CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT CO-SAVINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT CO-SAVINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

6.05 pm

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is part of a larger package to support Singaporeans who wish to marry and to have children. Incidentally, we have just voted for a Constitutional amendment which provides more potential funds for the Government to spend. I come from the Ministry which is going to be spending more. The total package for marriage and procreation, we project, will cost $1.6 billion, about 0.6% of GDP per year. So, this is not a small sum of money. I say that so that I hope Members would not be asking me for more but rather scrutinising to make sure I do not over-spend or mis-spend that money.

A key component of this package is the enhancement of the various leave schemes. This includes extending maternity leave from 12 to 16 weeks, extending childcare leave from two to six days, and introducing six days of unpaid infant care leave. These measures that are targeted specifically at citizen babies only. That means parents must have Singaporean babies and also only in the context of intact families. In other words, it is only targeted at parents of legitimate children.

Another major change that we will be making is that the childcare and infant care subsidies, and the leave entitlements will also now apply to all children, regardless of birth order.

We will also be making enhancements to the Baby Bonus scheme. The cash gift for the first and second child will be increased from $3,000 to $4,000. Currently, the matching Government contribution to the Children Development Account is given only to the second, third and fourth child. This will now be extended to all children. The first child also will receive a matching Government contribution of up to $6,000, and the fifth child and beyond will receive a matching Government contribution of up to $18,000. These changes will be reflected in the Children Development Co-Savings Regulations rather than hard coded in the Bill itself.

Government-paid maternity leave and maternity-related employment protection

Let me now turn to Maternity Leave. In 2004, we extended maternity leave from eight weeks to 12 weeks. For the first and second confinements, employers paid for the first eight weeks, while the Government paid for the last four weeks. For the third and fourth confinements, the Government paid for the full 12 weeks. The Government has decided to bear the full costs of the extensions to maternity leave. This Bill will extend maternity leave from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, with the Government paying for the additional four weeks, subject to a cap of $10,000 per four weeks.

The last eight weeks of maternity leave can now be taken flexibly over the 12 months following the birth of the child, instead of over six months. This will allow employers and employees to work out the most suitable leave arrangements to meet their mutual needs. Those covered under the Employment Act who are only entitled to 12 weeks of leave will also be able to take their last four weeks of maternity leave flexibly over 12 months. This does not result in additional costs to either employers or the Government but will help to simplify the human resource systems for employers by streamlining arrangements for all employees.

Currently, an employee needs to have served the same employer for at least 180 days in order to be eligible for maternity benefits. Moving forward, we will shorten the qualifying period so that more of our working mothers will benefit from the enhanced benefits. The Bill will reduce the qualifying period to 90 days.

Even as we enhance the benefits for working mothers, the Bill will in tandem ensure that such mothers are well protected from errant and unfair employers. I wish to state categorically that the Government will not condone employers dismissing their employees during their pregnancy without sufficient cause. The Bill requires employers who dismiss pregnant employees without sufficient cause during the last six months of pregnancy to compensate the employee with the payment of the maternity leave benefits that she would have been entitled to if not for the dismissal. This is an extension from the current protection, where pregnant employees in the last three months of pregnancy who are dismissed without sufficient cause are entitled to maternity benefits.

The Bill also introduces a new measure to protect working mothers who are retrenched. An employer who retrenches a pregnant employee in her three months of pregnancy will be liable to compensate her with the payment of maternity leave benefits, on top of the other retrenchment benefits that the employee is entitled to. Currently, there is no such provision for retrenchment cases but we have decided to introduce this measure in order to further enhance the protection of pregnant employees.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): 6.11 pm

We have also taken the opportunity to address the situation faced by working mothers who have more than one employer at the time. Currently, these women are only eligible for paid maternity leave from only one employer, and the maternity leave taken with the other employer has to be unpaid. But we recognise that our economy is changing, and more women are likely to take on alternative working arrangements, sometimes with more than one employer. To ensure parity for these women, so that they can continue to enjoy the same level of income when they have a child, this Bill provides that these mothers will be entitled to paid maternity leave from all their employers. The Government will reimburse the employers accordingly for its share.

These last four enhancements, namely, the reduction in the qualifying period, the extension of the protection of pregnant employees who are dismissed without sufficient cause to the last six months of pregnancy, the protection of retrenched employees in the last three months of pregnancy, and allowing for paid maternity leave under more than one employer, go beyond just supporting the formation of families and should be basic employment prerogatives. These enhancements are therefore also covered under the Employment Act as well.

There is also another group of mothers – adoptive mothers. While they do not have the same need for physical recuperation and, therefore, do not receive maternity leave, the Government has decided to reimburse up to four weeks of pay if the adoptive mother's employer voluntarily provides her with leave. This benefit was provided to adoptive mothers whose family size did not exceed four children, including the adoptive child. The Bill now extends this benefit to all adoptive mothers regardless of their family size, in line with our intention to be supportive of larger families.

We also recognise the important roles that fathers play in raising children and, therefore, both the father and the mother will be entitled to the extended paid childcare leave and the new unpaid infant care leave.

Childcare leave

In 2004, two days of childcare leave, paid by employers, were introduced for working parents. To enable parents to have more time to care for and to spend with their children, the Bill will increase the childcare leave benefits, such that each working parent with at least one child under the age of seven will be entitled to six days of childcare leave per year. Bringing childcare leave under the Children Development Co-Savings Act will also now allow all working parents with a Singapore citizen child under the age of seven to enjoy this leave benefit.

The first three days of leave will be paid for by the employers, which is an increase of one day for employers compared to the current system. But to minimise business costs to employers, the Government will pay for the last three days of the childcare leave, up to a cap of $500 per day.

Based on feedback from employers, we have agreed that it is fair for employers to pro-rate the six days of childcare leave if an employee, who has just joined the company or who decides to leave the company, does not serve the company for a full year. For instance, if an employee works for the same employer for only six months that year, an employer might want to grant only three days of leave. This Bill, therefore, allows pro-ration of childcare leave, to a minimum of two days.

Should an employee leave in the course of the year after consuming more leave than he would have been entitled to after pro-rating, the employer may recover from the employee payment for those extra days of leave which the employer had already paid for. However, the employer should not recover from the employee payment for those extra days of leave that the Government paid for, unless the employer plans to return money to the Government.

To ensure accountability as well as parity amongst all Singaporeans, the Bill sets a limit that the Government will only pay for three days of childcare leave per employee per year. This also applies for an employee who works for more than one employer at the same time. MCYS will set up an online enquiry system for employers to check how many days of Government-paid childcare leave an employee has already taken in that year, including incoming new employees. This will help employers to determine the remaining number of days of childcare leave which the employee is entitled to.

To enhance protection for the employees, the Bill also introduces a new penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 for the first offence and $10,000 for the subsequent offences for errant employers who do not grant childcare leave to employees without reasonable cause.

Unpaid infant care leave

Finally, we are introducing a new type of leave – unpaid infant care leave. The objective of infant care leave is to provide working parents with some flexibility to take leave should they need additional time for their newborns. The Bill will provide for each working parent with at least one child under the age of two to be entitled to six days of infant care leave per year.

After careful consideration, we decided to make this leave unpaid, as we do not want to inadvertently escalate the costs of doing business in Singapore and ultimately adversely affect the employability of our workers, especially women. This is especially so when we have already enhanced both maternity and childcare leave at the same time this year.

If a parent has a child under the age of two, he can take both the unpaid infant care leave as well as the childcare leave, which means 12 days of leave per year.

Similar to childcare leave, for errant employers who do not grant infant care leave to employees without reasonable cause, this Bill introduces a new penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 for the first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences.

Transitional period

This Bill is scheduled to come into effect on 31st October 2008. The Government will also reimburse our share to employers who voluntarily grant their employees the enhanced leave from 17th August 2008, that is, even before the enhancements were made mandatory through legislation. We chose 17th August because that was the date that the enhanced measures were announced by the Prime Minister. This is also to encourage employers to be generous and to start giving the enhanced leave provisions early, and I am glad that many employers have already done so.

For maternity leave, the Government will also reimburse its share to employers who provide 16 weeks of maternity leave to those who delivered on or after 17th August. For births on or after 31st October, it will be mandatory for employers to do so.

For childcare leave, it will be mandatory for employers to give their employees at least three days of leave between 31st October 2008 and the end of the year, although childcare leave given prior to 31st October will also be counted as part of the three days. For those who voluntarily provide more than three days of leave between 17th August until the end of the year, the Government will also reimburse its share accordingly. For infant care leave, employers should give their employees all six days if an employee wishes to take this leave. Given that infant care leave is unpaid, it is unlikely to be used frivolously.

Let me take this opportunity to reiterate that our vision is to make Singapore a great place for families and this cannot be done by Government and legislation alone. Employers and employees have to play their part and they also have to look beyond legislation to embrace the spirit behind such measures, to appreciate that our families and our children are important to us as individuals, and ultimately essential for Singapore's future. Having children is a matter of personal choice, personal priority and, ultimately, a vote of confidence in the future.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.19 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, the Children Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the current Act to enhance, principally, the existing pro-family measures that the Government has put in place.

This amendment is part of the on-going effort to strengthen family bonds and, more importantly, to improve the total fertility rate among Singaporeans which as we are well aware is falling over the years, and is still below the replacement level. This development is consistent with the declining fertility rates in most developed countries, and we are no different.

The decline in total fertility rate is an issue that no responsible government should ignore. Of course, as some would say, we could rely on immigration to make up for the loss in numbers over the years. As a Singaporean, Sir, I would say that such a move would be folly indeed. Without the majority of the population being born and bred locally, the character and composition of our society would change. Imagine for a moment if a significant number of Chinese in Singapore were replaced by Chinese from the mainland. The presence of such a large number of foreigners with limited or no association with the history of the place, either through family ties or otherwise, would make for a very different Singapore as we know it.

I, therefore, welcome any initiative by the Government, including the ones introduced by the current Bill, to incentivise women to have more children to add to our numbers.

This, unfortunately, is not the first time that, as a country, we are addressing this issue. Population and procreation as subjects of public interest continue to vex our leadership going as far back as I can recall, when Minister Mentor was Prime Minister. How do we and in what circumstances should we get Singaporeans to settle down and have more children; and more importantly, to provide the right environment for the children to be properly nurtured and have their potential maximised?

Over the years, we have experimented with different policies. These include baby bonus incentive schemes and improving paid maternity leave. Over the years, our total fertility rate has not improved significantly, which explains why the topic of procreation and family planning surfaces from time to time and continues to preoccupy our minds.

Sir, giving mothers the monetary incentives and making it easier for them to get paid leave to have more children, I feel, only partially address the problem. I believe the problem of our low fertility rate goes deeper than that.

Our society has increasingly become more competitive over the years. The parents who are in a better position to raise their children well are not inclined generally to want to have children or more children; not unless they can have the assurance that they can raise their children properly without severely affecting their quality of life. The fact of the matter is that a fair number of educated women these days choose to work to supplement the family’s income, or simply as a career choice. They are also hard put to provide quality care for their children. In other words, many families would want to have the cake and eat it; but many will find the strain of keeping both. With rising costs, and the pressures of providing the best for the children and family with whatever material comfort they can afford, I am not surprised that many mothers are apprehensive about having babies or having more babies for that matter.

The question really is what can be done in the longer term to provide young couples with the assurance that having children is not such a frightening prospect as envisaged. Should our policy approach towards family planning be carried out in a more holistic manner in looking at providing support for the family that is not just focused mainly on giving birth to children, but also in looking after the child all the way to adulthood?

The current Act and the proposed amendments focus largely on providing incentives for giving births to children. I am, however, of the view that more can and should be done if we want to achieve the desired outcome that was intended. For instance, we give extended paid leave to mothers to bond with the children, but this is only part of the equation. What happens when the children are older and in school, and there is no one to look after them. Should we not also have a comprehensive scheme where before- and-after school care facilities may be strengthened to give working mothers the comfort of knowing that long after their children are born, the Government is there to provide a comprehensive network of support for them. Providing or increasing any subsidy in this regard will give a longer visibility of support. Presently, I am given to understand that the student care subsidy is only extended to those who cannot afford it. Should the funding principle in this regard be restricted to only those who cannot afford it? Or should it also be extended to working mothers to make it easier for them to make a decision about family planning?

Many women I spoke to reflect the view that the decision to have children goes beyond financial incentives of giving birth. The constraints cut across our policy landscape and also the way the labour market operates. Let me explain with just two illustrations. First, the common bugbear amongst young couples has to do with the long wait for a subsidised HDB property. Most couples prefer to have their own pad before having children. The option of buying from the open market is not available to many couples. They would not have the means to pay up to $20,000 to $30,000 cash over valuation which is usually asked for if you buy a flat in the open market. Most would, unless they have parents who can help them, have to save up for a period of time before they can afford to settle down. So, typically, by the time a working couple have their first child, they would be in their late twenties or thirties; if at all they decide to have babies. In most cases, the prospect of having three or more children by the time the women are forty seems rather remote indeed because forty is a biological age beyond which having children may be at risk to the women and the child concerned. So how many more babies can we have if they are getting married later?

Secondly, shortly after the announcement of the extended maternity leave for mothers, there are grave concerns on whether or not this may work against them at the work place. Now I understand that the Government is very concerned about discrimination against women who are pregnant and who have to take leave, and who have been retrenched as a result. The fact of the matter is that women these days may not be given the same protection when it comes to seeking employment. Not every employer is as enlightened as we want them to be. For instance, I have been told that some HR staff when interviewing candidates for employment would want to know whether the women are starting a family or whether they are going to be pregnant, or whether they are pregnant. If it was found out that they are going to get married, they are going to settle down and have children, this may alter the final selection as to whether or not they will be hired by the company. The current legislation itself does not extend so far as to protect women in this category. Certainly, while we want to extend the leave given to women to encourage them to have babies, it is a difficult struggle that some employers have in wanting to extend employment to them.

So, therefore, the question of encouraging women to have babies itself must extend through the entire policy landscape, which includes housing, labour, and so on and so forth. So it is a very difficult issue for which the baby bonus and the incentives only settle part of the equation itself.

There are other countries which have come up with other models which help to make it easier for mothers to have children. To illustrate, France, for example, has a caregiver model wherein a child minder is afforded by the state to new mothers to help with the chores, understand the concerns of mothers and provide these mothers with specific needs of the new born. France also has a system of collective care, which takes place in the form of creches and day nurseries and these establishments are either run by the councils, private organisations or voluntary bodies, which are set up by the companies for their employees.

I am not suggesting for a moment that we follow the French way. First of all, it is too expensive and, secondly, it is not practical and it may lend itself to abuse. However, I cited the French example if only to show the need for us, as I said earlier, to take a more holistic and comprehensive approach to encouraging families to have children or couples to start families.

In the debate on the amendment to this Bill in September 2004, Dr Amy Khor had asked if MCYS could consider helping to train more home-based baby-sitters and to consider extending infant care subsidies to parents who choose home-based baby-sitters as opposed to infant care centers. The Minister noted her point and suggested studying this before making any commitment in this area. I am not sure whether the MCYS has come to any conclusion arising from the study in this regard. Yet, again, I cite this as an example of the little initiatives that the Government can provide that will go a long way in providing this holistic support which I spoke about in tipping the mother one step further towards having babies or, for that matter, having more babies.

When we first began family planning, we encouraged Singaporeans to stop at two. Over the years, our tagline changed to asking Singaporeans to have more if they can afford it because of our declining birth rate. The irony is that with Singaporeans who can afford to have more children and who are in a position to provide for their children, monetary incentives are often less of a concern than quality of life. I have spoken to many women on this issue. The common retort has been, "Can the Government assure me that my child will not suffer from the excessive pressures of our education system? Or can I be sure that my career will not be affected by my juggling between the competing demands of looking after the family and pleasing my bosses? What about my own quality of life? Do I have the right to pursue my interest? Why should my husband be the one to play golf while the family is dumped on me?"

So as we dig deeper into these issues, we realise that this issue goes beyond maternity leave and savings account. This does not mean that we do not even begin to try. But what it does mean is that we will have to take a comprehensive approach in dealing with this issue. We may have to re-look at the definition of the family by including, perhaps, single unmarried mothers. For now, such a suggestion would come across as being radical and perhaps ahead of our time. But whatever it is, unless we try harder, I personally am not too optimistic that under our current policies, we will succeed in reversing this declining trend of fertility rate in the longer term.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

The measures contained in this Bill to promote marriage and parenthood are generous and pro-family. I hope that they will indeed give the much needed boost to our fertility rate. I have received very positive reactions to these measures. The NTUC had discussions and workshops with a few hundred people, including the NTUC women's committee members, unionists and workers, and generally all were supportive of the enhanced leave and other benefits.

These measures are really quite a quantum leap. From 1968 to 2004, our maternity benefits were only eight weeks and unions were even prohibited from asking for more than this even if employers were willing to give. Then in 2004, our maternity benefits were increased to 12 weeks and now to 16 weeks. Within a matter of four years, our paid maternity benefits have doubled. However, the enhanced maternity leave would be quite meaningless if protection of these benefits is weak or ineffective. Hence, way back in 2006, the NTUC had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Manpower asking for greater protection for pregnant women against arbitrary dismissals and unfair treatment. In particular, we were unhappy that pregnant women who were retrenched would not get any maternity benefits although the retrenchment was due to no fault of theirs. We were also concerned that only women who were six months' pregnant would be protected from dismissals without just cause. We had also asked for the Government to reduce the eligibility period for entitlement to paid maternity benefits.

I am indeed very glad, Sir, that this Amendment Bill has incorporated these changes. Under the amendments, pregnant women retrenched in their third trimester will be paid maternity benefits. Women who are in their second trimester can now seek redress if they are dismissed without just cause, and women need only to work for 90 days to be eligible for the paid maternity benefits.

But, unfortunately, Sir, there is also a flip side to these changes. I have received feedback from our women leaders, who are concerned that married and pregnant women will be discriminated against, as some management had actually confided in them that they are now reluctant to employ women. On the other hand, I have also received feedback from employers, particularly the smaller ones, who are concerned about how to fill the vacancies when women employees take this extended leave. So, the real challenge, Sir, is how to implement the enhanced leave measures in a manner which is fair, sustainable and meet the needs of both employees and employers. There obviously cannot be one solution that fits everyone. There is also a need for greater consultation and discussion between the company and the female employees. This basically depends on the level of trust and confidence that exists in the company.

Sir, I urge employers to see the long-term objectives of the enhanced benefits. Employers will have to face and respond to the challenge for more flexibility to address the needs of different segments of the workforce. In this way, they can retain talent, build a vibrant and motivated workforce and continue to grow their business. Employers should hire, reward, promote and retain employees based on their merit and contributions and not treat them unfairly because of their pregnancy or family responsibilities. Employers should realise that discrimination does not make good business sense. Even in a downturn, they need to find the right talent. If you are an employer, you want a good job fit and people who will stay.

Our workforce is changing and getting more diverse. Employers need to respond. Talent has choices. No employer thinks that they discriminate. Almost everyone thinks that they are fair and objective. But if you do not challenge your thinking and review your assumptions about job candidates, you may find that you are biased, whether in the job application form or in the interview process. It is not just going to hinder your ability to identify the best candidate but will also impact on what the candidates think of your organisation and what they are going to tell their friends about you as well.

At the same time, employees too have a responsibility to their jobs. Employees should uphold a high standard of performance and should not expect employers to compromise these standards because of pregnancy or family responsibilities. They should also be flexible and work closely with their employers to help in the smooth transition and hand over duties to other employees who are covering for them during their leave period.

Where possible, employees should be flexible in taking the last eight weeks of the maternity benefit, such as stretching leave over a longer period, taking half-day leave or work on a shortened work week. This would help to minimise disruptions to the company's operations. Employees also need to understand that only a thriving business will be able to generate and sustain good jobs and provide effective work-life balance.

Sir, as the Co-Chair of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP), we have been doing a lot of work to address this issue of discrimination against pregnant women or those with family responsibilities. Our work is done through the Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment. Over 800 employers have now pledged support for fair employment and the Centre has made individualised visits to over 100 employers to assist them in the adoption of fair employment practices. Issues relating to discrimination are not straightforward and the Centre organises sharing sessions where the advocates in each pledging company can learn about the progressive practices of other employers. The Centre also runs popular recruitment and selection workshops to help employers and there is already a waiting list for this training.

We are building momentum and last month, all the members of the Singapore Staffing Association also pledged their support agreeing not only to hire on merit for their organisations but also to promote fair employment practices to their clients. The Centre has also worked with SPH to persuade media advertising agencies on how to position a job advertisement that is not discriminatory. So, even as TAFEP enables employers and makes it easier to be fair, we are also making it more difficult for them to be unfair.

By the end of this month, to further promote the adoption of fair employment practices, there will be a media campaign to challenge mindsets on what one looks for when one hires. At the end of the day, hiring on merit means looking objectively at whether the person can do the job and not the colour of one's skin or the wrinkles on the face or the number of children one has or is going to have.

In February next year, we will also launch Singapore's first national conference on fair employment, which will bring together leading international experts to help in the practical promotion of fair employment practices in Singapore. So, in this way, TAFEP through the TAFEC Centre hopes that we could do our part in contributing towards an environment where there is less discrimination against women who are pregnant or who have family responsibilities.

Let me just touch on a couple of points, Sir. First, I would like to say I have a particular concern for women who are employed on contract work. It is very easy for companies to avoid payment of the maternity benefits by structuring the employment contracts as short-term contracts. In this way, they do not have to pay maternity benefits as the women's service is disrupted and they will not be able to qualify for the eligibility period. Could the Minister clarify what measures will be taken to prevent employers from resorting to such tactics to avoid payment of the enhanced maternity benefits? Has MCYS or MOM received complaints from women on such practice and how were they dealt with?

Second, employers, particularly smaller ones, with greater cashflow problems have complained that reimbursement by MCYS only after an employee has consumed all her maternity leave, including leave that is taken flexibly, is too rigid as it could mean that, in some cases, they would get paid only after one year. Could MCYS consider reimbursing employers at shorter intervals, which is important for smaller companies?

Third, there is some feedback from non-working mothers that they have not benefited much from the Marriage and Parenthood Package. They lamented that while they have heeded the Government's call to have more babies, they have not benefited as much as the working mothers. They feel that their loss is greater because they have to give up their jobs. Would the Government consider some benefits for these non-working mothers as well?

Finally, the feedback also is that the Government tends to look at the marriage and parenthood issue in a very piecemeal manner. It fails to understand that people are struggling not only to raise children but also to take care of sick, elderly parents as well. Giving childcare leave alone will not be sufficient inducement for those struggling to take care of the elderly sick. Would the Government consider introducing family care leave, which is already found in quite a number of countries?

Sir, in conclusion, I agree with the Minister that these measures proposed under CDCA is not the solution. For women to have more babies, it will require the support of the Government, employers and society. Through these measures, the Government has shown its support for marriage and procreation. Employers could help by creating a supportive environment for the female employees who are pregnant or have young children. Supportive husbands who extend a helping hand at home certainly help to reduce the dual pressures that mothers faced at home and at work. The Japanese example, Sir, is insightful. They have similar provisions, providing generously to women but their fertility rate has not gone up because other factors are at work to discourage parenthood. I think we should look at such examples and examine as to what are the other factors that we need to look at in order to ensure that these marriage and procreation measures will truly be effective in achieving its goals.

On this note, Sir, I support this Bill.

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after the last Marriage and Procreation (M&P) package was announced in 2004, Singapore's total fertility rate has improved very marginally from 1.26 to just 1.29. It is not clear that we can attribute any success to the 2004 package.

Indeed, after the National Day Rally in which enhancements to the marriage and procreation measures were announced, I asked young Singaporeans for their responses. The responses have been mixed. Some young couples, especially those with at least one child, tell me that they feel encouraged to have more children. Sadly, a larger number have an indifferent attitude or think that our declining fertility is an irreversible trend. It makes me wonder if M&P 2 is doomed to fail from the start.

Why then should we commit millions in additional spending each year to support what appears to be a failed or failing policy? It looks like we are throwing good money after bad, with no promise of any significant results.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I ask myself, what is the public interest here? After all, getting married and starting families are very personal decisions. Each year, it seems that fewer and fewer young Singaporeans are persuaded to do so. Why can we not just let nature take its own course and stop flogging a dead horse, so to speak?

If we were just a collection of economic factors, grouping together only to achieve superior economic returns for our human capital, the enhanced M&P package is really irrelevant. We would ask how we can assemble the best possible team to maximise economic returns for each of our team members in Singapore. In other words, there would be no need for babies at all. It is quicker and easier to get ready-made ones from abroad.

But Singapore is not just an economy, we are a nation, and so we must address the question of what it means to be a nation.

First, I think, a nation must have its own citizens born and bred with unquestioned allegiance and willingness to defend it in times of need. This is not to cast doubt on our new citizens, and in no way suggests that they are disloyal or will be fleet-footed in times of trouble. But the depths of feelings will vary and are likely to be different, at least for the first few years.

Second, a nation must have its own sense of identity, with a set of unspoken, implicitly held values that bind its people together. In fact, a nation's identity is often expressed most prominently by its diaspora wherever they congregate. Hence, the Greeks in Australia, the Chinese in the UK, and the Jews in America, all form tight communities, despite the fact that they have adopted new citizenships. Singaporeans are no different. We never enjoy each other's company more than when we are all stranded together faraway from home.

Third, a nation must, of course, be able to sustain itself economically, or its people will perish. But economic success is a means to an end of nation-building, providing it with the resources to pursue national ideals and express society's values. In Singapore, our national ideals include that of meritocracy and multi-racialism. In recent times, we have also sought to cultivate an inclusive, gracious and giving society.

Sir, I ask myself whether these national ideals can be consistently pursued if we do not produce our own babies, have our own young. Ideals survive and evolve in the transmission. Once the transmission stops, so too will the ideals fade away and morph into something unrecognisable. There is, thus, the inherent risk to our national identity whenever we replenish our ranks with new citizens. To be sure, they inject new ideas, diversity and fresh perspectives, all of which are vital to our continued survival and relevance. But new citizens also change our societal mix and we have to recognise that.

So, how do we preserve the positive core of Singapore's society, our Singaporean-ness, so to speak? Sir, I think we must continue the transmission to our young. Do we want a Singapore which exists in name only, with nothing particularly unique or special about it? To put it starkly, having more babies is becoming an issue of national survival.

This, then, to me, is of public interest. As representatives of the people, we have to ask if we can afford to allow a future where there are fewer and fewer Singapore-born Singaporeans to descend upon our nation, without seeking to do something about it. Maybe we have already acted too late, but better late than never.

Can the Government, through its maternity and parenthood policies, reverse the declining trends of the total fertility rate? I am afraid the answer is clearly no. It will take a lot more than Government's actions to make it happen. Few young Singaporeans will be persuaded to have babies for the sake of national survival or as a matter of filial duty. In fact, some are not even persuaded that they should do it for the joy that children bring to themselves.

One disturbing trend is also emerging. On one occasion, someone who was involved with the dialogue that I hosted went so far as to tell me that if the Government guarantees free education for his child up to university level, better still, raise his kids for him. I will have them. Was this person joking? Sadly, he was quite serious about it. No doubt, it is costly to raise children. We can, and should, as a society, help to alleviate the cost of parenthood. But to expect society at large to raise our kids for us is plainly wrong. So I must urge Government not to turn M&P 2 into a monetary contract between Government and the people – "You give birth, we pay." There should be no place for such warped thinking in Singapore.

In what spirit, then, should we support M&P 2? Sir, I propose that this House must support the Bill because we believe in Singapore. We believe that in Singapore, we have a past that is worth honouring and a future that is worth looking forward to. If we do not have the next generation of Singaporeans, who is there to remember us and honour our legacies? If we do not have the next generation, who is there to create the future for?

So, to my fellow Singaporeans, please have children, more if you can afford it. Do not do it because the Government is giving you a baby bonus. Do not do it because anyone else says you should be obliged to. Have children because you believe in yourself, in your family and in Singapore. Have children so that, your future, our future and Singapore's future is worth creating. Sir, I would like to conclude my remarks in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Deputy Speaker, in our many public dialogue sessions, the employers have the strongest opinion regarding procreation measures. Many employers feel that the procreation policies would have negative impact on their companies. They are worried about the increasing cost of business, and difficulties faced during the implementation process.

Each time a new policy is implemented, we are prepared to make any necessary adjustments as needed in the short term. But I hope that the employers can take a long-term approach. Let us take Japan as an example. Japan is currently facing a rapidly ageing population and the rate of ageing is faster than any other countries. Japan’s population has declined since last year, and the country’s labour force has also been shrinking. Japanese corporations are clearly aware of the impact that this trend can have on their business operations and activities. However, it might be too late for the Japanese government to look at increasing fertility rate now. So are we going to be like Japan? Do we want to solve the problem only when it hits us?

The Singapore Government has created a pro-business environment for our companies, and it is a reliable and good place to grow their businesses. Therefore, I hope the employers consider the fact that their stay in Singapore will be over a long period of time, and so they should also support these initiatives involving marriage and procreation. When making adjustments, if employers show their sincerity to employees, then employees on their part should also cooperate with the companies in applying for maternity and childcare leave. Both parties can adopt a win-win approach and try to work out the most appropriate arrangements.

So let us work together – the Government, the employers and the employees – and let us join in our common effort to build a pro-family, pro-marriage and procreation society.

Sir, I support this Bill.

---

*Cols. 671-672.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the CDCA Amendment Bill. I believe this Bill is important for our long-term national interests in terms of making us more pro-family as a nation and as employers. These measures, I hope, will go a long way for us to achieve our national interests in maintaining our population replenishment rates.

I agree with my parliamentary colleagues who spoke earlier that the amendments will bring about direct benefits, such as improved financial and leave support, to help prospective parents and those planning to build larger families.

I also agree with them that the policy also needs a more holistic approach – though I am not so pessimistic about the long term – as long as we have an open mind, and work with the young to have an open heart, to be more pro-family, to be more open to set up their own families as they grow.

I would like to touch upon two main areas today in the implementation of the Bill. Firstly, to protect the interests of women from discrimination in employment and career prospects at the workplace. Secondly, to ensure that women are better protected from unwarranted dismissal under the guise of retrenchment, in particular from companies seeking to cut cost in these difficult times.

When the improved benefits were announced in PM’s National Day Rally speech, there was plenty of joy among those planning to have children. However, as mentioned by my parliamentary colleagues, there were also concerns raised by my peers as well as constituents, on whether they would be discriminated at the workplace as a result. I raised this as a parliamentary question in Parliament before, and I am raising it again today, as I believe that there is more that can be done, as regulation today is reactive and the subtlety in which discrimination is happening in the workplace makes enforcement difficult.

The underlying objectives of the amendments are good, and I agree with them. But I fear, especially given these difficult times, that discrimination against women who are seeking employment may increase with the implementation of this amendment. If a woman aged 25 to 35 walks through the door for an interview, what may precipitate in the back of the minds of the hiring employer or manager is that she may cost them three children times four months of maternity leave and benefits. This may disadvantage the woman job applicant indirectly, as there will always be different means to justify her unsuitability.

Secondly, this may also affect the prospects of women in employment from furthering their careers or particular job postings. For example, I have also received feedback that at annual appraisals, some women have been casually asked by their bosses on whether they plan to have any more kids anytime soon.

Sir, I believe that we should move to disallow this line of questioning to begin with, and engage women workers to be aware of the channels that they can seek redress. Such questions are certainly not warranted, and I think more can be done by MCYS and MOM to educate employers. By that, I mean addressing hiring managers and executives, not just the HR teams, to step up enforcement action against those delving in discriminating practices, though not necessarily their policies.

I would also encourage MOM and MCYS to educate women of their rights at the workplace. I have recently discovered one merit in this Bill. The Bill provides for the protection of women in the PMET group, who are generally not covered by the Employment Act, which tends to cover the blue-collar workers. This is particularly important because the women PMET group – mothers who are managers, executives, professionals and skilled technical staff – tend to be more costly and have a larger impact on the firm’s bottom line. They are often not unionised and are not sufficiently represented and may have more at stake in terms of career prospects and opportunity cost.

Moving on to my second point, I think that more can be done to ensure that expectant women who are retrenched (clause 21(g) to insert section 84A) are given similar protection, such as those who are dismissed without sufficient cause (clause 21(d) to amend section 84). I am heartened that clause 21(d) which amends section 84 of the Employment Act has been enhanced. With this amendment, an expectant mother is not deprived of her maternity benefits within a period of six months preceding the estimated delivery date for her confinement, instead of the three months that was provisioned before.

I believe the insertion of this new section 84A creates a backdoor to the enhancements made in clause 21(d). In the newly inserted section 84A, an organisation that is retrenching or reorganising does not need to compensate a woman on her maternity benefits, if it is not before three months preceding the estimated delivery date. This can potentially peg us back to the old Act, if dismissals can be justified as retrenchment or company restructuring.

Sir, in this poor economic climate, the temptation to cut costs may result in more cases of women being terminated for one cause or another in their first two trimesters. From a management point of view, sometimes it is easier to justify poor business performance and company restructuring, rather than poor individual performance of the staff.

Sir, currently, I am aware of cases where there are women who are compelled just to hide their pregnancies to as late as possible in order to minimise their risk of being discriminated and dismissed before they reach their final trimester.

While the top performers and those from larger organisations may be held up as 'poster cases', those in smaller firms and those within the lower quartiles find themselves at risk of being made redundant when companies are under cost pressure.

I would like to recommend that the inserted section 84A be amended to make it in line with section 84 of the Act, to make it harder for employers to justify the dismissals of expectant mothers – whether the reason being retrenchment or otherwise – and give them a minimum of six months before their expected date of delivery or confinement.

In addition, I hope that the Minister can help assure the House on how both MCYS and MOM plan to help our women at all levels caught in such situations and if measures are in place to identify and prove such cases.

I think MCYS and MOM can work even more closely with top executives, managers and business owners to support this Act. Almost all HR practitioners I spoke to are supportive of this Act. But some of the feedback I receive is that management buy-in is very critical because policies and practices can be very different. This is especially so if the working culture is driven by the bottom-line.

Though I have a final request for MCYS to consider, moving on from the women to the men of the house. I think that we should consider implementing paternity leave of between two to four weeks for the birth of each child to promote greater involvement of fathers to support the mothers in the initial stages of child development. This should not be seen as an economic incentive, but to get fathers to increase their involvement in the upbringing of children from day one.

Sir, in conclusion, I believe that the Act sets us in the right directions in terms of our national birthrate concerns. But I think that we can do more to protect the interests of women in terms of discrimination and unwarranted dismissal. With this, I support the amendments.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for the support of the Bill. I will address some of the issues raised by Members on workplace-related measures before my colleague, Dr Balakrishnan, delivers the closing address. Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Mdm Halimah Yacob expressed concern about the impact of the enhanced leave measures on the employability of women.

Let me first clarify that under the current Employment Act, it is already an offence to dismiss employees without sufficient cause during the last three months of pregnancy or to terminate their employment when they are on maternity leave. As part of this year's enhanced marriage and parenthood package, we will strengthen the protection for pregnant employees in both the Employment Act and CDCA. In this regard, we will require employers to pay maternity leave benefits to employees who are retrenched during the last three months of pregnancy or dismissed without sufficient cause during the last six months of pregnancy.

These measures were recognised by tripartite partners as being necessary for ensuring basic employment protection for pregnant employees.

However, we should not believe that legislation is the panacea to all discrimination-related problems because it is not. The real solution is to change employers' mindsets so that they understand the benefit of and to adopt fair employment practices and create a family-friendly work environment. This is the reason why the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) has been set up in May 2006. TAFEP, of which Mdm Halimah is the Co-Chairperson, has done a good job in promoting fair employment practices over the years.

To address Mr Zaqy's and Mr Sin's concerns on discrimination during the recruitment process, TAFEP has issued a set of tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices that promotes non-discriminatory hiring practices. Employers are advised to avoid questions that are not relevant to the requirements of the job during a job interview, such as whether the candidate intends to get married or set up a family. Employers are also advised to adopt appraisal systems which are fair and objective and reward their employees based on their ability, performance, contribution and experience.

I agree with Mr Zaqy and Mdm Halimah that while employers should be fair, employees themselves should also be flexible and try to understand the needs of their organisations as well as the concerns of their co-workers before taking leave. My Ministry will work with the employers and unions on educating and raising awareness of the roles and responsibilities of both employers and employees to facilitate the smooth implementation of the enhanced leave measures.

Mdm Halimah raised the concern about unscrupulous employers who placed women on short-term contract work to avoid paying maternity benefits. To help more female employees to be eligible for maternity leave, including those on short-term employment contract, we have proposed to reduce the qualifying period for maternity leave from 180 days to 90 days. So far, the number of complaints to MOM regarding employers who put female employees on short-term contracts to avoid paying maternity benefits is still small. Notwithstanding this, we will monitor the situation carefully and decide what needs to be done.

I am confident that the majority of employers in Singapore are enlightened and treat their employees fairly. As highlighted by Mdm Halimah, employees who encounter employment-related problems or feel discriminated against at the workplace can approach the Ministry or TAFEP for assistance.

Mr Zaqy also requested for statutory paternity leave to be introduced. Dr Vivian has explained that the enhanced childcare leave, as well as the new infant care leave, also applies to fathers. There is, therefore, no immediate need to impose an additional burden on employers by legislating paternity leave.

Mdm Halimah has also highlighted the concerns of increased business costs and the impact of business continuity caused by the absence from work by their female employees. These are genuine concerns that were discussed extensively when my Ministry consulted key employer leaders from the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the Singapore Business Federation earlier this year. Many of their suggestions were incorporated in the finalised leave measures and arrangements. For example, we have accepted the suggestion by some employers for the Government to co-share the cost of these additional measures. This is why the Government will be funding the last eight weeks of maternity leave for the first two confinements and the full 16 weeks for the third and subsequent confinements. The Government will also pay for three out of the six days of childcare leave.

To Mr Zaqy's suggestion on extending the requirement for employers to pay maternity leave benefits to female employees who are retrenched from the proposed last three months of the pregnancy to the last six months, I would like to explain that this is a new measure and was formulated based on tripartite consensus after extended discussion. Since it will incur additional costs to employers and retrenchment is really neither the fault of the employer nor the employee, we have decided to limit the requirement to pay maternity leave benefits to the last three months of pregnancy for now.

To Mr Zaqy's concern that employers may disguise the dismissal as a retrenchment exercise, aggrieved employees may approach MOM and we will investigate into each case.

We have also taken in industry feedback on the need for flexibility to allow businesses to manage the impact on their operations. Hence, the last eight weeks of maternity leave may now be taken over a 12-month period from the birth of the child instead of six months. In addition to this, employers may continue to tap on the Work-Life Works and Flexi-Works schemes to help them defray the costs of implementing work-life initiatives.

Sir, in closing, I would like to urge employers to also implement work-life measures that support employees in both their work and family lives. I am certain that most employers understand the benefits of doing so. While the Government is doing its part to affirm the importance of family and the value of children to our society, each of us has a role to play in creating a more supportive environment to raise our future generations. Employers and employees should work harmoniously to ensure the smooth implementation of our Marriage and Parenthood Package and create a win-win situation where both business and personal needs can be met.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members for their comments. I thank especially the Acting Minister for Manpower for his reassurance that the Ministry of Manpower will take a firm line to prevent discrimination against women at the workplace. I would also urge Members to bear his comments that there is a need for balance and flexibility to be exercised by all stakeholders involved in this.

I fully agree with Mr Sin Boon Ann that raising the total fertility rate requires a comprehensive approach. It is not just a matter of leave or Baby Bonus, and the Member has outlined a series of suggestions, not all of which we can move on, but I can assure him on things like provision of student care, and especially to locate them more conveniently within schools. The HDB is stepping up its building programme. But what we cannot assure every couple is that they will get a new flat in a location of their choice. Nevertheless, if they are prepared to buy resale flats and enjoy the housing grant, there are options for newly-married couples.

Issues on stress and education system are a much more intractable problem, but we know that the Ministry of Education has made significant measures over the last couple of years, for instance, to teach less learn more. But having said that, at the end of the day, this is a competitive society and no amount of engineering with respect to curriculum or pedagogy is going to remove all stress from that. And that again requires a certain balance and perspective to the approach in life.

On the issue of an unfair burden between men and women, that is not something we can legislate. I think every couple will have to negotiate their own terms of engagement and an equitable sharing of the burden. But he is absolutely right, an entirely machismic society where men play golf and women are expected to look after the children will inevitably lead to a decreased fertility rate.

I share a lot of the sentiments that Mrs Josephine Teo expressed, but I am a little bit more optimistic than her. The fact that we have been able to move the total fertility rate from 1.24 to 1.29 is significant in itself. I think even preventing an erosion is a significant achievement. I hope we will see it go beyond 1.3, and if we are lucky, maybe even 1.4. But even at that level, I think it will still guarantee that future generations of Singaporeans will continue to have a hard core of people born and bred in Singapore, who will be able to transmit that cultural and social DNA that constitutes the Singapore identity. So, this investment in marriage and procreation is still worthwhile and although it is not easy and, as I have said earlier, it is expensive, but I believe it is something which we ought to do.

I would also go on to say that I have sympathy for Mdm Halimah's suggestion that we look at reimbursing the employers at a shorter interval rather than waiting for the employees to complete their entire term of maternity leave before we reimburse them. Smaller companies may have cashflow problems and it is something my Ministry will study.

Mdm Halimah has also spoken about non-working mothers. This is a perennial issue. What I would say is that all mothers, including non-working mothers, are entitled and do enjoy the Baby Bonus and their families can also tap on the parenthood tax rebates. But there is a difference, and the main difference is that working mothers are entitled to maternity leave, childcare leave and infant care leave, which they need by definition because they are working, and they need time-off from their work in order to recuperate and look after their children. Similarly, working mothers also enjoy higher rates of subsidies for infant care and childcare because they need these services more in order to enable them to go to work.

So, it is not true that we do not support stay-at-home mothers but we do provide them support. But she is right, the playing field is tilted somewhat in favour of working mothers. The majority of women actually are working mothers and, in fact, if you speak to the younger generation, most women do want to have it all. They do want to be able work and to have children and, hence, our focus has been to provide as much support as we can for this group of women. However, we are not making or casting value judgments as to which is a better path. I think, at the end of the day, whether to stay at home and look after your children full time or whether to pursue a career and to depend on childcare or other home-based care solutions is a personal choice. We can help but we cannot make that choice, and there are consequences whichever way we choose.

Mdm Halimah also asked whether we could consider introducing family care leave. Let me quite honestly sound a note of caution at this point in time. This Bill has just introduced up to 10 new days of extra leave per year for both father and mother of a child under the age of seven, plus an additional one month of maternity leave. I think these are significant additions and alterations to our working regime, and I believe it will suffice for the time being. I am not keen to move more aggressively and in a way which may impair the competitiveness of our companies, especially bearing in mind the economic weather that we are going to face over the next one to two years. Nevertheless, I would urge companies to exercise more flexibility. You know, sometimes all they need is an extended lunch or a couple of hours in order to attend to the more urgent domestic duties which they have. So, again, I echo the words of my colleague, Mr Gan Kim Yong, that both employees and employers exercise flexibility. A lot can be achieved without having to resort to legislation.

Let me conclude by saying I totally agree with Mrs Josephine Teo that this cannot be a transaction between Government and people. This is not a bribe to ask you to have more children. All that we can do is that for those Singaporeans who do want to get married, who do want to have children, we can help them. For those who do not want to, they are entitled to make their own choices. Of course, those choices have implications on the future of Singapore but does that mean that we need to depend more on those who want to have children and, therefore, we need to support them more actively than we have in the past and that does mean a significant commitment of Government resources and expenditure.

So, yes, we have, in a sense, a system in which different priorities and different allocation of resources are made, but we need the understanding of all Members, all Singaporeans, that we need to have such a system in order to keep Singapore going and to make sure we continue to have a hard core of born and bred, locally-made Singaporeans.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Column No : 645