FAMILY-FRIENDLY WORK PRACTICES

Debate resumed.

Dr Vasoo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by Dr Lily Neo.

Sir, there is an increase in the number of dual-income families. More than 50% of the workforce comprise of working couples, and it is projected that it is likely to increase to 70% the next decade. This therefore calls for urgent attention as to what support we can give to working couples.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

3.37 pm

Dr Vasoo: Sir, it is inevitable that more companies will need to move towards family-friendly work practices. Because if these companies do not move towards family-friendly work practices, they are likely to lose younger working couples. It becomes less attractive and therefore companies will inevitably need to think of ways to attract and retain younger working couples. I see that it is very important for us to maintain a balance between friendly-work practices and also the viability of companies. We cannot separate them and look at each of them on its own merits. Therefore, to ensure that the companies are viable, we need also to ensure that they provide good support for their workers. Because workers who are faced with various family-related problems also become very unproductive workers and they incur cost to the company, and the company is also likely to become less viable because of these problems.

So there are no complete solutions to this whole matter because we are dealing with lifespan issues, and lifespan issues call for a completely life-long examination of how we can respond to human development. I think that nobody disagrees that there is a need for us to look at ways to strengthen the family because strengthening family and giving family the best of support we can, enriches the nation. We deal with less social problems, less family breakdowns and other related family problems and in the end it is going to be less cost to the society in any case. Therefore, all the more, the various views expressed by Dr Lily Neo and Dr Jennifer Lee should be given serious attention. I hope that the committee under the charge of Minister Lim Boon Heng would be able to look at how we can address some of these issues related to family support and family-friendly work practices. I think we need to review some of the policies which have impact on the family. They are rather segmented and many of these social policies related to families are not comprehensive and well coordinated, and there is a need to re-visit some of these family support policies. I am sure Mr Lim's committee is actively looking into these and I hope that his committee is able to come out with more comprehensive policies that will provide concerted support for families. This, I am certain, his committee is looking at and they would not put up knee-jerk reaction policies. More often than not, many of the policies that we have known are policies that are, to some extent, knee-jerk, and they are not going to produce any comprehensive impact in support of family life. More importantly, Sir, we need to re-visit family-support policies. Aside from promoting more family-friendly workplaces, it is important to look at these policies because these policies are fundamental to ensuring that we have strong families, and strong families mean better workplaces, and better workplaces mean more viable companies, and we are able to make better economic progress.

Sir, we need to look at the childcare grants. The childcare grant of $180 may not necessarily be able to meet the increased cost in childcare. Today, if you look at the average cost of childcare, it is about $450 and above. Therefore, it becomes a burden to many average working families. So there is a need to revise it. Childcare sick leave is only three days, paternity leave is at the moment being implemented, and other childcare leave is very limited. So we have to examine it and I hope this would be actively reviewed.

Workplace childcare services also need to be looked at because we want to encourage clusters of companies coming together to promote workplace childcare services and we need to study the kind of support to be given to these companies that are interested. Some of them may not have economies of scale but I think we can look at the clustering of all these companies coming together to provide childcare services in urban areas where many young couples work.

The maternity leave which is now extended to the third child may need to be looked at in terms of post-natal kind of leave where the mother needs to support a new-born and a month's leave may not necessarily help her to prepare and wean the child because of the requirement to go back to work. So this can be re-examined.

The maid levy has to be looked at more closely because there have been suggestions and viewpoints from many working mothers to re-look at this. And I hope that the committee will actively restudy these issues that have been raised.

The other aspect which we need to assess is the single session schools and whether single session schools are going to be actively promoted. I hope that this will be stepped up so that it would be a solution to the problem of giving support to families, especially families with younger primary school-going children. This, I think, should not remain as lip-service. I feel that the Ministry of Education, with the recommendations of the committee, could look at how these could be implemented as quickly as possible.

Sir, the other point that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that there are a few urgent priorities that need to be looked into. First, we need to provide more incentives to companies who are setting up workplace childcare places, as recommended by Dr Jennifer Lee. And there is this problem that MND is not giving sufficient incentives for companies to implement such a scheme. The plot ratio takes into consideration these childcare centres. If you look at the childcare centre, it is a social service. It is a programme like schools, hospitals, clinics and various other facilities. They are social services which enhance the human social capital. Such a service that is undertaken by companies should receive greater attention and incentives. So there should be tax exemptions for companies to take an active interest by providing the support.

We also need to look at the setting up of childcare service for children below the age of 18 months because many parents want to work but they are deterred by the fact that they have to look after younger children below 18 months or there are problems related to childcare. Such a service has to be stepped up. Private operators, voluntary organisations and other interested groups can be encouraged to look into the provision of such a service. Better incentives and support should be given to these groups. It is a very specialised service as they are very young children who require more close attention and care. This means that more resources, in terms of manpower, would be required. And nobody would want to go into this field provided there is adequate support from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports as well as the Government itself.

The other area that we could examine is the need to develop a database which should be made available to companies, that there are retired housewives and mothers who live in the neighbourhood and who want to provide family-based childcare services. If a good database can be maintained and made available to companies, then it would be a source of support. Such databases, at the moment, are not collated. I think some agencies, like family service agencies and other agencies providing childcare services, can provide a value-added service in this direction.

The other aspect that we need to look at is the flexi-work scheme. With the move towards IT and other information technology advancement, the work world is likely to change. Therefore, there is a necessity for companies to relook at how work could be organised in such a way that working mothers can do their work within their home setting and also have flexible work arrangements within the work setting. This is a matter of scheduling and reorganising work schedules. I hope that more encouragement and development in this direction can be forthcoming. With these changes in work arrangements, it would help to provide more support for younger working couples because the work world is going to attract many of these people, retain them to be productive workers and contribute to the economic development of these companies. One has got to respond fairly quickly in organising friendly work practices within the work world.

Sir, it is very important and urgent that we find ways to strengthen support to the family, particularly support to working couples, so that the more support we can provide to them, the companies will become viable. When companies become viable, then we would be able to harness more workers to work within the setting. Otherwise, if we do not have viable companies that can attract younger couples, many of these policies that we talk about remain as rhetoric. So these issues, I hope, can be urgently looked into and the Committee under Mr Lim Boon Heng will address these issues fairly quickly and come out with a more coordinated policy that will encourage families, not only to care effectively for their children, but also to contribute to their companies. This will therefore help families continue to be viable and effective as well as help companies to move ahead and respond to the changing economic circumstances.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me begin at Act 1, Scene 1. Superwoman rises at 6.00 in the morning, ensures that her domestic helper has prepared breakfast for her family, especially her son who needs to catch the school bus at 6.30 am. In between, she catches snippets of Channel News Asia for the latest news that she might need at work. She lugs along her hand carried baggage to work in a taxi as she is scheduled to travel at 5.00 in the afternoon to Hong Kong for business. During lunch, she rings her son's Chinese teacher to discuss arrangements for remedial work on Saturdays. Before she has had a chance to respond to all her e-mails, she realises that she must rush to the airport or she will miss her flight. On the way to the airport, she rings her mother on her mobile phone to make sure that she has kept her appointment with the physiotherapist. She next rings her husband to remind him of his dental appointment. By the time she sinks into her seat on the plane, she is already thinking about the various marketing strategies for the Hong Kong-based clients. She is keenly aware that competition is intensifying. But as she dozes off momentarily, she could not be more satisfied at work for the adrenaline keeps her going.

Sir, this one act play describes the multiple roles that many Singaporean women and, to a similar extent, Singaporean men assume, namely, as a parent, a spouse, a child and an employee or economic contributor, all at the same time. There is a constant juggling of roles and competing demands for our finite time and resources. As such, social norms are strong guiding principles that will dictate the performance of each of these roles.

Sir, there is no turning back to the stereotypes of the past where the woman has to remain at home, especially after having children and regardless of her ability and preferences. In fact, I believe Singapore would be the poorer for it if these stereotypes were to persist as our competitive strength will lie in our human resources, men and women alike. This is not to say that we should actively discourage women or mothers who wish to remain at home from doing so. However, we should actively help them re-enter the workforce when they would like to. From this perspective, policies and measures will hopefully have their desired impact although they do have the limitations. As such, to have a sustaining effect, the Government should send strong signals to help shape social norms. For example, in land-scarce Singapore, especially within the Central Business District, a strong pro-family signal can be sent via a combination of, firstly, an exclusion of childcare resources from the computation of plot ratios, which Dr Lee and Dr Vasoo have mentioned, or a similar preferential treatment be given. And secondly, a generous tax deduction for childcare-related operating cost as an incentive for property owners and employers. Another strong signal could be to allow young couples with new-borns to be granted an earlier allocation of a flat. Besides helping out with the down-payment, the Government can also enhance the ability to afford a new flat through balloon payment schemes, where necessary.

Sir, many suggestions have been made by hon. Members in this House, not least by Dr Lily Neo, on how to promote family. The sceptics would argue that the measures are not quite enough. But with more concerted efforts by the Government and the community at large, I believe a strong unified message can and will emerge. I would therefore like to urge the Government to continue to set the pace and example by implementing pro-family measures in the public sector as far as is possible.

On that note, Sir, I would like to register my full support for the motion standing in the name of Dr Lily Neo.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion as proposed by Dr Lily Neo.

As spelt out in the S21 Report, we want to build strong families in Singapore in the new millennium. In order to achieve this national goal, we need to put in place pro-family policies to support family development as well as family bonding. The allocation of national resources to build the necessary physical infrastructure for facilitating family-friendly activities will signify the Government's firm commitment to building strong families among Singaporeans.

With regard to providing pro-family infrastructure and facilities, I would like to propose the following for the Government to consider:

(1) Build pro-family integrated facilities within HDB towns. HDB and town councils must make conscious efforts to build pro-family facilities within HDB towns. We must plan and implement improvement projects to encourage family members to come together to have fun. We should build 'social centres' where families and their neighbours can gather conveniently for social interaction.

A typical 'social centre' would include facilities for all age groups, such as children playground, barbecue pit, fitness corner, reflexology path, multi-purpose court and seating facilities. By integrating these facilities into a 'social centre', family members will have ample opportunities to interact, leading to the strengthening of family bonding.

Where possible, such integrated facilities should be located within HDB precincts or near neighbourhood centres. The increased accessibility and convenience will ensure higher utilisation of such social centres, enhancing the opportunities for families to stay and play together.

(2) Build more parks. Living in an urbanised environment like Singapore, it is crucial for us to build more parks to provide green lungs in our living space. In land-scarce Singapore, it is even more critical for the Government to strike a balance between allocating land for public parks and land for pure commercial uses, such as golf courses.

Parks provide excellent venues for families to get together. Experiences from several countries have shown that many families do visit and spend a lot of time having recreation in parks. Such open spaces also help families to relax and unwind on weekends, especially after a long week at school and work.

In Singapore, parks do not seem to attract enough locals as they generally lack attractions and facilities. Some parks charge an entrance fee, which then deters people from visiting them. There are also instances where the authorities charge car-parking fees and keep up the pace of issuing parking summons after some parks become popular which, in turn, in the long run, discourage regular park users.

Sir, we should build more national, regional and neighbourhood parks in Singapore. More pro-family facilities such as children's playgrounds, games corners, barbecue pits, multi-purpose courts and open fields, should be provided within the parks to attract more Singaporeans to fully utilise our parks. In addition, the necessary transport infrastructure should be built to cater for a seamless journey from home to the park. For instance, parks should be easily accessible by public transport and there must be ample free car-parking facilities for park users who drive.

The Government should seriously consider providing subsidy for operating all parks in Singapore. So far, no commercial parks have been successfully operated in Singapore. In short, there is a need for more public parks to be built in Singapore to support the pro-family movement.

(3) Rejuvenate our beaches. We have to rejuvenate and inject more life into our shores and beaches. Today, our beaches are not very well maintained and, hence, not attractive to many Singaporeans. There is a general lack of facilities and activities along our beaches. Firstly, the seabed and water do not cater well for swimming and water-sports activities. Secondly, some of the beaches have pests such as crows and strays which create much nuisance to beach goers.

Beaches are good spots for pro-family activities. They serve as good recreational venues for family outings and picnics. The Government should place more emphasis in rejuvenating our beaches. For example, there should be more water-sports facilities for activities such as boating, windsurfing or canoeing. We should also increase the number of food outlets, such as ice-cream, drinks or snack stalls, to be located along the beaches to add more life to our beaches. Some areas should be cordoned off to provide swimming bays with ample toilet facilities to serve the beach users.

(4) Build more swimming pools within the community. Based upon the current planning ratio, some communities are deprived of swimming pools because they do not have the required population catchment to be entitled to a swimming complex. This policy needs to be reviewed if we want to encourage families to play together. Swimming pools provide good opportunities for the whole family to keep fit as well as to have fun together.

To counter this problem, we can consider building smaller swimming complexes, ie, maybe a 50-metre pool and a 25-metre training pool, instead of large swimming complexes which are currently built only for large population catchments.

Sir, I understand that it is generally expensive to operate a swimming complex as the income generated is low while operating costs are high. However, if we look at it from the pro-family as well as the healthy lifestyle perspectives, the benefits to be gained should outweigh the costs in the long run. Besides, the smaller swimming complex can be built near a cluster of schools and be utilised for extra-curricular activities.

Finally, I wish that, as a good start, the Government will consider forming a working committee to study the physical infrastructure needs for building and strengthening family bonding within our communities. This should send a clear signal to all citizens that the Government is actively seeking ways to improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans by taking the positive step towards fulfilling its commitment to S21.

Mr Simon Tay: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had not planned to join this debate, and I may not have done so if this morning my 3-year-old son had not woken me and asked me to play with him. I did so until 9.30 and then got to the office only at 10. I may not have joined this debate also if my wife did not tell me, when we were walking at 7.00 am, that she wished we had a reliable part-time domestic help instead of a full-time foreign worker we do have. This is despite the fact that she runs her own business and is the primary care-giver for our son. And I may not have joined this debate also if I had not heard the Minister for Health yesterday defend the Government's policy not to give any special assistance to single mothers who decide to keep their children.

Sir, I think we are all in this House in favour of families and family-friendly practices. What I am concerned about is that our support becomes merely convention - stated but not practised - that we replace, in this sense, motherhood statements with family-hood statements.

When I first think of family-friendly practices, I do of course think of the women - the wives and mothers among us. Too many have to make a choice between a job they enjoy and their children whom they also enjoy. And this is a beggar's choice. They should have more options than this. Losing women from the workplace is a loss not only to the economy but also for the women themselves. Many enjoy aspects of work and life outside the house, and this is a part of what they want for themselves in their training, in their view of their own self-esteem. And, of course, they love their children. But this is a great sacrifice that need not always be made and may not always be best.

But while they are important, this debate about families should look beyond women as wives and mothers. If we do not, there is a danger that when we think of the family, we assume and cater only to what some think of as the ideal family, ie, husband and wife, children - two or more, please - with the assumption of a maid and perhaps a helpful and active grandmother.

From this perspective, Sir, it is too easy to think of family-friendly practices as being primarily and perhaps only for women as wives and mothers. While this is the ideal that some in our society presently uphold, we have to look beyond this if we are truly to be family-friendly.

The idea of a family after all, as sociologists tell us, is changeable over time, culture and space. In Singapore in a past generation, extended families were the norm. There were also families which involved more than one wife, more than one mother. In other countries today, while the nuclear family is the norm, the exact arrangements of who takes care of the children may differ from what we in Singapore think of as normal. We do not have to change our social norms. But we do need to show true flexibility if we are to be truly friendly to the family. In this context, I put forward three suggestions.

The first is on fathers. I must confess an interest here. I think we must not be patriarchal. Even if most Singaporeans still believe that the woman must be the one who is the primary care-giver to the family, we must be flexible enough to give men the option. We should not design the workplace so that men work too long and too hard without any choice, while women join, inevitably, a sort of slow track or, as in Japan, have the primary role in the workplace as tea ladies. A few men may want to become house-husbands and the primary care-giver to the children. More men may wish to take on a larger share of the family duties while still keeping the wife in the primary driver-seat. And even if the norm is otherwise, our system must be flexible enough to allow for this.

Second, single mothers. Our Government has been reluctant to acknowledge singles and, especially, single parents. I understand that many do not wish this to be the norm. Accordingly, some incentives should go only for couples. However, we should not go too far in this. If one takes the idea of being a single parent seriously and no one takes it lightly, the pressures of money, time and responsibility are very great, and I think all Singaporeans recognise this. If, despite all these, a Singaporean does make that decision, I think we have to have a system that supports and allows that decision.

The third suggestion is on dependence on the domestic maid or helper. I think, Sir, there is a time and a need to seriously look at the provision of part-time domestic help, childcare centres and other facilities that will enable the nuclear family, ie, the mother and the father, to do more for themselves and more for their children. There need, in other words, to be alternatives to the full-time foreign maid as the primary care-giver. This is important for privacy and quality family time; this is important to have parents recognise a greater role in the care of their own children. There is not much point in providing more swimming pools or more play centres if all we see there are maids with children, and parents at the workplace or the shopping centres. We need, in a sense, to ask the Ministry of Manpower to help promote and professionalise part-time housekeeping services by Singaporeans for Singaporean families and, perhaps, to have a match-making service for this.

I think it was Tolstoy or some other Russian writer who said that all happy families are the same while every unhappy family has unique cause and character. In today's world, I beg to disagree. In the face of so many pressures in the workplace in competition between companies to get ahead, I think it is each happy family now that is unique. Our system has to be flexible enough, therefore, to acknowledge and support each and every family in its effort to be unique and to be happy.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her comprehensive survey of issues relating to the family, especially to raising our fertility rate. I wish also to thank all those who spoke, with great spirit in some cases, and gave their views and suggestions.

Most of the concerns raised are real ones, shared by the Government. This is the reason why the Prime Minister has asked me and two of my Cabinet colleagues, Messrs Lim Hng Kiang and Abdullah Tarmugi, to form the Ministerial Committee on Marriage and Procreation to look into these concerns. The fact that the Prime Minister himself raised the subject and spoke of the joys of a family at the National Day Rally, shows that the Government is not just concerned with economic achievements but also with our social achievements. Dr Lee, I feel, misinterpreted the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister acknowledges that it is far harder to measure social development, not that we are clinging to the old economic ones. Many of Dr Neo's proposals and those of the other speakers have actually either been implemented, are being implemented, or are currently being seriously considered.

I will now reply to some of the more specific points that they have raised. First, I will start with the physical ones that Dr Teo Ho Pin has suggested. I would like him to expand on his ideas. But it is not necessary to form yet another ministerial committee or committee of Parliament to do it. In the spirit of S21, Dr Teo and like-minded Members of Parliament, as well as like-minded members of the public, can get together, do a study and present a comprehensive report. That report could be submitted to the Ministerial Committee on Marriage and Procreation or, if he feels that he could do so directly with the Minister for National Development, he is also free to do so. This is what we mean when we talk about participation by the public.

Dr Neo has urged that there be a comprehensive approach to formulating and implementing policies to address the issue of falling fertility. We totally agree with her. Therefore, when the Government announced the package of measures to encourage marriage and procreation recently, we stressed the need to create a total environment conducive to couples marrying and having more children. Here, I would like to reiterate to Mr Simon Tay that the Government's objective is to have couples marrying and having more children within the institution of marriage. So it is not the role of the Government to promote single parenthood. Besides monetary incentives like the Baby Bonus Scheme, the measures included promoting pro-family work practices, increasing the supply of quality childcare centres, easier home ownership for young couples, public education and creating socialising opportunities for the young.

A key measure is public education. Hence, a Public Education Committee (PEC) on the Family chaired by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Sports, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, has been formed. The PEC will look into a number of the proposals that Dr Neo has raised, such as changing the mindset of employers who prefer employees with no family commitments, encouraging earlier childbearing and role-sharing, and expanding the avenues for young people to socialise. I do not need to elaborate on this as Dr Neo, being a member of the PEC, will be familiar with its work. I also note that Dr Vasoo and Dr Jennifer Lee are also members of this Committee. We hope that Dr Neo and these other members of the Committee would spare no effort in this important task of changing mindsets.

There are, of course, already many existing pro-family policies. We have, for example, been advocating that the responsibility of parenthood does not lie solely with the women and fathers must share their responsibilities in bringing up their children. The Prime Minister reiterated this when he announced the paternity leave scheme in the civil service in August this year. It may not be very much of a fringe benefit in terms of cost but it is a very strong signal to the public at large that the fathers also have a role to play. MCDS has also been organising and supporting seminars on fathering to highlight the importance of fatherhood.

Another example is our pro-family public housing. There are rental schemes in place for young couples setting up homes for the first time. Those who book a new flat still under construction under the Registration for Flat System (RFS) or who have been in the queue for at least three months awaiting selection of a flat can apply to rent a three-room flat under the Transitional Rental Housing Scheme. For low income couples, they could apply under the Public Rental Housing Scheme to rent a one-room or two-room flat from HDB, or the Rent and Purchase Scheme which allows them to first rent a three-room flat and buy over the flat subsequently when their financial situation improves.

The People's Association has also been encouraging community-based organisations to conduct more grassroots programmes to strengthen family ties and neighbourliness. Activities range from family day activities to festive celebrations involving families. And I hope that all advisers will review the activities of their grassroots organisations and make sure that they are better focused and therefore more effective in strengthening family bonds. The work is not that of just the Government and policies. The work has to be done on the ground and I hope, through the advisers, that more can be done.

The civil service has also implemented several family-friendly initiatives. Apart from the paid marriage and paternity leave that were implemented from 1st October this year, it has allowed individual ministries and departments to arrange flexi-work arrangements as long as there is no loss of productivity and lapse in service standards to the public. These are in addition to many other pro-family policies introduced much earlier, for example, no-pay leave for childcare, part-time employment for working mothers and sick childcare leave.

Promoting family-friendly practices in private sector companies is a key strategic focus for both the Ministry of Community Development and Sports and the Ministry of Manpower. This is intended not just to improve family life but also work life. Efforts to encourage employers to adopt family-friendly work practices were first initiated by the then Ministry of Community Development and its people sector-led Committee on the Family. One of the first major initiatives was the launch of the Family Friendly Firm Award in 1998. This was introduced together with the Ministry of Manpower, the Singapore National Employers Federation and the National Trades Union Congress. The award aims to recognise companies for their pro-family efforts and encourage them to introduce and promote innovative pro-family practices for their employees.

The Government is well aware of the increasing struggles for families in coping with a fast-paced knowledge-based economy. This year, both Prime Minister Goh and Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee have emphasised the need to have pro-family workplaces. This is particularly so as the dual income families become the norm and working hours become longer in a 24 x 7 economy. But let us pause and think. The 24 x 7 economy does not necessarily mean that each person has to work longer hours in a week. It is how we roster people at work and how smartly they work that is important, not the number of hours that they spend at work. And this is the focus which all employers should bear in mind when they devise pro-family practices. It will make a mockery of the concept of productivity if getting more work done means getting the workers to work longer hours.

As mentioned by Dr Neo, many of the organisations in the United States of America have offered family-friendly work practices believing that being family-friendly makes good business sense. This is despite their government's negligible role in promoting family-friendly programmes. In fact, these companies no longer talk about work-family balance because the word "balance" seems to suggest a zero sum game. Instead, they talk about work-life effectiveness as they strongly believe that employees with strong personal and family ties would be more effective and motivated at work. Family and work are not necessarily at odds with each other. This represents a paradigm shift and reflects a holistic approach. European companies too have adopted family-friendly practices.

We want our local companies to emulate these companies. We agree that employers should, as far as possible, implement flexi-work arrangements to help Singaporeans with family responsibilities to participate in the workforce. This is particularly so with the availability of IT. Our existing employment laws are already flexible in allowing flexi-work arrangements. What is needed are creative solutions by human resource managers. Our laws also ensure that workers employed on a part-time basis can enjoy pro-rated employment benefits such as medical leave. Employers are also required to contribute to the Central Provident Fund even if the employee is working part-time. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Manpower is reviewing the Employment Act to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of business and employees. And those employers who want to re-design their working hours and practices and who encounter some problems with our legislation would be encouraged to bring them up with the Ministry of Manpower so that they can be taken into account when the Employment Act is reviewed.

We would also like to point out that the paid maternity leave in our Employment Act for up to two children and the additional grants for the second and third child are in fact more favourable and family-friendly as compared to a number of other countries including Australia, New Zealand and some states in the United States of America which do not even require employers to pay for such leave as a statutory benefit. Such benefits in these countries are subject to negotiations between the employer and employee concerned. The point I want to put across to Members is: let us look at the total package, not just on specific measures that are available in any country. We have to look at the total package and see how those incentives work before we say that we should adopt them.

Implementing family-friendly work practices requires much work to be done in changing our employers' mindsets and that is why the Ministry of Community Development and Sports set up a Work-Life Unit in September this year to promote family-friendly work practices. The Ministry of Manpower itself has also set up the Human Resource Promotion Section in 1999 to promote good human resource (HR) practices. These measures reflect our commitment to bringing about a workplace culture change.

As mentioned by Dr Lee, MCDS engaged two leading American work-life consultants to conduct awareness seminars and training workshops for HR managers as well as provide consultancy to companies in Singapore. The response to these events was overwhelming. Numerous companies have already approached the Work-Life Unit to give sharing sessions on work-life strategies and to provide more information and advice. So an encouraging ground swell has started to build up.

Another initiative which the Ministries are working on would be the compilation of actual pro-family practices that work, for example, K K Hospital, Changi Hospital, ST Aerospace and others, to show other employers what can be done and we will need to provide greater publicity for these measures that work.

Next, I turn to childcare facilities. Dr Vasoo has asked for a review of childcare subsidies. We can assure Dr Vasoo that the subsidies will be reviewed periodically to ensure that they keep pace with the times. Dr Neo asked for better distribution of childcare centres. Childcare centres in private residential areas are set up by private operators and, as in any commercial enterprise, the numbers are determined by the viability of the project. In new HDB estates, MCDS plans ahead of demand through regular meetings with HDB based on the number of dwelling units for the estate. For older HDB estates, we increase the number of centres in high demand areas. MCDS works closely with HDB so that childcare premises are conveniently sited together with the housing blocks. MCDS will be delegating the local planning of childcare centres to Community Development Councils (CDCs), which will better enable them to gauge and respond to local demand. Here, Members of Parliament who are members of CDCs can expect to play a greater role at the local area. For a start, this will take place starting with Marine Parade and Tanjong Pagar CDCs. MCDS will continue to manage demand and supply at the national level and ensure that acceptable standards are met.

Besides promoting the setting up of childcare centres in private residential areas, we also encourage childcare centres in condominiums. URA levies development charges at the residential rate instead of commercial rate for childcare centres in condominiums. URA has also lifted restrictions requiring such centres to serve residents only.

Some financial support and incentives are provided to employers who set up childcare centres as an employee benefit. These include capital grants for furnishing and equipping new centres and various tax incentives. We can review these incentives to see whether they are adequate and up them if they are not, although we should note that our studies show a low demand for workplace childcare centres overall. This is the more important factor than plot ratios that Dr Lee, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua and Dr Vasoo had mentioned. A critical mass is necessary for a childcare centre to be viable, and that has been the experience of NTUC Childcare for which I have some knowledge. You must have a critical mass of children using a centre for that centre to be economically viable. As a rule of thumb, it is now above 100 children per centre. So, there have been childcare centres at workplaces run by NTUC Childcare contracted by the employers, but the number of children had been too few for the centres to be viable and, unfortunately, they had to close down. I think if we wish to have more such centres set up where the parents work, a viable centre would be one that does not specifically serve one employer only, and has to serve a number of employers, so that we can get a critical mass of children using that centre to make the cost within reason. This is something which private operators can examine and if there are impediments to the setting up of such centres, please let us know and, where possible, the obstacles can be removed.

MCDS has also studied the obstacles to the development of childcare centres catering to children below 18 months. We are mindful of the fact that many child experts agree that the first few years of a child's life are important for parent to child bonding, and that infants are best cared for at home by their mothers or relatives. And indeed surveys also show that that is the preference of the parents themselves. Hence, we should put more emphasis on support for home care, such as family-friendly employment practices and also encourage the extended family. However, if dual income families have no other alternatives to care for their infants, we have to promote other care arrangements. One of the measures taken recently was to revise the requirement for infant care centres to have at least one paediatric-trained nurse to one state approved nurse. This does not compromise standards. In fact, when we have trained sufficient early childhood personnel specialising in infant care, the requirement to have a nurse can be removed altogether. The whole purpose is, of course, to bring down the cost of operating such centres.

As for allowing part-time employment of foreign domestic workers, the Ministry of Manpower is hesitant to introduce such an option. Currently, there are more than 100,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. This number has doubled in the last 10 years. Allowing households access to part-time foreign domestic workers may greatly increase their numbers, as households without foreign domestic workers could turn to them. This could increase our reliance on foreign labour and could have adverse social consequences. There would also be concerns over the question of responsibility of looking after the welfare and accommodation of these workers. They may be exploited or abused. And allowing foreign domestic workers to work part-time will stunt the emergence of a strong domestic service sector. So let us look at the need and examine how other countries achieve higher female labour force participation rates than us without relying on foreign domestic workers. I think this is an issue which we have not examined to any depth. Why are the Nordic countries, as Dr Lily Neo says, reflecting a higher fertility rate than us, and yet in those Nordic countries they do not have a heavy reliance on foreign domestic maids? Maybe there are things that they can teach us. And I think one of the possibilities is the availability of services using local domestic workers rather than foreign domestic workers.

Next, on stress in education. Dr Neo has made a number of proposals to fine tune our education system. She talked about homework overload. I would like to assure her that the Ministry of Education has a differentiated curriculum to develop each child to his or her potential. However, sometimes the expectations and aspirations of parents come into play, and these have direct impact on their children's stress level. Our message to these parents is that they should not stress the child beyond what he or she is capable of. Instead, we should look at the total development, not just the academic achievements of the child. What is already in the school curriculum is sufficient. It is not necessary to overload the child with a lot of other extra-curricular activities. So it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that there is no such overload.

As for providing tutorial classes after school hours, I understand that the schools today have various programmes and activities to cater to those who need help with their school work.

On schools starting later and allowing facilities to be used by students throughout the day, the Ministry of Education has implemented single session programmes in all secondary schools this year. Hence, these schools have the flexibility to rearrange their formal curriculum hours to accommodate the needs of their pupils by starting their day later. Co-curricular activities, pastoral care and other programmes can also be organised after class by the students, and also with the support of the parents. Primary schools will have constraints as they run double session programmes now. However, this too is being reviewed.

The Ministry of Education also agrees that children should not only be exam-smart. Hence, the Ministry of Education implemented the Thinking Skills programme in all secondary schools in 1999, to encourage students to think critically and creatively. It has also introduced Inter-disciplinary Project Work to all schools and have a few challenging "thinking questions" in their examinations. And, recently, that caused a little bit of uproar with respect to the PSLE.

Schools are also ranked on both academic and non-academic achievements. The Ministry of Education has also adopted the school excellence model for all schools this year to broaden the scope of the way schools are appraised. Linked to this is an award system that recognises talents and abilities in non-academic spheres.

The universities will also implement a new admission system in the year 2003, moving away from a sole reliance on 'A' levels towards a more holistic evaluation of a person's potential to benefit from university education. Hence, performance in a reasoning test, project work and co-curricular activities will be considered.

Having said all that, let me take a step back and ask all of us to assess our education system. International studies have shown that we have a good system. I hope that the Public Education Committee will address this and bring home this point to all parents, so that there is less stress come school registration time. It is not necessary to get into the so-called list of top schools.

As for stress on academic results, let me reassure Members of the House that the public service does not promote on the basis of examination results. The public service promotes on the basis of performance, the result of a performance appraisal which the public service does, and not because of what kind of examination results that person has had in school or at university. And it would be an exaggeration, to put it mildly, to describe our system as elitist. We should not confuse meritocracy with elitism.

Next, subsidising health care for children. Dr Neo has suggested providing free medical treatment for our pre-school children. Currently, the Government is already providing a national childhood immunisation programme and the development screening programme which monitors the growth and development of infants and pre-school children free of charge at our polyclinics. For acute care, our healthcare finance policy stresses personal responsibility for maintaining good health. Parents should look after the health of their children. For children who fall sick and seek treatment in our heavily subsidised polyclinics and public hospitals, the parents have to pay only part of the cost of the medical service consumed. The principle of co-payment is necessary to avoid the pitfall of "free" medical services stimulating insatiable demand, and to keep the cost of basic health care affordable. Currently, our children are subsidised at 75% at the polyclinics and between 65% and 80% in Class B2 or C wards. Our children will never be denied access to basic medical care because their parents are in financial difficulties as the parents can apply for Medifund assistance or waiver of fees.

As to the point about Government expenditure on health care, we must bear in mind that higher Government expenditure on health care is often related to higher tax rates. So it is one or the other.

With regard to liberalising the use of Medisave for assisted conception procedures (ACP), the Ministry of Health has received feedback from the public regarding the inadequacy of the current Medisave withdrawal limits imposed on ACP. It is currently reviewing the Medisave withdrawal limits.

By and large, there are also few procedural impediments to childless couples adopting babies. When social investigations are conducted, they serve to safeguard the interests and well-being of the child to be adopted. The primary problem is the lack of babies, especially local ones, available for adoption.

Foreign adoptions require certain safeguards and checks to ensure that the adoptive parents see through their responsibility of raising the child. We do not want situations where parents give up their adopted child later because of difficulties in the relationship. Nonetheless, MCDS and other departments involved will continue to look into facilitating foreign adoption.

Much of what we have discussed are on social infrastructure and the soft aspects of the issues, and the building up of social capital in our society. It is the subject of social capital which is completely relevant to the subject in hand for which we have not fully explored. We will have to understand not only the work pressures but other factors at work that inhibit couples from having children. Here, I think we are going into a much larger area for which we have as yet little good knowledge. But we should continue to examine those factors and address them wherever we can.

With family-friendly workplaces and family-friendly environment and our continual drive in putting forward pro-family policies, programmes, services and messages, I am confident that we can become an even more family-oriented society. I am sure that the energies demonstrated by Members of this House will translate into more babies and stronger families.

Dr Lily Neo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Lim Boon Heng for his favourable and positive responses. I would also like to express my gratitude to all my colleagues - Dr Vasoo, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Dr Tan Boon Wan, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Dr Jennifer Lee and Mr Simon Tay - who have participated in this debate. They have raised many good suggestions and unique perspectives that make this debate interesting and fruitful.

On child care centres, Mr Lim Boon Heng said that their studies showed a low demand for work-place child care centres overall. This is not borne out by the apparent popularity and success in the existing child care centres at workplaces run by the Kandang Kerbau Women and Children Hospital, MCDS and Ministry of Manpower, and so on.

Sir, I can understand that private organisations would always consider the cost of providing child care centres. Mr Lim Boon Heng has mentioned about a critical mass for child care centres to be economically viable. However, the challenge is to re-emphasise that money spent on family-friendly practices is a draw for the company's performance and attractiveness. Steps taken by the Government to re-visit and review facilities in terms of grants, tax incentives and set up such centres will endorse this practice. Echoing Dr Jennifer Lee, Dr Vasoo and Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, I would like to suggest that the Ministry of National Development waive development charges for building child care centres at workplaces and favourably treating this as in the category of community service by our Government.

On school starting later, Mr Lim Boon Heng said that schools have the flexibility to arrange their formal curriculum hours to accommodate the needs of their pupils by starting their day later. It seems, however, that principals have not taken the initiative to start later. I doubt if it is really in the interest of the students that no change in the start-times has been made, especially for the single-session schools. I therefore feel that there is a need for positive directive from the Ministry of Education on this, especially for single-session schools.

On the use of Medisave for intro-vitro fertilisation, Mr Lim Boon Heng said that the Ministry of Health is currently reviewing the Medisave withdrawal limits. I hope the Ministry of Health will give a significant and favourable response on this for the following reasons:

(1) The opportunity for more births;

(2) Infertile couples' desperation for a child of their own;

and

(3) Such couples are usually young and can build up their Medisave savings for many more years.

On the difficulty for young couples to rent HDB flats, Mr Lim Boon Heng mentioned existing schemes available to young couples. However, unless the couples have applied for home ownership flats under the RFS as first-timers, they are not eligible to rent HDB flats at the moment. The other HDB rental scheme available with a $800 ceiling on household income, which has been implemented for the past 10 years, invariably excludes young working couples in today's context.

Sir, our existing HDB rental policy dashes our hope of changing the mindset of our young who are postponing marriage and starting family until they have succeeded in their careers or have bought their own homes. Our policy should not be hampering or contradictory in nature. Therefore, if young couples are not prepared to buy HDB homes for whatever reasons, they should not be denied the rental of HDB flats.

The Minister gave several reasons against allowing part-time foreign maids. Sir, I would like to appeal for a reconsideration with the following viewpoints:

(a) Allowing part-time foreign maids will create additional demand. This may not necessarily be so as those who have full-time foreign maids may then opt for part-time ones to save cost or to have more privacy and so on. In fact, as mentioned by Mr Simon Tay earlier, his wife is one of those who prefers part-time maid.

(b) Accommodation for part-time maids will be a concern. This can be overcome by allowing only those agents that can provide accommodation getting the licence to recruit. The number of maids that will be approved will depend on the space or accommodation available for them.

(c) Issue of exploitation of maids and illegals working in other sectors. Here, the agents again have to be made accountable for some code of practice to address this problem. Sir, deterrent measures can be put in place to deal with errant agents.

(d) Over-reliance on foreign maids. The present rules concerning employer eligibility and maid levy may be adopted for part-time maids to prevent unnecessary and over-reliance on foreign maids.

(e) Stunting the emergence of a strong domestic service sector. Sir, this is not valid because Singaporeans would not take such jobs which are considered lowly.

Mr Lim Boon Heng has said that many European country families do not need maids. I would like to reiterate that these countries have good government and social support as well as conducive work environment that are pro-family. If we can match them one day in the near future, probably Singaporean families may not need maids too.

In conclusion, I would say that social conditions change and it is necessary therefore that policies get adjusted accordingly to suit the needs of the time. Even if difficulties abound, the desired outcome must be sought. As I have said earlier, it may involve a major change in the mindsets of both the people and the Government. We need to make a positive move to achieve this change. It would be worthwhile in the long run if the adjustments can help Singaporeans to balance the demands of work and family responsibility better. You may ask why there is such a need for us to be so proactive in promoting harmonising work and family now. Are we a nanny state? Sir, my answer is that Singapore has been successful because the Government was able to anticipate problems and influence the people at overcoming the problems. Singapore is a small country with a very small population. We cannot just let things drift unchecked all the time. In the case of declining total fertility rates, that will mean lesser and lesser Singaporeans in the future to ensure the survival and prosperity and continuity of this state. We do not have the luxury of other big countries with big populations to cushion the effect of declining birth rates.

Sir, at the end of it all, if more proactive actions are taken to help Singaporeans beget happiness, as mentioned by Mr Simon Tay earlier, through harmonising work and family, our efforts today would have received its honorarium.

On this note, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and the House for the patience and indulgence.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just briefly make two very small clarifications. I was mentioned in particular.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Minister has already spoken. All right, let us see what your clarifications are all about.

Mr Simon Tay: Very briefly, Sir. Dr Lily Neo referred to me and my wife's wish to have a part-time maid. I just want to clarify that this is not a foreign domestic worker but a part-time Singaporean worker.

The second very brief point which I want to clarify is that I never said that I thought that Government should promote single parenthood, but rather I hope that Government would be flexible enough to accommodate it when it happens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think these need a reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, recognising the need to maintain a balance between the demands of work and family responsibility, urges the Government to promote (a) family-friendly and pro-family work practices and facilities and (b) policies and programmes that support and strengthen the family.