Mr Speaker, it felt like it wasn’t too long ago that I spoke on the topic of how we can better support Singaporeans in starting and raising families, even though this is a topic I have regularly visited throughout my term in Parliament. Specifically, it was just about three months ago when I shared my thoughts on paternity leave, shared parental leave, flexible work arrangements, childcare leave provisions during the debate on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill in November last year.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, let me briefly recap some of the key points on these specific policy measures that I have been raising not just as a Member of Parliament reflecting the views of our residents, but also my personal experience as a father of two young boys, trying to raise a family in Singapore.
To begin with, the Motion before us seeks to calls for the continued review and updating of policies to better support families, as well as the marriage and parenthood aspirations of Singaporeans, and endorses a whole of society approach to build a Singapore Made for Families. There is nothing objectionable to this statement, and any Government in any country that is doing its job should always continually review and update its policies.
However, I am concerned that we are further entrenching the incremental approach that we are taking in trying to tackle the monumental challenge of our record-low total fertility rate of 0.97 that is before us. And we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results, if we do not make a serious effort to reimagine our approach to tackling this issue. Three years on after the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan was announced back in 2022, have we truly changed the status quo?
Flexible Work Arrangements
On specific policy measures, let me first start by reiterating my point on flexible work arrangements, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this house.
The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which come into effect in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees’ requests for flexible work arrangements (FWA) “properly”. Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for flexible work arrangements.
On 30 November 2024, a Straits Times article reported that according to data from Blackbox Research’s platform SensingSG, which polls 1,500 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 18 and up every three months, 27% of respondents still enjoy hybrid work arrangements, down 7 percentage points year-on-year.
Ironically, despite the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines in December, Blackbox Research’s head of strategy expects to see a continued gradual decline in remote and hybrid working in 2025.
In the same article, KPMG’s CEO Outlook, which polled 1,325 CEOs between July and August, highlighted that 83% of bosses expect a full return to office within the next three years, up from 64% in 2023. Even in the US, President Donald Trump has basically signed an executive order demanding all federal employees end their remote work arrangements and return to the office on a full-time basis or lose their jobs.
While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work-from-home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may be more appropriate, the point remains that I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers’ less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs.
Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October last year to enshrine into law the right to request for flexible work arrangements. This would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments.
Childcare leave
FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions. If we cannot legislate for flexible work arrangements, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per child basis?
In my speech in November last year, I shared that parents would need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to ECDA, could be up to eight working days a year, an increase from six days a year previously. I acknowledge that I misspoke on this, and MOS Sun Xueling clarified in her closing speech that there has been a net increase of only 0.5 days of preschool closure and not two additional days, as all preschools were already allowed to close 7.5 days per year – six closure days and three half-days on the eves of selected public holidays. Doesn’t this further prove my point that the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone for when our children fall sick?
Moreover, it seems that many preschools now have eight designated closure days and still have half-day closures on the eves of selected public holidays, anyway. Even though MOS Sun further shared that a working couple would have a total of 12 days of Childcare Leave on top of their annual leave provisions, are we not splitting hairs a little here? Yes, the manpower and operational needs of employers need to be taken into consideration but should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, flexible work arrangements that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution.
The lived realities of young Singaporean families
Beyond the provision of flexible work arrangements and childcare leave, let us also take a moment to examine the lived realities of young Singaporean families.
Searching for a job in an increasingly hyper-competitive market. Giving up personal passions and resigning to the corporate work grind to earn a living. Stressing about the rising cost of living. Facing the demands of returning to work and juggling parenthood throughout the child’s early years. The physical, emotional and mental toll of a society where parents are hard at work is very real. Feeling like your job or future career is at risk if one chooses to prioritise caregiving in the early years of parenthood is very real.
According to an Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) survey shared at the Singapore Perspectives conference on 29 January 2024, on Singaporeans’ attitudes and views toward issues such as family, well-being and work, 7 in 10 of Singaporeans in the youngest group aged 21 to 34 feel it is not necessary to get married and have children. Across all age groups surveyed, the main reasons among this age group include a career focus, lacking time and energy and being deterred by the high stress and costs of doing so. The survey also highlights the trend of reluctance and disinterest among young women’s views on marriage and parenthood, where respondents are worried of burning out from juggling caregiving responsibilities and work demands, without equal support from their partners.
Individual choice aside, this is a society that places much higher emphasis on work over family. We are also often reminded in this house, by the Government and some MPs, of the pushback from employers whenever we try to do better for our families, such as the impact of the parental leave enhancements on businesses and their manpower arrangements.
Adults of working age, including young Singaporeans parents or parents to be, are viewed as labour contributing to the output of this economy. A parent that chooses to prioritise caregiving over a return to the workforce is an economic trade-off for Singapore, a role that does not contribute to GDP. Our hyper competitive economy pressures and expects new parents to return to the workforce, to pursue career growth and maximise earnings in a cycle where Singaporeans need to increase their earning ability in order to maintain living standards in an environment of rising costs.
Expanding the frame—from incentivising parents to championing parenthood and family life
The measures we have today revolve heavily around financial support. Besides the enhanced parental leave provision and infant care leave, this includes baby bonuses, government contributions to child development accounts, child relief and childcare subsidies for working mothers and foreign domestic worker levy relief, again for working mothers only. I recognise that these have provided significant relief and helped many Singaporeans build and raise families over the years. However, we also know that generations of Singaporean children were primarily cared for through a mix of grandparents, domestic helpers and professional childcare as their parents from the Baby Boomer generation generally prioritised work to earn a decent living. Even for myself, I cannot imagine how my family can cope without a combination of help from full day childcare, a domestic helper and my mother in law!
We recognise that raising and nurturing a family is a lifelong journey, taking love, time and continual effort. Being a parent and caring for your child is a privilege and responsibility. However, the existing frame does not seem to encourage this. Instead, it prioritises outsourcing of caregiving and incentivising parents, especially mothers, to return back to the workforce quickly. The Ministry of Social and Family Development’s Social Compact wants families to be a pillar of support and for families to be individually responsible. However, there is a fundamental disjunct between this and parents not having time or being empowered to prioritise childcare responsibilities.
When we provide childcare subsidies, tax reliefs and foreign domestic work levy reliefs for working mothers only, we are saying “we want you back in the workforce”. While this is ultimately dependent on parents’ individual choice, and we want to ensure that mothers are fully empowered to take charge of their own careers, parents should feel that they are empowered to make a choice to prioritise caregiving in the early years if they so choose.
If we truly believe in a Singapore Made for Families, we need to expand and shift our frame from one that advocates for parents to outsource caregiving starting from as young as two months for infant care due to return to work demands, to a frame that champions parenthood. We should be saying “we want you to be proud of being a parent” and how we can rethink flexibility at work in the critical first few years of a child growing up so that parents are able to dedicate more time to directly care for their children.
Allow me now to say a few words in Mandarin.
今天的动议在呼吁政府继续检讨并更新相关政策，进一步支持国人在婚姻与组建家庭方面的期望，并动员全社会共同打造一个“齐心为了家”的新加坡。这样的倡议本身无可厚非，因为任何负责任的政府都应该不断审视并改进自身政策。
然而，我所担忧的是：在应对当前创历史新低的总和生育率（仅0.97）这一巨大挑战时，我们似乎仍在采取循序渐进的方式。若想取得显著的成效，就必须付出更大的努力，重新思考并大胆创新。自2022年提出 “为家庭而设2025”的计划以来，三年时间已经过去，我们真的改变了现状吗？
在竞争日益激烈的就业市场中寻找工作；为了糊口而被迫舍弃个人的兴趣，陷入职场的“内卷”；为不断上涨的生活成本发愁；在重返工作岗位后，还要在孩子年幼时期的成长需求，与职场责任之间疲于奔命——这些问题构成了当下无数父母的现实困境。而当有人选择在孩子的黄金成长期投入更多精力照护时，常常会担忧自己的职业前景受到影响。所有这些都是真实存在的。
一个“为家庭而设的新加坡”应该是这样的：当父母选择延长育儿假或在孩子的关键成长阶段优先照顾孩子时，他们不会因此面临工作不保的风险。财政支持和育儿补贴固然重要，但要真正建设一个“为家庭而设的新加坡”，还需要从根本上重新思考、勇于创新我们的政策。我们必须重新审视育儿的无形价值，反思过度强调工作而忽视家庭的倾向，并积极提倡为人父母的意义。关键在于：如何重塑与年轻一代新加坡人之间的社会契约，打造一个真正“为家庭而设”的社会，让为人父母的价值获得更深层次的推崇？这才是我们当下需要认真思考的问题。
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, beyond policies, we need to question the value that we place on work and the economy against that of caregiving and parenthood. A Singapore Made for Families should be one where parents should not suffer from job insecurity because they choose to extend parental leave or prioritise caregiving during their children’s formative years. Financial and caregiving support incentives help, but if we are to truly build a Singapore Made for Families, we need to rethink our starting point and reimagine our policies.
Reimagining the intangible value of caregiving, challenging the emphasis of work over family, and championing parenthood. How can we change the frame of our social compact with young Singaporeans to build a Singapore Made for Families to one that champions parenthood? That is the question we should be pondering.
