EXTENSION OF MATERNITY LEAVE ELIGIBILITY

EXTENSION OF MATERNITY LEAVE ELIGIBILITY: 12.

Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will consider including more women in the category of those eligible for maternity leave, specifically expectant mothers working with the same employer but for less than three months, contract workers, including teachers with fewer than three months' service at the relevant time, and retrenched expectant mothers outside the third trimester.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by saying that I totally share with Mr Seah's concern for women employees, especially those who are pregnant. Members will recall that in October 2007, we amended legislation to enable more women to qualify for maternity leave. The qualifying period for maternity leave was shortened from 180 days to 90 days. Pregnant employees who are retrenched during the last trimester will receive maternity leave benefits, which they were not entitled to previously.

These changes were adopted after extensive consultation with both employers as well as the unions. Whilst we wanted to do more for women, our key consideration is how to do so without impairing the employability of women. If our proposals had resulted in higher business costs or significant operational difficulties, then it may have led to employers discriminating against all potential women employees.

Column: 2038

Notwithstanding this, we will continue to study proposals from Mr Seah as well as the public on how we can further increase our support for working women who are currently excluded from the statutory leave schemes in order to encourage more of them to have children. But whilst we do this, just bear that in mind that it does not inadvertently impair the employability of women.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, I thank the Minister for the support. I share his views and considerations behind the current policy. But I would like the Ministries, both MCYS and MOM, to look into this further because I still want to question the basis of the policy. In my opinion, the common denominator is mothers rather than categories of mothers and that they all should be entitled to this benefit by the employers. I do not know how big is this group. But I am quite sure I have some residents who have come to me on this. I think for the three groups that are affected, it means and costs a lot to them. I also understand the considerations of employers, and we do not want to make things difficult for them, but at the same time, it is in the employers' interests also to take care of these three groups of expectant mothers. I hope the Minister could address that.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: In general, I do agree with the Member and, in particular, we want to pay attention to those who are on contract service because as the economy progresses, we know that more and more people and more and more women will be on contract service. I give Members the assurance that I am doing my best to see how we can help this group of women, but just bear in mind that we must not inadvertently make it difficult for them to get the job in the first place. If every employer is worried that every potential woman employee, even a contract employee, is going to come with a long tail of benefits, I am worried that it

Column: 2039

may deter them from taking them on in the first place.