CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT CO-SAVINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.38 pm

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

Sir, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) required to replace ourselves is 2.1. But the last time we achieved this was in 1976. When major measures encouraging couples to have more children were introduced in 1987, the TFR rose to 1.96 in 1988. But our TFR has been on a downward trend since then. The preliminary TFR for last year did rise from 1.48 in 1999 to 1.59, but this is still low, despite the year being a Dragon year and our coming out of the recession.

This is no laughing matter. Singapore is already one of the fastest ageing societies in the world. If we do not arrest this alarming trend, it will have severe implications on our survival as a nation. The family, as the first line of support, would come under severe pressure.

In August last year, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would implement the Children Development Co-Savings Scheme, or more popularly known as "Baby Bonus" for short, as well as the Third Child Paid Maternity Leave benefit from 1st April this year. Sir, this is one of the measures which we hope can help arrest the trend I mentioned earlier.

The "Baby Bonus" is a two-tiered scheme. In the first tier, the Government would provide $500 per year for the second child, and $1,000 per year for the third child, as direct cash grants for those born from 1st April 2001 onwards. Parents can use these grants to help meet any of the child's needs, including informal care arrangements, food, clothing, developmental needs and so on.

The second tier is an annual co-payment scheme. The Government would match parents' contribution dollar-for-dollar up to $1,000 per year for the second child, and up to $2,000 per year for the third. Contributions from parents and Government would be placed in the child's Children Development Account, similar to a Trust-Minor account that can be opened for a child in any bank. Parents can only use these funds for their children's childcare, kindergarten and nursery fees. However, the funds can be used to meet such needs for any of the children that the couple may have.

Both tiers of the grant would be given for six years, and we hope these measures would address some of the financial constraints that many people say they face when they decide whether to have a second or third child. The "Baby Bonus" is to help parents meet the financial commitments they have towards their children's pre-school education and other child development programmes. But I must emphasise, Sir, that the "Baby Bonus" is not meant to defray the entire financial cost of child-rearing.

The third child paid maternity leave for both employed and self-employed mothers would allow working mothers to take up to 8 weeks of paid leave to be with their newborn third child.

I would like to reiterate that the Government recognises that family formation is a personal decision and life choice. The measures proposed in the Bill are for those who want to have children, but anticipate financial or other practical obstacles that would deter them from doing so.

Sir, this Bill, hence, provides for the introduction of a Children Development Co-Savings Scheme to assist parents in the development of their children. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for regulations to be made for the establishment and administration of the "Baby Bonus". This would enable us to fine-tune the Scheme and the required legislative framework as we progress, since the Scheme has no precedence here.

Clause 4 provides for the substitution of the trustee of the Children Development Account should the trustee need to be changed. This could occur if the trustee dies, is unable to act because of unsoundness of mind, or loses the custody, care or control of the child, say, in a divorce, or in instances of child abuse.

Clause 5 would protect the money paid into the Children Development Account by the Government, or the parents, from being considered "matrimonial assets" for division to the parents if they divorce, or being claimed by creditors should one of the parents be declared a bankrupt.

Sir, we have a moral duty to ensure that the "Baby Bonus" is spent appropriately. We would, therefore, restrict usage of the funds in the Children Development Account to the approved centres as provided for in clause 7. The funds might be used at centres that opt to participate in the Scheme. For a start, childcare centres licensed by my Ministry, kindergartens and nurseries registered with the Ministry of Education, and pre-school programmes at schools for children with special needs would be invited to participate in this Scheme.

To protect the interests of the child, and the monies in his or her Account, clause 18 would make it an offence for any person or organisation from touting itself as an approved centre.

Any funds left in the Account when the child reaches school-going age would be transferred to the child's Edusave account. Clause 22 would facilitate this transfer by providing for a consequential amendment to section 7 of the Education Endowment Scheme Act, to enable any monies to be transferred from the child's Children Development Account to the Edusave Pupils Fund.

Sir, clause 9 would provide paid maternity leave benefit of up to eight weeks for women who have their third child, similar to that provided for the first and second child under the Employment Act. But unlike the paid maternity leave for the first two children under that Act, the cost of the paid maternity leave benefit for the third child would be borne by the Government, so as not to increase the cost of business to employers. Furthermore, it would be extended to all working mothers, beyond those covered in the Employment Act, including executives and the self-employed. The maximum amount that could be claimed would be $20,000, including CPF contributions, and would be pro-rated if the woman takes less than eight weeks of leave. Only married women would be eligible for this benefit, so as to be consistent with our values to promote births within intact families. In addition, the child should be a Singaporean by birth, as ultimately, we are interested in boosting our citizen birth rate.

This benefit would apply to women who will be on maternity leave for their third child on or after 1st April 2001. Hence, if a woman has been granted maternity leave of eight weeks prior to 1st April 2001, she would be compensated for those days that have not been completely consumed by 1st April 2001.

Sir, like for the paid maternity leave for the first and second child, employers would pay their employees eligible for the third child paid maternity leave. They would then seek reimbursement from the Government, as provided for under clause 10, subject to a cap of $20,000. This would ensure that there is no break in salaries to women who make use of this benefit, and it would also involve employers as integral partners in this family-friendly measure.

Sir, the "Baby Bonus" is estimated to cost about $225 million in the steady state, and the third child paid maternity leave benefit, about $13.5 million annually. The figures could go up if there are more higher order births. Adequate provisions as in clauses 8 and 11 are provided for to ensure that these funds would not be abused.

Clause 16 would make it an offence for any person to make any false or misleading statement or to produce or furnish any false or misleading document for the purposes of this Bill. The penalty for such an offence would be a fine not exceeding $20,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both.

In addition, clause 17 would make it an offence for an employer not to pay his employee if she is eligible for the third child paid maternity leave benefit. Such errant employers would face a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, consistent with the penalty provided for in the Employment Act for an employer who fails to pay his employee her maternity benefit.

To avoid litigation for every alleged offence, clause 14 would provide for resolution of disputes, while clause 19 would provide for composition of offences for a sum not exceeding $500 for employers who fail to pay their employees the third child maternity leave benefit, and $5,000 for all other offences under the Bill.

Sir, taken by themselves, we do not realistically expect them to restore the TFR to the replacement level, but taken together with the other measures announced thus far, sustained public education on the importance of family formation, and impending recommendations of the Ministerial and Working Committees on Marriage and Procreation, they have a reasonable chance of raising our birth rate. My Ministry will continue to look into ways of removing the obstacles couples face in having children.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Sir, we already have had eight days of long debate. I would be concise and you would be very relieved if all other speakers after me would be concise.

Mr Speaker: Good idea.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I support the Bill as it provides further opportunities for the development of our children. The provisions in the Bill are very generous and we are committing substantial public funds to support children in their development, and this is an investment in our human resources. It is expected that more than $250 million would be spent in this area and in future, we expect that more funds would be released if we are going to re-generate ourselves.

Sir, as I see it, the better-off families will take advantage of the provisions. I hope steps will be taken for some funding top-ups for the less better-off families. This will help the less well-off children to benefit as much as possible. Would the Minister look into this issue in the process of implementing this Bill? It would also be useful if we monitor the profiles of families that would be participating in the Scheme so that the Ministry will be able to take corrective actions and other related interventions to enable all children to benefit from this Bill itself.

The Bill is intended to strengthen the family and be pro-family. But from the start, on page 1 of the Bill, it is conceptualised to encourage married women to have more children. Is this a mistake or an oversight by the Ministry itself? It is, I believe, more politically correct if it should be to encourage married couples. I think that would be more appropriate because it takes married couples to have children in order to regenerate. This is an important issue and it is essential that we provide the right perspective right from the start.

Without married couples, the Bill would not achieve its objectives. Decisions on family size are usually the decisions of couples, not of one partner to the marriage. All the time, we emphasise on marriage as a partnership. We also accept, as one of our core values, the family as a basic unit. It is, therefore, desirable that the wording, at the beginning of this Bill, should reinforce this value.

Under clause 13, the Minister will have powers to exclude certain classes of persons. We hope that in using these powers, the Minister would exercise caution to ensure that exclusions do not create further divisiveness amongst families, but we will find various means to promote social cohesion. This is very important, as children have been our resource, and we should not discriminate in the longer term. It is essentially necessary to help us to make a society which is supportive and more cohesive.

I would like to ask the Minister to identify some major social implications of the Bill on families and children, and the steps to be taken to deal with them.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, I stand to speak in support of the Children Development Co-Savings Bill.

Singapore's total fertility rate (TFR) currently stands at a dismal 1.59, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, which is very much below the replacement rate of 2.1. In view of the fact that our country is small, and we have a smaller base in population to start with, this figure is indeed worrisome. It is, therefore, timely and welcomed that Prime Minister Goh, in August last year, announced the "baby bonus" and third child maternity leave, as well as the set up of a Ministerial Committee to study our declining birth rate.

Government handouts and support have helped ease the burden of raising children in some of the northern European countries. Denmark has a total fertility rate of 1.7, which is relatively higher compared to, say, Italy, with a TFR of 1.2.

Sir, the level of childcare facilities and parental benefits seem to make a significant difference. Most countries on the southern rim of Europe, such as Italy and Spain, have some of the lowest TFRs on the continent. The governments there provide much less child-related allowances than the Nordic countries that have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, despite the fact that the proportion of women in their labour force is also among the highest. In the northern countries, childcare services are widely available and are subsidised by up to 85% in some cases. Financial support is provided in the form of birth and child allowances, up to the time the child reaches adulthood in certain cases. I am confident that Singapore can achieve results, just as good, if not better, with the right incentives.

Sir, the "baby bonus" incentives are applicable to babies born from 1st April this year. May I ask the Minister for Community Development and Sports whether his Ministry will be flexible in those cases where births are premature when the expected dates of delivery should have been on or after 1st April this year? It must be recognised that there are medical, as well as unpreventable conditions that give rise to delivery of babies earlier than the expected dates. Such premature deliveries are due to unforeseen circumstances through no fault of the expectant mothers. Sir, although I agree that there is a need for a cut-off date, I feel that exceptions must be allowed for medically certified premature births. I hope MCDS will consider my stand in this favourably.

Families can use the moneys from the "baby bonus" to pay for the development and education of their children. Sir, development of children is indeed important, as not only do we want more children, we must ensure we get the best-developed children. For this, we need to start promoting good parenting skills. Educators and service providers have emphasised on the need for parents to learn parenting skills early to prevent problems further downstream. They have observed that parents of troubled youths typically lack parenting skills and have other problems such as strained marital relations. In light of this, I propose that equipping parents with good parenting skills should be facilitated and encouraged and we should allow some of the "baby bonus" moneys to be used for this purpose. Since clause 3 of the said Bill enables the Minister to make regulations, and clause 3(2)(h) in particular, gives discretion to the Minister to determine the purposes for which the money may be used, I would urge the Minister to consider my proposal. MCDS can always give guidelines as to the kind and the number of courses for parents that would yield maximum results.

Sir, I have said before that studies have shown that very young children fare better with family-based childcare. MCDS should, therefore, encourage family-based childcare, especially for infants. The ideal care-givers for infants are, of course, the parents themselves. However, in the context of Singapore, immediate family members, relatives, neighbours and even friends can be reasonably good parent substitutes. We may like to encourage or even entice such suitable housewives and retirees to "work" as home care-givers by allowing them some income whilst staying at home. Thus, we should allow use of moneys from "baby bonus" to pay for childcare with registered and approved "home care-givers", instead of conventional nursery or childcare centres only.

On reimbursement of third child maternity leave paid to employees, I hope MCDS ensures that the procedure for claiming the benefit is made as convenient as possible. It should be a hassle free experience, and there should be minimal tedious form filling. MCDS has spelt out the claim procedure for this third child maternity leave, and one of the criteria is that claims must be submitted within a month after the end of the maternity leave. Late claims will not be accepted by MCDS. On this aspect, I feel that the one-month claim period is too short. Perhaps the Minister would consider having it extended to two or three months, and giving more flexibility for later claims with valid reasons.

Sir, clause 11 gives the employer and the Government rights against an employee where payment is made to the employee owing to a mistake of fact or on reliance of false and misleading statement furnished by the employee. However, the Bill does not confer any rights on the employee in the event the employer fails to pay the employee. This should be redressed in the Bill.

I hope the Ministry of Community Development and Sports will consider my aforesaid suggestions favourably. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, the Minister has referred to the alarming trend in our fertility rate. And if the grand objective of this Bill is to encourage women in Singapore to have more children, then should the Bill not cover all women and all births?

The first component in the "Baby Bonus" scheme is a direct cash payment which applies to all women who deliver the second and third child born on or after 1st April 2001. Sir, why discriminate against first birth, baby number four and after? For low-income families, some extra cash during a first baby's birth is always helpful. If this first experience is unpleasant and burdensome, then young couples will not warm up to the idea of a second conception. In short, I am suggesting that we give something for the first child in order to promote a positive psychology towards a second.

For larger families, the issue of affordability is a concern. But who is to decide on affordability? Is that the only determining criterion for having children? What about the desire for children factor? If the family enjoys four varieties of dishes for a meal, and there are many others who enjoy just two dishes, maybe some families only one dish, because they want to save the money so as to have a fourth child, why do we then not encourage them? It is important, Sir, that we signal to all mothers, whether homemakers or working, that their maternity role and having children are worthy of State support. No groups will feel discriminated or left out. Instead of having one cash amount for all, the State could consider designing an earnings related scheme, so that there is not too much of a drain on national resources. And for wealthy families who do not need this money, maybe they could re-donate the money to the Community Chest, for needy causes.

The second component of the "Baby Bonus" scheme is the children development co-savings scheme, whereby the Government co-pays by matching contributions from parents. Here, I again question why do we not extend this incentive coverage to include first-borns and the fourth, fifth child and so on. If parents are willing to save to do this, why do we not encourage them? For low-income families in particular, which may only have one child, the co-savings scheme will represent a significant social insurance scheme.

The next family-friendly initiative is instituting a third child maternity payment for only working married women. This is an initiative which we all welcome. But if the objective of the Bill is to encourage more children, then why limit the special benefit, again, to only the third child, and not the fourth, fifth and so on? Given the trends in fertility pattern - delayed marriages, older ages on first births and smaller families - incentives, like granting maternity benefits to working women for the fourth child and above, may not invite that many takers in the first place. There seems to be a conservative measure being applied so as not to impose a significant drain on our national resources.

Would it not better enhance the fertility trend if we broaden the base to extend these various schemes to all women and for all births? And what we also achieve is a consistency of social policy in upholding our recognition and support for mothers. Included in this process should be appropriate counselling programmes to help couples in making family planning decisions according to their ability to cope. This should be a role that community agencies can actively play.

Sir, we must resolve our contradiction in our procreation policies. On the one hand, we want more babies and, on the other hand, public hospitals charge 150% more (from $400 to $1,000) for the fourth and subsequent births. I would like the Minister to clarify his position on this policy decision.

Given the Bill, as it is, I would like to raise a number of queries. First, on the co-savings scheme in Part II of the Bill:

If the child is the absolute beneficiary of the trust, at what age will the child be freed from parental or trustee control over this trust and the regulatory control implemented by the Government? The Bill appears to be silent on stipulating a cut-off age in transferring the trust to the young adult.

What should be the guiding principles for the use and application of these funds? Can the parents who need money desperately, say, for example, to pay for medical expenses incurred by a third child, access this trust? Can they access this fund at all for other purposes?

If, at the age of 21, the member, now a young adult, incurred gambling or business losses, can he, at this legal age, use this trust to pay it off? If it becomes a court case against the member, can the judge demand the seizure of the trust?

If one parent dies before the member is 21 years old, can the trust be transferred to the other parent? Or if both parents die, can a guardian be appointed to take over the trust?

Sir, I would like the Minister to help me understand these queries, because I feel that unless there are legal provisions over the structure and ownership of the trust, I am not sure Singaporeans will step forward and pay up for this co-savings scheme, or it may be subject to abuse. Moreover, do we know the savings pattern of Singaporeans? With whatever money they have, would they prefer to put them with a life insurance scheme instead? What is so attractive about this scheme, that is different from any other savings scheme, Sir? Can the money in this trust be invested for the child?

On third child benefits in Part III of the Bill, Sir, would a third adopted baby by a self-employed or working mother qualify to enjoy this benefit, although it is not natural maternity, assuming that all the other conditions are met?

The entitlement is only served to a working woman who absents herself from work during the period of 4 weeks immediately before and the period of 4 weeks immediately after her confinement. The provisions in Part III, clause 9(1)(a) and (b), seem to be materially similar and therefore require some editing to omit redundancy, in my opinion. What is peculiar is the provision which states that every female employee shall be entitled to absent herself from work "during the period of 8 weeks, as agreed to by her and her employer". If this Act becomes mandatory to be complied by all employers, why is there a need for employees to reach an agreement with employers to realise their entitlement?

The entitlement is only given to women who have served the employer for not less than 180 days, as MCDS has explained in the papers, "the purpose is to encourage employees to stay with the same employer for a minimum of six months, which is usually the norm for confirmation of employment." Sir, what if a six-month pregnant woman had to leave a previous job to join a new company, because the company went bankrupt and she was retrenched? Would she lose the entitlement of a third child maternity benefit in the new company, which she only served 120 days before the birth of the baby? This Bill does not provide for such cases. It would seem to be that she lost out on two counts, for reasons beyond her own designs. Can we look at how we could protect pregnant employees in such situations by including further amendments to the Bill?

In another extreme example, Sir, what if it is a premature birth for a new employee who has served maybe less than 180 days in a company, will she be entitled to the benefit? Or in the case of a pregnant mother who has served the company for more than 180 days, and she delivers a premature baby who survives in an incubator for the first month and dies afterwards, will she be entitled to the benefit, particularly, the four weeks benefit due to her before the accidental birth?

In normal births, if a baby dies and therefore no "birth" has occurred in the literal sense, will an employee enjoy the maternity benefit and be paid regardless of the outcome?

Sir, in the case of miscarriages during the third child pregnancy, would this benefit apply? The physical exhaustion and emotional torment of a miscarriage is already distressing enough. It would be doubly punitive to take away what she would be entitled to which nature has forbidden.

For self-employed women, MCDS will pay them directly based on their claims. I would then ask: how does the Ministry verify the amount to be paid out to a hawker or a consultant employee who may not file accurate income tax forms in the first place? Will they accept face value declaration based on the claim forms?

Sir, my last query is on Part III, clause 9(3), relating to the qualifying criteria for receiving payment. "Being married" at the time of the child's birth is a critical determining factor. What if three women in their third pregnancy during a week before their delivery due date, one found out that her husband is having an affair and decided to file for divorce; the second decided to put a stop to her husband's physical violence and filed for divorce; and the third whose husband was killed in an accident, making her into a widow during her pregnancy, will these three women be entitled to the maternity benefit? I would like to hear the Minister's position on these issues.

On Part IV, Miscellaneous section, would the Minister clarify how and when will the women be paid, Sir? If the employers are the ones to first fork out the money to pay to their employees, and wait to be reimbursed by the Government, which can take as long as two months, is this not stressing some of the SMEs' cashflow situation, especially if it is higher level staff claiming legitimately as much as the total $20,000 cap? The cashflow gets tighter when more women make such claims within the same period in the same company. Can we consider the payment to be directly paid out to the employees by the Government instead, like the way we manage our own income tax claims? What is needed is setting up a special unit, or let it be part of the functions of the Work Life Unit already set up in MCDS, to attend to such claims.

On the point relating to the failure of employer to pay a female employee, the Bill is silent what it will do with the money after it is recovered by the Government from the offending employer. Will the money be paid to the employee then? The present provision appears to leave the mother in the cold as there are no provisions to divert the payment to her. I hope the Minister will amend Part IV, under Miscellaneous, clause 17, to provide some protection for employees caught in these circumstances.

Sir, some of these points are clearly administrative and perhaps procedural details, which will be addressed and regulated by the Minister afterwards. And I know it may be too late now to make these necessary amendments, as the Bill will be passed by the end of this session and the Act comes into force by 1st April, as already announced in the papers.

I would just like to put on record these concerns, and hope, where possible, they could be scrutinised over time to help tighten up the intent and application of the Act so that we do not leave too much leeway for unclear interpretation. What is most puzzling to me, and this perhaps reflects the nature of lawmaking in having to provide policy makers an avenue to manoeuvre and adapt to the uniqueness of a situation, is the section on "exemption" in Part IV, clause 2, which states that, "The Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as he may specify, exempt any person from complying with any requirement of this Act".

While appreciating the need to give the Minister some discretionary power to exercise judgment, the mandatoriness and forcefulness of this Act became immediately diluted when it is silent on the terms and conditions under which the Minister will exempt the person from complying with the terms of the Act. I wish the legal provisions on this point can be clearer.

Sir, I support the sentiment of this Bill in recognising the need to offer some financial support to mothers. Obviously, more should be done for a larger number of women to benefit. I hope this is only the beginning of a process in shaping a child development and family policy in a gradual and comprehensive manner. In that defining process, I hope the governing principles are based on upholding the worth of the child and valuing the contribution of the mother, and that it is not a numbers exercise, whether in expecting an outcome in the number of births or limiting the amount of dollars to be paid out as support for mothers.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

I would like to urge the Minister to consider further measures to encourage married couples in Singapore to have more children. The Bill has addressed only to a certain extent the concerns young families have in regard to having more children. The Children Development Co-Savings Scheme will alleviate their concern regarding the escalating costs of bringing up children. Such costs are very real for the new generation of Singaporeans. Not only has the cost of living gone up, the standard of living has also gone up in Singapore. For example, during our time, it was quite a rarity for families to engage tuition teachers for their school-going children. This is now quite a prevalent practice for most young families and it is often a matter of how many private tutors the children have.

The third child maternity leave is an overdue recognition of the sacrifices and national service performed by young mothers. It is a sacrifice because in the past, they had to accumulate their annual leave to offset their absence from work after delivery of her third child. It is a sacrifice because some employers and bosses do not take too kindly to the mother's absence as this means that they have to arrange for someone else to cover duties. In extreme cases, it may even affect the promotion and prospect of the mother. But there is more to it than just the financial concerns of raising a third child and of maternity leave. The Bill can go much further to encourage young families to have more children. I have the following comments and suggestions for the Minister to consider.

The Government's policy is to have three children or more if you can afford it. This is a sensible policy because it is generally better for less well-to-do families to have lesser children, so that the parents can have the time and means to raise their children up properly. If the parents want to have many children but do not have the time and means to bring up the children well, it can be counter-productive to the family and society. Hence, it is sensible for the Government to adopt a family planning policy of having three children or more if the families can afford it.

Not surprisingly then, the co-savings or "baby bonus" scheme tends to benefit the families with the means. It tends to favour families that can afford it because not all families can afford $1,000 or $2,000 annual matching contribution for the second and third child respectively. The flip side to this policy is that families from the lower income group may not be able to benefit fully from the scheme. But we should ensure that families from the lower income group are also properly taken care of. We should ensure that they are not significantly disadvantaged as a result of the scheme. For this purpose, I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on how the scheme will operate. In particular, I wish to learn whether this scheme can be extended to cover other than "baby bonus".

Sir, let me now move on to some proposals I have for the Minister.

Firstly, the Bill should not focus on mothers. It should not just encourage married women in Singapore to have more children. It should encourage married men and women in Singapore to have more children. Notwithstanding the sacrifices made by mothers, we must not forget the changing role of fathers in a modern family. The modern-day father is not just a breadwinner enslaved at the workplace. Increasingly, we are seeing more fathers wanting to play a more instrumental role in raising up children, in tutoring their children, in chauffeuring their children to piano and other special classes during the weekends. In a sense, the modern-day father has no choice as the wife is often also a working mother. In a sense, the modern-day father has become less chauvinistic. And I know of many fathers who can whip up excellent dishes in the kitchen. So the modern-day father has to assume his share of duty in getting the house in order and his share of responsibility in raising up the children.

Given the changing role of fathers in our society, should not paternity leave be granted? Paternity leave can be a shorter period of, say, up to five working days for the first and second child. For the third child, the reimbursement from the Government can then be on the same basis as the third child maternity leave, as proposed in the Bill for mothers. The paternity leave will enable the father to help ensure that the house and children are in order when the mother is still in the hospital and in the first few days of convalescence at home. Having a new child in the family can result in a major upheaval in the family and the father has a crucial role in helping the family to adjust to the changes, especially in the initial stages. To my mind, granting paternity leave would be a fair recognition of the father's role in the family and, in a sense, encourage him to have more children.

Secondly, Sir, we should extend enhanced tax relief and rebates to either parents and not just for working mothers. This is because mothers who are not in the workforce are equally doing the country a great national service by looking after their children in the crucial early formative years of children. I know of many professional women who stop working so as to be able to spend some time with their children during their formative years. We should not forget their contributions to the society when they bring up their children well. They are also the heroines of the country.

Thirdly, I would like to propose that the Bill provide for special family leave of, say, up to five days each for married employees with children. This is to enable them to use it to spend time to look after their children, to coach them during the examination period, to look after them when they are sick, to enjoy parenthood and not to treat it as a big hassle that they have to balance with the demands of work.

Sir, we have to understand that the values in our society are changing. We have to understand that our younger generation are willing to go out to make a mark for themselves in the office to actualise their potential. At the same time, they are faced with the ever pressures at home of having to raise their children. Added to that is the fact that in the case of most young families, both parents are working. It is not easy to raise three children well nowadays based on a single income. Our society has become competitive. Having to raise a third child with a much lesser measure of comfort, most young parents in Singapore will opt for having two children. Hence, we should recognise this and go about to help them in this regard, by giving them time to spend with their children.

Fourthly, by the same token, I would like to propose that we allow working mothers with new-borns to be able to take no pay leave for up to six months on top of their paid maternity leave. This is to help the working mothers in the settling in of their new-borns in the family. The working mother after her maternity leave may decide to take up to six months' no-pay leave or she may not. If her financial position requires her to return to work after her maternity leave, it is her decision to go back. If her financial position allows her to stay at home to look after her new-born for up to six months, she can do so without the hassle of applying for it and the uncertainty of whether that leave will be approved or not. I know of some mothers who returned to work after their maternity leave and were unable to cope with the demands of work and their new-borns' attention. Consequently, they decided to leave because they were not granted no-pay leave. This situation could have been avoided. But, more importantly, by allowing them no-pay leave as a right will give parents the flexibility and therefore encourage working couples to consider having more children seriously.

Fifthly, in line with most private sector practices, may I also propose that the Government consider a five-day working week to allow civil servants to spend more time with their families. Many civil servants have benefited from the current arrangement of allowing alternate Saturday off. Perhaps the Government can take a further step by considering a five-day working week.

My sixth proposal concerns the tax deductibility of the foreign maid levy which only a married woman who is working gets. In line with encouraging more children and bigger families, the tax deduction should be extended to the father's income. This is because having more children is a question of choice for the couple, and the choice of having the mother stay at home to be assisted by the maid should not result in a financial penalty.

My seventh proposal is for the Minister to consider allowing more creches and day care centres for children. Again, this would ease the concerns of double income working parents. In order to encourage more childcare centres near the workplace of working parents, the Minister may wish to consider giving a higher subsidy for the operators of childcare centres in the Central Business District and industrial areas where the rental of office space can be rather prohibitive. This would enable parents to send their children to childcare centres near their working place and it would be more convenient to fetch their children from the centre after work.

In conclusion, Sir, besides using financial carrots to encourage working mothers in Singapore to have more children, I hope the Government will also consider other measures to address the concerns of young families. This issue has to be considered in its totality. Parents simply do not opt for more children on the basis of co-savings scheme or third child maternity leave.

Sir, with these comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Gerard Ee (Nominated Member): Sir, I support the Bill and I agree with the Minister that, taken together with other programmes, there is a fair chance of increasing the birth rate. Earlier speakers have already come out with a long list of possibilities to widen and enhance the provisions. I have only three questions.

The first is with regard to clause 6 where it states that:

"On the death of a member, the moneys standing to his credit in his bank account shall be paid to the Public Trustee for disposal in accordance with any written law for the time being in force."

I am just seeking clarification that this money would actually end up in the accounts of surviving siblings.

The second question is with regard to clause 9. I am glad that it has provided for self-employed women. But I can think of a class of women, which is quite common, they work especially in family provision stores and family businesses. For all intents and purposes, they contribute as much as the self-employed women but with no stature and no pay. So I am just wondering whether this class of women could be seriously considered even if it is only by a prescribed sum of money.

Finally, I would like the Minister to look at the possibility of dealing with clause 9(3)(b) where a reference is made to being "lawfully married to the child's natural father". I wonder what will happen if it was discovered later that there has been a case of infidelity. Would the Government be taking legal action against the mother and claim back its contributions? Would the innocent child therefore lose out? There is also the possibility that the child could be the result of modern medicine, artificial insemination, and so forth, and either or neither one of the parents is so-called "natural". I wonder whether it is absolutely necessary to include the word "natural" in that section. 6.30 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and views. Let me first address Mdm Claire Chiang's points. Sir, Mdm Claire Chiang has been very robust in her speech. Let me start by beginning from where she ended. She said that it is not a numbers exercise, and that is precisely what this is all about. It is not a numbers exercise purely. That is why when she said why not open up to all women, open up to everybody, we have to think twice about it. It is not purely a numbers game.

She questioned the structure of the Children Development Account. As I have earlier mentioned, Sir, the account would essentially be a Trust-Minor Account and when the child reaches school-going age, it will be transferred to Edusave. When the child grows up to over 21 years, it will go into his CPF account. So it is very clear. And the funds are meant for the children's development, not for emergencies. They could be used for, as I mentioned, MCDS' licensed childcare centres, MOE's registered kindergartens and pre-school programmes and special education schools, and other uses may be considered at a later stage.

Mdm Chiang asked if the trustee can be changed if a parent should die. Yes, the other parent can become a trustee. I would like to assure Mdm Chiang that there would be sufficient legal provisions to make clear the structure and ownership of the Children Development Account.

Mdm Chiang also expressed doubts on whether parents would opt to participate in the scheme. Sir, it would really be up to the parents whether to take up the scheme or not. And I would like to emphasise that the co-savings component of the scheme actually provides a guaranteed 100% return every year because we pay $1 for $1, and this excludes the interest paid by the bank.

She also asked whether a mother who adopts a third child would be eligible for the scheme. The answer is that it would not, simply because the intention of the scheme is to raise the total fertility rate. Therefore, maternity leave is also meant for mothers who go through the pregnancy cycle and confinement. It is also in line with the maternity benefits under the Employment Act.

She also asked why under clause 9(1)(b), every female employee needs to come to an agreement with the employer about the eight weeks' leave period if the Bill already makes it mandatory. Sir, I would like to point out that if the employee opts to take the leave four weeks before and four weeks after her confinement, that is a straight entitlement. But if she wants to take the eight weeks' leave starting later, she would need to come to an agreement with her employer as to which date the leave would start, and this practice is no different from the maternity leave for the first and second child as stated in the Employment Act.

Sir, the reason why the six months' rule is put in place is really to prevent the possibility of women taking advantage of this scheme by joining the workforce just prior to her confinement. On the possibility of a case raised by Mdm Chiang about the company going bankrupt and the woman is retrenched, we do concede that there will be such cases, but we think they will be few and rare. Rather than amending the Bill to provide for such exceptions, it is best that we take them on a case-by-case basis and consider them administratively. That we would do.

As for babies who are born alive but die after some time, the mothers would still be entitled to the maternity leave provided they meet the other eligibility criteria. If a child is stillborn or miscarried, the mother would not be eligible. She would however be given some hospitalisation leave for her to recuperate. Verification of self-employed mothers would be calculated based on the average income derived from self-employment during the six months immediately preceding the maternity leave. A self-employed reimbursement board has been set up to approve the claims, and this board is similar to the board set up to approve claims for self-employed NSmen to make up their pay claims.

Mdm Chiang also mentioned a number of scenarios whereby the mother ceases to be married after the child is conceived. Yes, mothers in all these cases will still be entitled to the maternity leave because they would have satisfied the condition of being lawfully married to the child's natural father at the time the child is conceived. And why the need for the employer to pay the employees first? Sir, this would ensure that the mother receives her pay promptly. And MCDS, I assure her, has set service standards for the reimbursement of employers and, upon submission of the claims by the employers, MCDS will pay the employers within a month from the receipt of submission, if the claims are submitted manually, and within three weeks if the claims are submitted electronically.

On her last point about the employer failing to pay the female employee, action will be taken against them and the Government would ensure that the mother is fully paid, as I mentioned in my earlier speech.

Let me come to Dr Vasoo. Dr Vasoo has got a very interesting question about why only "married women", and not "married couples". Sir, we must accept that it is a married woman, and not married couple, who has children simply because, ultimately, it is the woman who has to decide whether or not she wants to have the child and she will be bearing the children, not the couple. But we do accept that the decision to have children will have to be something between the married couple. And we are not too sure whether we want to use the words "married couple" because sometimes, the definition of "married couple" differs from society to society. So we would rather stick to "married women" and I can assure the Member that when we say "married women", we are talking about married couples because we want to ensure that children are born within wedlock and the family is intact.

He asked whether there would be any discrimination of income and whether the lower income families would be disadvantaged. The answer is no. As long as the parent or the mother satisfies the criteria, she will be given the bonus, regardless of what income group she comes from. In terms of childcare, quite apart from this, we also have what we call the centre-based financial assistance for childcare which I mentioned earlier in my speech during the Committee of Supply. My Ministry will give additional subsidy to children from low income families to attend childcare centres.

Mr Gerard Ee asked whether women who work free for families would be eligible for maternity leave. The answer is no. Because the objective of the maternity leave benefit is to compensate for loss of income. Also, it is very difficult to determine the actual amount that person should be paid, whether she helps out in the hawker centre, or in the father's firm. How do you reconcile and how do you want to pay them? So we would leave it as it is and we only pay for working women. It is really to compensate the loss in income.

He asked about the provision in the Bill on "lawfully married to the child's natural father". This is, as I said earlier, because we want to encourage child birth within wedlock and the family remains intact.

Mr Gerard Ee: I just want to clarify the position. I agree with the words "lawfully married". But I am questioning the word "natural".

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Yes. I know where he is coming from when he said that, because he did mention also what if the child is conceived out of artificial insemination. Sir, in such cases, if there is no paternity challenge and if the couple accept the child as their own, then they will be eligible. This is where administrative consideration will be given. It is not our intention to deny payment to that particular child.

Sir, Dr Lily Neo asked whether children who are born prematurely would be considered. I am afraid not. When the Prime Minister announced the scheme at the National Day Rally on 20th August last year, he did mention that we were already being generous to the early babies by implementing on 1st April 2001. However if there is strong medical evidence to suggest that a baby was conceived after PM's announcement, but the baby arrived early, that is, premature birth, then MCDS would consider on a case-by-case basis.

On the use of "baby bonus" for parenting and marriage courses, the intention is for the "baby bonus" to be used for childcare centres and kindergartens. But the families or parents are free to use the first tier for parenting courses and informal childcare arrangement. In fact, one of the main reasons for creating the first tier is to allow this flexibility by parents to use this cash amount for such programmes or projects.

And the procedures for the claims, we assure her, will be simple. We would not make it complicated. We think the employers and employees have enough time to submit their claims. Even if the employee provides only a week's notice before confinement, for example, the employer has three months to submit claims as the deadline is one month after the expiry of the maternity leave. But, again, we will be flexible if there are valid reasons for late claims. In other words, we will not penalise people as it were. We want to pay them. We want to make sure that this scheme works. Wanting to have children and wanting to build a family is a very personal choice. We cannot demand it by fiat. No government can demand it by fiat. It has to be a personal choice. But the Government could facilitate and encourage by having schemes like this. Our feedback has been that families or parents who have their first child, or want to have their first child, usually do not have financial difficulties.

They want to have their second or third child, but baulk at it either because of financial or other constraints, and this Bill will try to address that financial obstacle of parents.

On the question of rights of employees, yes, the rights of employees are protected and, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the Bill has provisions to punish errant employers who do not pay the maternity benefits to their employees. In fact, it is the same in the Employment Act too.

Mr Noris Ong asked what the specific details are. Sir, the details of the scheme will be released soon by my Ministry. But let us start with what we have first, before we extend it to other uses. We must realise that this is something unique. There is no precedent for such an Act here, so we will have to proceed slowly, and we will have to modify and fine-tune along the way. The low-income group will not be at a disadvantage, because the co-saving principle is important to emphasise the primary responsibility of parents to care for their children. The co-saving period actually allows parents the time to save and to make deposits.

For paternity and other leave, I suggest we stick to the present measures first before we review the leave provisions further and consider changes.

As for subsidies for childcare operators in CBD, the Ministry actually already has in place provisions to encourage employers to set up creches and childcare centres at their workplace. For example, we give capital grants for conversion of premises, and for furnishing and equipment, if they want to turn part of their premises to childcare centres or creches. We also have tax incentives for employers who set up childcare centres in their workplace. With regard to foreign maid levy, as you know, it is being paid to the working mother, and it does not stop the working mother from using whatever savings there are from the levy, for the rest of the family. In any case, the foreign maid levy is beyond the scope of this Bill. It is not to modify, change or improve the scope of the maid levy.

As I mentioned earlier, Sir, having children and raising a family are ultimately personal decisions. The Government can and will try to help to facilitate, and I can assure the House that we will be as flexible and as generous as we can. We all want children. We want children to be a joy, not just another burden to the family, and we want our children to feel wanted. Any sacrifice that parents make in raising them must be a labour of love and an expression of love. And the Children Development Co-Savings Bill, Sir, is one of the many measures and instruments that we have and would put in place to achieve these ends.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Sir, can I clarify three questions? I am still not convinced why this Bill cannot cover all women and all births. I am not satisfied with the answer. The Minister also said that this Bill precisely is not just about numbers. I wish he would clarify a little more on this statement. If it is a stillborn, the Minister said that maternity leave will be given to help the woman to recuperate. I would like to know whether it is paid maternity leave. The third question is: would the Minister influence and appeal to the public hospitals not to increase hospitalisation charges for baby No. 4 and above?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, this is precisely what we are talking about, ie, it is not just a question about numbers per se, and I would like to refer to what Mr Noris Ong said, about having three or more children, if we can afford it. This means, as I mentioned just now in my speech too, that we do not want children to be a burden. We want children to be wanted, we want children to be loved. So we must make sure that children whom we bring into this world, will be children who will be loved and will not be a burden to the family. And we must make sure that the parents can cope with taking care of their children. That is what I mean by it is not a question of numbers.

With regard to stillborns, I am not too sure, but I think it will be paid maternity leave. With regard to whether I would ask the hospitals to extend this to cover the fourth child, I would have to speak to Mr Lim Hng Kiang, the Minister for Health. By the way, the work group on this also includes representatives from the Ministry of Health.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh rose -

The Chairman: One last clarification.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Sir, I am sure those mothers who have more than four children want their children because they are loved and because they want the children. Who is to decide then whether those children are loved and wanted? And if the mothers say they are willing to have the fourth child, would the state not support her?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: At present, Sir, the policy is we will support up to three children.

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. - [Mr Abdullah Tarmugi].

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