencies, has also been engaging the broader public, through the SGSecure movement. Outreach efforts include sharing advisories, such as "Run, Hide, Tell" and "Press, Tie, Tell", as well as the importance of learning emergency preparedness skills, such as first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of automated external defibrillators. Together, these measures help ensure a high level of public safety, security awareness and contingency readiness in our society.”
“Yes, indeed, thank you. As of November 2024, there were 129 cases of murder, attempted murder, robbery, rioting and serious hurt involving knives in 2024. This is comparable to the number of cases in the preceding three years. Between 2021 and 2023, there was an average of 133 cases a year. None of these crimes occurred at a place of worship, with the sole exception of the knife attack at St Joseph's Church in November 2024. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not track the cases by whether the offenders had mental health issues. Our Police officers are trained and equipped to deal with crimes involving knives and will respond swiftly to neutralise the threat when alerted. When there is information on specific threats or when the general threat level is escalated, the Police will step up security measures, such as increasing the frequency of patrols. They will also engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure that appropriate security measures are put in place. To safeguard public safety, we also limit the sale of certain types of knives and similar offensive weapons, which have limited legitimate use. Through the Arms and Explosives Act, MHA currently regulates the sale of six of these daggers, swords, spears, spearheads, bayonets and dangerous bows and arrows. This will be expanded to include flick knives and knuckle dusters when the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act is operationalised in the first half of 2025. While the incidence of crimes involving knives is low, it is important, nevertheless, that we all know how to respond when such attacks occur. The November 2024 incident at St Joseph's Church is a case in point. Two men helped subdue the attacker, while other members of the congregation provided first aid to the priest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will address the questions in today's Order Paper. I believe these are in relation to Dr Tan's questions, and as well as a subsequent question filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim1 which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I also invite Mr Zhulkarnain to seek clarifications if needed and if the questions are satisfactorily answered today, it may not be necessary for Mr Zhulkarnain to proceed with his question subsequently. As of November —”
“I totally agree with the Member that when we talk about working conditions, it also includes things like rest days, the number of hours they have to put into taking care of their charges and definitely, having their lunch in an appropriate environment. One thing that ECDA has done is that, in October 2024, ECDA had appointed service providers to offer affordable and reliable relief staff services to all preschools. We recognise that for individual preschools, there may be situations whereby they may, on specific days or specific months, have a manpower crunch due to a variety of issues – it could be about allocation of staff between centres, it could be a key staff going on sick leave and so on and so forth. So, when such incidents happen, it is very difficult for MSF to always react to individual cases, because we have close to 1,900 preschools across the whole of Singapore. Fundamentally, I think what we should do, as a matter of policy is to work with the industry to ensure that there is a relief pool of manpower that the preschools are able to call upon to plug short-term manpower shortages at individual centres.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. There are actually two tracks that are happening. First, on wages. In 2022, ECDA had conducted a review of the salaries of early childhood educators to ensure that their salaries are commensurate with their contributions as well as professional skills. We had announced this. This was greeted with much joy. I think many of the early childhood educators felt that their contributions were being appreciated. I also shared that, together with wage increases, there were also targeted moves at making sure that their working conditions are attractive as well. The second part of the Member's question relates to the fees that are paid by parents with preschool-going children. Under the anchor operator scheme, the Government and MSF provide subsidies to the preschool operators for them to keep fee caps, which we have announced before. These fee caps essentially ensure the affordability of preschool education for parents. In fact, over the past two years, we have been steadily reducing those fee caps, meaning that parents actually pay less per year, per month, for preschool expenses, which also translates to less out-of-pocket expenses for parents. So, both these tracks are ongoing: one, to uplift wages; second, to increase subsidies to preschool operators to make sure that they adhere to fee caps, which are decreasing, so that out-of-pocket expenses from parents are decreasing on a year-to-year basis. And what, in total, that actually means is that the Government is putting in a lot of money to subsidise the preschool sector for the educators as well as the parents.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I think, indeed, the reality that we see in Singapore is that we do have a manpower and "women-power" crunch. There are many industries out there who are looking for skilled talents to fill places. So, in relation to the question that she asked, apart from MSF who holds discussions with NCSS, there are also regular discussions between MSF and the Ministry of Manpower, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to take a holistic look at what are the manpower needs of the entire economy. At the same time, the Ministries also touch base with the Institutes of Higher Learning to ensure that there are relevant courses for young students, so that when they graduate, there are meaningful jobs for them. So, there is this whole-of-Government effort to look at manpower planning.”
“To ensure that other related sectors, particularly the social service sector, have sufficient manpower, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) works closely with the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), as well as other Government agencies, to coordinate our efforts. Ultimately, the various sectors have to ensure that they offer competitive remuneration and good working conditions, while motivating their staff well. MSF and ECDA will continue to monitor the planned expansion of preschool services and work closely with relevant stakeholders to ensure a sufficient supply of quality early childhood educators.”
“Our early childhood educator workforce grew from over 18,000 in 2018 to over 25,000 today. To expand Government-supported preschools to cater to 80% of preschoolers, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been working with Government-supported preschools to grow their local and foreign workforce, as well as optimise manpower deployment to ensure that centres are adequately staffed. Notwithstanding these efforts, we estimate that another 1,500 more educators will be needed in the coming years. We will grow the sector workforce while maintaining high standards of skills and competencies. All early childhood educators must complete pre-service training and meet professional, language and academic requirements before ECDA certifies them for deployment in our preschools. For in-service early childhood educators, ECDA has launched the Continuing Professional Development Roadmaps and the Leadership Development Framework to support educators in their career progression and professional development. To attract and retain educators, ECDA has been working with preschool operators to make early childhood education an attractive profession of choice. We raised salaries of early childhood educators in Government-supported preschools to keep pace with market wages and professional skills. We also improved the well-being of early childhood educators by designating Teachers' Day and Children's Day as preschool holidays from 2024 and removing the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays from 2025.”
“I wish to highlight that as a universal health insurance scheme, MediShield Life covers all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, including mothers-to-be with pre-existing conditions, for life. They can be assured that MediShield Life covers the treatment of serious pregnancy and delivery-related complications. For general maternity expenses, the Government provides subsidies of up to 80% and allows the use MediSave through the MediSave Maternity Package. Expectant mothers may choose to purchase maternity insurance policies for added coverage. Such maternity insurance plans are optional private products, where the benefits and terms and conditions are determined by insurers. Sir, let me now conclude. I am grateful for the views shared by the Members and thank them for their various suggestions. The current amendments covered in this Bill are part of the Government's commitment to better provide working parents with greater caregiving support, especially in their child's early years when the care needs are the greatest. We hope that both mothers and fathers will use the enhanced leave provisions well, to bond with their children and share the parenthood journey together. We must also recognise that these schemes do not operate in isolation and that parenthood continues beyond infancy. We will, therefore, need to press on with our whole-of-society effort to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. 2.50 pm”
“I seek Members' understanding that specific start dates are required for any new measure or enhancement, to ensure a smooth implementation process for all stakeholders involved. This start date applies to both the SPL scheme as well as its cash benefit-equivalent Shared Parental Benefits scheme. Ms Hazel Poa spoke about other concerns that we must also address to build a conducive environment for families. In the infographic I distributed earlier, Members will see how the Government has put in place a comprehensive suite of support measures across various domains, such as housing, healthcare and education, and we will continue to review our measures to address the needs of parents. In particular, we recognise that parents may be concerned about the cost of raising children, as several Members have highlighted. We recently enhanced the Baby Bonus cash gift and Government contributions to the CDA, last year, to support parents in defraying the cost of child-raising. Ms Hany Soh asked if we could further enhance the CDA to cover optional enrichment programmes and family outings. The CDA is intended to help parents defray healthcare and educational costs and we have scoped the use of the CDA accordingly. We regularly review the uses of CDA and will take Ms Soh's feedback into consideration. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in his National Day Rally speech, had also said that the Government is looking into ways to provide more support to larger families with three or more children, such as the resident, whom Ms Hany Soh mentioned. Mr Melvin Yong suggested further healthcare support for mothers, such as through providing universal maternity insurance for all mothers-to-be, including those with pre-existing conditions to allay worries about unexpected pregnancy complications.”
“This includes, hiring and training temporary workers, providing additional remuneration to recognise the effort of colleagues covering for the employees on leave and supporting any overlapping periods for handovers when re-integrating returning employees. On the Government's reimbursement to employers, I would like to assure Dr Wan Rizal that we are committed to ensuring timely reimbursements and streamlining the claim processes. For example, in response to feedback, we have since allowed claims for childcare leave to be submitted in batches, instead of individually, to reduce the administrative burden on employers. We will continue to review and improve our reimbursement processes to support employers in providing parental leave. For the longer term, we encourage employers to take this opportunity to strengthen their manpower planning capabilities and make operational and system adjustments. After all, given the demographic challenges of a declining birth rate and an ageing workforce, mature economies and societies like ours must increasingly find ways to effectively navigate manpower constraints in future and manage a more flexible workforce well. Employers can tap on existing grants and resources, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to improve business productivity and automation and implement FWAs or use SkillsFuture Credits for their HR professionals to obtain the Institute for Human Resources Professionals' certifications and be equipped with progressive people practices. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether the Government can consider extending the Shared Parental Benefits to couples whose babies are expected to be born in the first-quarter of 2025.”
“The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Workplace Arrangement Requests will take effect from 1 December 2024 and the mandatory guidelines will enable employers and employees to have open discussions and work out arrangements that can meet both parties’ needs. We should focus on building confidence and capabilities among companies to manage flexible workplace arrangements effectively, instead of relying on legislation alone. We thank the NTUC's efforts on this front. Even as some Members call for even more leave provisions, other Members have highlighted the potential challenges that businesses may face in managing the extended absences of employees. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Hany Soh, Ms Hazel Poa, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have called for better support to help companies, especially SMEs, with manpower and operational constraints. We fully understand that employers are concerned about the impact of the parental leave enhancements on their business and manpower arrangements. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we have therefore worked closely with tripartite partners and employer representatives, to design the parental leave enhancements in a way that best mitigates some of the challenges that employers may face. Indeed, one key approach is that most of Singapore's parental leave provisions are paid by the Government and at a generous level of $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month. This fully covers the wages of the majority of employees on leave. Employers can use the wage savings to mitigate the operational impact of their employees going on leave.”
“To Mr Louis Chua’s suggestion to increase Childcare Leave from six to eight days in view of the additional preschool closure days, I would like to clarify that there has been a net increase of 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days as the Member had thought. Previously, all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays. We fully recognise that caring for a child is a long-term commitment and that working parents must continue to manage their work and caregiving responsibilities even after the first year of the child’s life. Currently, each working parent whose youngest child is below seven years old is entitled to six days of Childcare Leave per year. A working couple would therefore have a total of 12 days of Childcare Leave on top of their annual leave provisions, which they can use for preschool closure days and other childcare purposes. At the start of this year, we also doubled Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent in the child’s first two years. Any further enhancements to our leave schemes will require us to strike a fine balance between the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. We also need to provide employers with some time to adjust to the significant increases in overall parental leave provisions with the introduction of the new SPL scheme. Nevertheless, we will continue to regularly review our leave policies in consultation with parents and the tripartite partners. Beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage other sustainable ways that support parents and other caregivers in juggling work and caregiving commitments, such as FWAs.”
“I also call on parents to be ready to extend similar support when they return to work, should their colleagues also need to take time off from work to tend to their families. As Ms Mariam Jaafar highlighted, we will continue to track our progress and the take up of our parental leave schemes. MSF published the "Family Trends Report" in July 2024, which provides key annual updates on Singapore’s family trends as we work towards achieving a Singapore Made for Families. The report includes the utilisation trends of Government-paid Leave Schemes. The National Population and Talent Division also regularly conducts the Marriage and Parenthood Survey to understand perceptions toward marriage and parenthood, including that of parental caregiving roles and the actual division of childcare duties at home between men and women. Several Members have also called for further increases in parental leave provisions. Mr Louis Ng asked about further increasing paternity leave to eventually equalise maternity and paternity leave, so that we avoid entrenching gender stereotypes. Maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, given that mothers need time to recuperate physically after childbirth, a point which was emphasised by Member Ms Jessica Tan earlier. Although the duration of maternity and paternity leave differs, the Government has been mindful about the importance of encouraging shared parental responsibility. And you can see, from the progressive rounds of enhancements in recent years, that they have focused mainly on increasing paternity leave. Mr Louis Chua, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal suggested increasing Childcare Leave, including to tier it according to the number of children or combining it into a pool of family leave.”
“It is also important to understand the spirit of the law, which is to encourage a supportive workplace environment for families. In response to Mr Louis Ng's point on incentivising fathers to take paternity leave and shared parental leave, not only are we offering fathers protection from dismissal, we are also paying for both types of leave in full up to $2,500 per week or about $10,000 per month. Members have provided useful suggestions, and we will continue to review our parental leave schemes and study how we can design them better to encourage utilisation. This brings me to my second point that beyond legislation and Government support, workplace culture and societal norms are key factors that influence whether parents use their parental leave entitlements. I echo Mr Desmond Choo, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal, who highlighted that a shift in policy cannot by itself drive cultural change. Encouraging greater paternal involvement and shared parental responsibilities require mindset shifts in our society. Workplaces with supportive supervisors and coworkers can make a huge difference to assure fathers to go ahead and take leave to bond with and care for their newborns. Therefore, the Government has been, and will continue to work with tripartite partners and community partners such as Families for Life Council and Centre for Fathering to encourage employers to foster family-friendly workplaces. I urge supervisors to be supportive when their employees apply for paternity leave and hope that co-workers will be understanding and help to cover their colleagues who take time off work to care for their children.”
“Ms Hany Soh also suggested incentivising fathers to take more leave by introducing additional bonuses, either in the form of payouts or additional leave to couples if the father takes paternity leave or shares a certain portion of the new SPL scheme. Mr Louis Chua suggested making the reimbursement for a portion of paternity leave contingent on fathers taking a minimum number of weeks of leave. First, this is why we are introducing new employment protection for fathers taking GPPL. Mothers are currently protected against dismissals when they are on maternity leave. By extending the same protection to fathers who are on paternity leave, we want to send a strong signal to employers that it is important for them to also support their male employees to take parental leave, besides their female employees. We hope that this protection will provide fathers with the assurance and peace of mind to go ahead to use their paternity leave entitlement. The same protection will also be extended to employees taking adoption leave. I agree with Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh that we must continue to strengthen protection against discrimination of women with childbearing intentions and parents at the workplace and the upcoming Workplace Fairness Bill will address this. On the new protections, Mr Desmond Choo asked to increase the penalty for employers who are first-time offenders, from the current fine not exceeding $5,000 to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The current penalties under the CDCA are in line with other employment offences for statutory leave provisions in the Employment Act and we will take the Member’s feedback into consideration when reviewing the penalties.”
“For example, for the new SPL, the total amount that the Government may reimburse the parent’s employers for paid leave given to the parent and pay directly to the parent as a self-employed person will be capped at $2,500 per week. If the total reimbursement across multiple employments exceeds $2,500 per week, the Government will reimburse the parent’s employers first, as employers would have already paid for their employee’s leave, before considering claims by the parent as a self-employed person. Where there are multiple employers and the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit, the reimbursement for each employer will be further determined based on the proportion of the employer’s claim out of the total claim amount submitted by all employers. I would like to assure the Member that this group of employees is very small, at less than 1% of claims. We encourage employees to inform their employers before consuming the leave, if they have multiple employers and are likely to exceed the reimbursement limit. The Bill provides for employers to recover the difference directly from their employees, if the total claim amount exceeds the reimbursement limit. I wish to assure Mr Mark Lee and Mr Melvin Yong that these details will be covered in the guidelines which MSF will provide on its website. To Mr Mark Lee’s question on the computation of income for self-employed persons, it is based on the income set out in the individual’s Notice of Assessment and should therefore cover any seasonal variations within a year. Let me now move to suggestions on how we can encourage the take-up of parental leave schemes. Mr Louis Ng asked how we can encourage fathers, especially low-income fathers, to take more paternity leave.”
“I wish to clarify that under the Employment Act and CDCA, the first eight weeks of maternity leave for the mother’s first two child orders are paid for by the employer and the Government reimburses for the last eight weeks. Freelancers are considered self-employed and the same approach is adopted for self-employed persons. The first eight weeks of maternity leave for the first two child orders are also paid for by the self-employed person, while the Government pays for the lost income for the ninth to 16th week of maternity leave. To ensure accountability for the use of public funds, paying on a reimbursement basis is a safeguard to ensure that the leave is taken as intended before payment is released. However, we do understand that cash flow may be an important consideration for freelancers and self-employed persons. To mitigate this, self-employed persons are encouraged to submit their claims accurately as soon as possible. Claim submissions that are accurate and complete will typically be reimbursed within 10 working days. Self-employed persons can also claim reimbursement for any portion of Government-paid leave that has been taken even when there is still remaining leave to be consumed. This means self-employed persons can submit claims between the ninth and 16th week of maternity leave for the first two child orders and need not wait for the period of eight weeks to have passed before claiming for reimbursement. Ms Jean See and Mr Mark Lee asked how the reimbursement limit will apply for parents who have multiple employments, such as those who hold multiple jobs, or are both an employee and a self-employed person. Such parents will be able to take parental leave with each employer as well as take time-off as a self-employed person.”
“The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons states that when a self-employed person enters into an agreement with a service-buyer, the parties’ obligations and how the agreement may be varied, among other things, should be set out clearly in writing. I encourage self-employed persons and service buyers to negotiate contracts that are mutually favourable, including providing for absences due to pregnancy and childbirth. Prescribing that the service buyer must consider substitution options when a self-employed person absents herself due to pregnancy and childbirth may make it very rigid for service buyers who may have legitimate urgent business needs. Ms Jean See also sought assurance that the Government will not condone pregnancy discrimination if a freelancer approaches the TAFEP or the Small Claims Tribunal about losing a contract or contracted gig after disclosing her pregnancy status to the client. I wish to assure Ms See that in the final report of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, the Committee recommended including additional guidelines in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) to provide greater clarity that corporate service buyers and intermediaries should not discriminate based on characteristics that are not related to the job. MOM will work with the tripartite partners to include these additional guidelines in the TGFEP. Ms Jean See also asked if GPML can be paid to eligible freelancers when the maternity leave commences and not after the ninth week of the maternity leave period.”
“As demonstrated by the examples raised by Ms Hany Soh and Mr Mark Lee, this is indeed why it is important for employers and employees to have early conversations and plan ahead as soon as possible so that a suitable leave arrangement can be worked out to meet the needs of both parties. This could include taking the leave more flexibly in weeks, days, or half-days, as was mentioned by Ms Mariam Jaafar, over the 12 months, to avoid peak periods or periods of manpower shortage, or to meet changes in parents' caregiving circumstances. Mr Louis Chua asked whether we can extend the consumption period for the new SPL scheme. When developing the new shared parental leave scheme in consultation with the tripartite partners, we had considered allowing parents more flexibility to take the new SPL over a longer period of two years. However, employers preferred a shorter consumption period to reduce the uncertainty on when employees may be absent from work, which could result in greater challenges in making manpower arrangements. We are always mindful that we have to balance employers' needs, even as we try our best to support new parents. Taking indeed all these considerations, we decided on a consumption period of 12 months, which is also aligned with that for our maternity and paternity leave schemes. Several Members called on greater support for self-employed persons and sought clarifications on the reimbursement of parental leave for those with multiple employers. Ms Jean See asked whether the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-employed Persons could state upfront that if the contracted freelancer must absent herself due to pregnancy and childbirth, the service buyer should consider substitution options rather than to terminate the contract.”
“This is a cash benefit-equivalent scheme, similar to the existing GPML and GPPL schemes where parents will receive the cash benefit directly from the Government in lieu of paid leave and can use the cash benefits to make suitable work and caregiving arrangements. Progressive employers who would like to grant the new SPL to an employee, whose child is born shortly after joining the company and does not meet the minimum employment period of three months, can be reimbursed by the Government if the employee has met all other eligibility criteria. The leave that is voluntarily granted by the employer should also follow the conditions of the new SPL scheme, such as being taken within 12 months of the child's birth. Ms Hany Soh asked if there is flexibility to the new requirement for employees to provide at least four weeks' notice before commencing parental leave in instances of pre-mature births. I would like to assure the Member that we understand that these events are unpredictable, and employees will not be penalised when there is sufficient cause for not giving notice. Mr Mark Lee also asked if operational constraints would serve as reasonable cause for an employer to delay the granting of the new SPL scheme. I wish to highlight that the consumption period for the new SPL is 12 months from the child's date of birth, and this provides a reasonable window within which the leave can be taken. The penalties will only apply when employers fail to demonstrate with reasonable cause that they could not grant parental leave at any time during the 12 months after the child's birth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill. It is encouraging that we all agree it is important that we continue to strive towards building an environment that values and supports families and children. Let me now respond to the questions and suggestions that Members have raised. Ms Hany Soh asked if the Government referred to the parental leave provisions in other countries when designing the new SPL scheme. As I mentioned earlier, the enhancements were developed after studying international practices, and extensive feedback and consultations with parents and the tripartite partners, so that we arrive at a scheme design that best fits our local context. Members have asked about the eligibility of different groups of parents and the scheme parameters. Mr Mark Lee asked whether parents with non-traditional work arrangements, such as newly hired employees, will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. Broadly speaking, working parents who are eligible for the existing parental leave schemes, such as GPML and GPPL will be eligible for the new SPL scheme. One of the eligibility criteria is that the employee should serve the employer for a continuous period of at least three months before the child's birth, to be entitled to take this paid leave with the employer. Working parents who do not meet the minimum employment period of three months, such as those whose babies are born shortly after joining the company, may qualify for the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme instead if they have worked at least 90 days in the last 12 months.”
“I also hope that all sectors of society, including employers, can provide more support to working parents in the community and workplace. (In English): Sir, this Bill will strengthen our support and assurance for Singaporeans on their parenthood journey. I urge more employers, businesses and community partners, to work with us to build a Singapore Made For Families. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“It is a joyful but also demanding period for the couple who needs to tend to the high care needs of their infant. We hope the leave enhancements covered in this Bill will give working parents greater peace of mind to focus on caring for their child during their early years. We will also continue to enhance other caregiving options to provide more support to parents. However, this role of supporting parents in their parenthood journey cannot be played by the Government alone. Employers, for instance, have to be supportive of their employees, especially fathers, going on parental leave and should implement family-friendly workplaces. This will help employees returning to work post-leave can manage their work and parenting responsibilities well. Mr Speaker, Sir, kindly allow me to say a few words in Chinese. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Family is the bedrock of our society. We hope that parents and children can build good relationships so that we have stronger foundation for our families. Many parents have told us that it is very challenging for them to balance both work and family commitments, especially when their children are in the infancy stage. In order to better support dual-income families, we have worked closely with tripartite partners to introduce a new parental leave scheme. These new measures are a part of a series of initiatives we have introduced over the years to support couples in getting married and having children. We hope that the new SPL will provide more assistance to parents, giving them more time to spend with their newborns. I encourage all parents, especially fathers, to use this additional parental leave to care for their newborns.”
“Clause 16 of the Bill will clarify that the limits for reimbursement of an employer will be implemented on a “per parent” basis for a parent with multiple employers, or a parent who is both employed and self-employed. For example, an employee’s payment from a single employer is capped at $2,500 per week and the single employer’s reimbursement from the Government is similarly capped at $2,500 per week. While the parent will still be entitled to parental leave with each of his or her employers, the total reimbursement that all employers of the parent can claim from the Government will be capped at $2,500 per week. This ensures parity on the amount of Government-paid leave granted to all parents, regardless of the number of employments that they have. This amendment is also one of the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF’s) corrective actions to address the Auditor-General's Office's (AGO’s) observations of possible irregularities in the payment of Government-Paid Leave Schemes in July this year. Clause 16 of the Bill will determine that the sequence of leave taking under the Act such that employees are deemed to be consuming their entitlement to GPML, GPPL or adoption leave in full first, before consuming their entitlement for SPL. This is in line with our intent that all employees should consume their GPML, GPPL or adoption leave before commencing the new SPL. Clause 2 of the Bill will also clarify that for the adoption of a child who is a Permanent Resident of Singapore, the definition of “eligibility date” in relation to an adoption is the date on which the application to adopt the child is made. Sir, the birth of a child marks a new beginning for a couple.”
“Clauses 4 and 9, will accord the same protection that mothers on the GPML have, to fathers and adoptive parents who take GPPL and adoption leave from 1 April 2025. This means it will be unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to employees on GPPL or adoption leave. For the case of the new SPL, we want to strike a balance between providing both parents with a longer period of leave to care for their child in the first year, while allowing employers to carry out fair employment decisions during this extended period of leave. Hence, parents on SPL will not receive the same protection as those on GPML, GPPL and adoption leave. However, employees who consider themselves to be wrongfully dismissed when taking this leave, may seek recourse under the Employment Act. The upcoming Workplace Fairness Legislation will also strengthen protections against workplace discrimination. I hope that these new protections will give our parents, including fathers, more assurance to take their maternity, paternity and adoption leave. Beyond legislation, I urge employers to show your support for the employees taking parental leave. For instance, by putting in place fair appraisal systems that recognise their contributions and not penalise employees simply for having taken parental leave. Managers and colleagues can also help to build a more family-friendly culture by being understanding of colleagues who need to take leave to care for their children. On the part of parents, I also encourage you to reciprocate when colleagues need to take time off to tend to their personal needs. The other amendments pertain to clauses to improve operational efficiency and clarity.”
“Employers can then use the wage savings to hire temporary workers or make other operational adjustments when their employee is away on parental leave. As the new SPL scheme is meant to replace the existing SPL scheme, clause 8 will amend the eligibility criteria for the existing SPL scheme such that it will no longer apply for a Singapore Citizen child born or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025. This brings me to the third aspect of this Bill, new notice period requirements and employment protections, which seek to balance the needs of employers and employees utilising the parental leave schemes. With the longer duration of leave, employers will need sufficient lead time to make covering arrangements when their employees are away. Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 will introduce a minimum notice period to be given by an employee, who wishes to take leave in a continuous block. This minimum notice period will be set at four weeks. Employees must inform employers at least four weeks before commencing continuous GPML, GPPL, adoption leave and the new SPL. This will give employers lead time to plan for covering arrangements and make operational adjustments. While this is the legislated minimum requirement, I urge employees to exercise responsibility when taking the leave, to provide notice as early as possible and work through covering arrangements with your peers and employers before you go on leave. We will update employment protections to give parents peace of mind when they go on parental leave entitlements. Today, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss or give a notice of dismissal to a female employee when she is on maternity leave. Employers who do so today will be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment, or both.”
“The same clause, therefore, also provides that parents who wish to change their sharing arrangement on their own may do so within the first four weeks after their child's birth or, for an adopted child, within the first four weeks after the eligibility date of application to adopt. Thereafter, employees must obtain their employer's agreement before further changes can be made. Clause 6 will also allow employees and employers to mutually agree on how the new SPL will be taken, as long as it is taken within 12 months of the child's birth. We understand that some parents may wish to have the flexibility to take this leave over a longer period. However, we have to balance this against the challenges that employers may face in their manpower planning if the leave-taking period stretches beyond one year. In the absence of a mutual agreement, employees are entitled to take their allocated share of the new SPL in a continuous block within the first 26 weeks of the child's birth, with sufficient notice given to their employer. I will share more about the notice period required further in my speech. Similarly, clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for GPML, GPPL and Government-Paid Adoption Benefits to the new Shared Parental Benefits scheme. These cash benefit-equivalent schemes are intended for working parents who do not qualify for leave due to their employment arrangements such as employees on short-term contracts, or contracts that expire before the child’s birth. To support employers with managing costs, all 10 weeks of the new SPL will be paid for by the Government, up to the reimbursement cap of $2,500 per week.”
“Correspondingly, clauses 11 and 12 will double the amount of payment that an eligible employee is entitled to receive from his employer, as well as the limits for the reimbursement by the Government to an employer for that payment. Second, the new SPL scheme. This scheme will allow parents to have more time off work to bond with and care for their infants. We have designed this new scheme such that the additional weeks of legislated parental leave can be taken by both fathers and mothers to emphasise shared parental responsibility. The following clauses set out the main provisions for the new SPL scheme, and the new Shared Parental Leave Benefit scheme for working parents of a Singapore Citizen child born or with an estimated date of delivery on or after 1 April 2025. Clause 6 will entitle working parents who are eligible for Government-Paid Maternity Leave (GPML), paternity leave and adoption leave under the Act, to the new SPL, and sets out the requirements for a valid sharing arrangement for the new SPL between two parents. In line with our intent to encourage shared parental responsibility, each parent will be allocated half of the entitlement as the default, which means three weeks per parent from 1 April 2025 or five weeks per parent from 1 April 2026. The allocation can be varied according to clause 23 to provide parents with the flexibility to use the leave in a way that meets their caregiving needs. This flexibility has to be balanced against the employers' need for some certainty of the employees' intended absences so they can plan for covering arrangements to ensure business continuity.”
“The Government is also enhancing other forms of infant care support to complement parental leave. We will continue expanding infant care places in preschools and will develop about 6,000 new places from 2025 to 2029. We are also launching a three-year pilot in December 2024 to grow affordable, safe and reliable childminding services as an additional infant care option for families. We hope that these enhancements will provide parents with more assurance as they go ahead with their plans to fulfil their family aspirations. The Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill that is currently before this House seeks to give effect to the enhancements to the GPPL and SPL schemes. We will also introduce new employment protections as well as other operational and administrative changes. First, the GPPL. Fathers play an important role in partnering their wives in sharing the duty of raising their children. We want to encourage shared parental responsibility and enable fathers to be more involved in child-raising. Research also shows that greater paternal involvement in a child's early years has positive effects on the child's development and family well-being. With the additional two weeks of GPPL, we hope that fathers will make good use of the four weeks to care for and bond with their newborns. Clauses 9, 11 and 12 set out the main provisions for the enhancements to the GPPL scheme. Clause 9 will mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL. These apply to fathers of children born on or after 1 April 2025, or with an Estimated Date of Delivery on or after 1 April 2025, as well as adoptive fathers where the eligibility date of application to adopt a child is on or after 1 April 2025.”
“These enhancements are significant steps that the Government is taking to normalise paternal involvement in child-raising and provide both parents with greater support in caring for their infants together. In addition, parents with young children are entitled to Government-Paid Childcare Leave and Extended Childcare Leave for their caregiving needs. Those who might require more time to take care of their newborns can also utilise their Unpaid Infant Care Leave. In formulating our parental leave policies, we have studied overseas experiences. Some other countries provide longer durations of parental leave, but at varying levels of pay. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK), parents enjoy longer maternity leave, shorter paternity leave and longer parental leave, but maternity leave and paternity leave are compensated at reduced pay and parental leave is unpaid. Some countries, such as the United States (US), do not have paid maternity leave, paternity leave or shared parental leave at all. For Singapore, while the combined duration of our parental leave provisions is shorter, most of it is fully paid. With the leave enhancements in this Bill, we will further extend the duration of paid leave that parents can take to care for their infants. In considering Singapore's leave enhancements, we also engaged parents, consulted tripartite partners and employer representatives to ensure that we strike the right balance between parents' caregiving needs and employers' manpower and business needs. The Government worked closely with tripartite partners to design the new SPL scheme and update the conditions surrounding our parental leave provisions to better address both employees' and employers' concerns, which I will go into more detail later.”
“Our social and work norms are changing, and we should, as a society, evolve to support them. This includes working with employers to foster more family-friendly workplaces so that we can better support parents in their aspirations to do well both in work and in raising their children at the same time. In particular, parents have shared that work-life support is especially critical during the child's first 18 months, when care needs tend to be the greatest. Most parents prefer to personally care for their infants or tap on the help of trusted family members. However, family support is expected to decline as family sizes shrink and many grandparents work longer or prefer to spend their retirement years on other pursuits. So, we need to provide stronger caregiving support for parents in the early stages of their child's life and enable them to be more involved in caring for their infants. At the National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that we will, from 1 April 2025, mandate the additional two weeks of GPPL currently offered on a voluntary basis. He also announced that the current SPL will be replaced with a new scheme that will provide couples 10 weeks of paid parental leave, to be shared between themselves. To provide employers more time to adjust to the new scheme, the new SPL will be implemented in two phases, starting with six weeks from 1 April 2025, to be subsequently increased to 10 weeks from 1 April 2026. With the enhancements, eligible couples will be entitled to 30 weeks of paid parental leave in the child's first year. This comprises 16 weeks of maternity leave, four weeks of paternity leave and 10 weeks of shared parental leave from 1 April 2026.”
“Mr Louis Ng, in 2017, urged a review of maternity leave and paternity leave, and also filed an Adjournment Motion to extend parental leave. It is clear from the progressive enhancements to parental leave that the Government wants to support young parents in their caregiving needs and regularly reviews policies to push the envelope to support young parents even more. The COVID-19 period of early 2020 to 2022 upended work structures and world economies were plunged into a period of economic uncertainty. Singapore was not spared but we were able to incorporate flexible workplace arrangements and work from home. Young parents and working adults adjusted their working arrangements. As we came out of COVID-19, the Government continued its strong support for families by announcing at last year's Budget policy enhancements that strengthened financial and work-life support for parents. The Baby Bonus Cash Gift was increased for all birth orders, and we enhanced the Child Development Account First Step Grant and raised Government co-matching caps for Singaporean children born on or after 14 February 2023. Since 1 January 2024, we doubled the GPPL to four weeks, with the additional two weeks provided on a voluntary basis. We also increased Unpaid Infant Care Leave to 12 days per parent per year in their child's first two years. The Government regularly engages young parents to see how we can support their parenthood journey. Many parents continue to express concerns with managing family and work responsibilities. Increasingly, we see that younger generations of Singaporeans place greater emphasis on having a balance between work and personal commitments. They also value more family time even as they build their careers.”
“As the infographic is being distributed in the House, I would like to highlight that Members will see on the first page of the infographic our comprehensive suite of marriage and parenthood measures to support families. And on the second page of the infographic, Members will see our enhancements of parental leave over the years. Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Looking at the second page of the infographic, we see that one week of Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) and one week of Shared Parental Leave (SPL) were first introduced by Minister Grace Fu in January 2013 as part of the 2013 Marriage and Parenthood Package. To quote from her speech: "We will signal strongly to the society on the important role fathers play in raising and caring for their children. Fathers will now enjoy one week of legislated Government-Paid Paternity Leave. In addition, we will introduce a new Government-Paid Shared Parental Leave. By inculcating shared parental responsibility from birth, we hope to put families off to a good start and encourage fathers to take on a bigger role in child-raising." In 2016, then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that we would legislate the second week of GPPL and increase SPL from one week to four weeks. These were implemented from 2017 onwards. The enhancements were supported by Members of Parliament (MPs), such as Mr Desmond Choo, who raised in Parliament in 2016, as to whether the Government would legislate a second week of GPPL and if the Government would increase the SPL so that more leave can be taken on by fathers. Then-MP Mr Seah Kian Peng, now Speaker, had also in 2016 suggested independent leave for each parent instead of drawing leave from the mother's maternity leave.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The objective of issuing directions to the inauthentic websites is to protect users in Singapore from accessing and potentially being misled by them, and to raise public awareness of such foreign interference risks. So, by issuing a direction, by blocking access to these websites, we would have achieved these objectives. I take the point that the Member mentioned that there could be users, audiences in Singapore who would try other ways and means to get access to this content. I had shared in my main reply that we cannot prevent them from doing so, but we would have achieved our purpose of highlighting to these users already the risk of accessing such content. Beyond what we can do in the areas of issuing directions, I think what is most important is that we need to remind members of the public that they have to remain aware and vigilant against potential foreign interference activity. The Government has conducted public education efforts and communication campaigns. We will continue to do so. These include the National Library Board's SURE campaign, which stands for Source, Understand, Research and Evaluate, to impart critical thinking skills to help Singaporeans discern the reliability of information, as well as the annual Total Defence campaign that reminds Singaporeans of the part that they need to play to counter hybrid threats. Lastly, the media also plays an important role by increasing the audience's awareness of the threat of foreign interference. I thank the Member for his questions.”