Introduction
Mr Speaker, this Bill enshrines into law enhancements to Singapore’s statutory parental leave benefits which were articulated by PM Lawrence Wong during this year’s National Day Rally. The initial Government-paid paternity leave structure of 2 weeks’ mandatory and 2 weeks’ voluntary paternity leave would now become 4 weeks of mandatory Government Paid Paternity Leave.
A Shared Parental Leave scheme was also introduced, on top of the Government Paid Paternity and Maternity Leave entitlements. From 2025, 6 weeks of Shared Parental Leave would be provided, with that number increasing to 10 weeks from 2026. Moreover, the Bill seeks to protect fathers who take Government-Paid Paternity Leave from being served a Notice of Dismissal during their period of paternity leave.
With Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) dropping to a record low of 0.97 in 2023, such measures are certainly a step forward in promoting parenthood amongst couples. In my speech today, I will share my thoughts on several of these measures and other points which I believe are important to consider, including paternity leave, shared parental leave, flexible work arrangements and childcare leave provisions.
Paternity leave
First, on paternity leave. During the debate on the Women’s Development White Paper in 2022, I highlighted how policy moves, such as increasing one’s Government-Paid Paternity Leave entitlement, would encourage more fathers to take on a more active role in their parenting and household responsibilities and thus, help nurture gender equality within society by eschewing traditional gender norms.
In Singapore however, it is deeply concerning that just over half of fathers even took paternity leave to begin with. As someone who had taken my full share of two weeks of paternity leave, twice, I find it hard to understand especially when it’s an “all hands on deck” situation at home immediately following a newborn child’s birth.
In my speech on the Budget 2023 debates, I shared that while the move to raise Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two weeks to four weeks is no doubt welcome, I noted that this was purely on a voluntary basis on the part of employers, and wondered if DPM’s message that “we want paternal involvement to be the norm in our society” could in practice turn out as being construed as, paternal involvement is voluntary.
The move to make the four weeks of paternity leave mandatory is thus a welcome change. That said, given our utilisation of paternity leave today, where only just over half of fathers take paternity leave, and the median paternity leave taken by eligible fathers is only just over a week, I wonder if would-be fathers will be in a position to take their full entitlement of the expanded paternity leave and feel comfortable doing so.
Perhaps it is worth considering having the Government payment of paternity leave to employers, to be contingent on the utilisation of at least half of the full four weeks, at two weeks of paternity leave, before gradually increasing this over time. This could further entrench the notion that paternal involvement is important and necessary, while taking into account employers’ concerns.
Shared Parental Leave Provisions
Next, on the new shared parental leave provisions. This is certainly a welcome move which I wholeheartedly agree with.
As part of The Workers’ Party Manifesto in 2020, we proposed a shared parental leave scheme that entitles parents to 24 weeks of government-paid leave, to be shared between mothers and fathers as they choose, but with a minimum of 12 weeks to be granted to the mother and four weeks to the father. This was a point which I have also reiterated during the debate on the Empowering Women Motion in August 2021 and the Women’s Development White Paper in 2022, as have my other WP colleagues. As my Sengkang teammate Ru described in her speech in October 2020, the current government policy, which allows fathers to share only up to four weeks of the mother’s leave, reinforces the outdated notion that childcare is primarily the mother’s responsibility, rather than promoting equal parenting roles.
That being said, while the default position is that each parent is allocated half of the shared parental leave to encourage shared parental responsibility, I wonder if this is likely to be the case in reality. I acknowledge that we need to give parents the ability to decide what is best for their own families, but part of the requirements of the new SPL is that changes to the leave sharing arrangements should be made within four weeks after the child’s birth. Any changes thereafter will require mutual agreement between parents and their employers.
Likewise, I agree that we need to acknowledge the potential impact on business operations as a result of employees’ parental leave arrangements. But can we consider putting in place mechanisms to better facilitate or mediate issues faced by parents when making changes to SPL arrangements, especially when the needs of either parent’s employers may not be aligned? For example, while parents may have decided on an equal sharing of SPL, the mother’s employer may have a new and time-sensitive work project that comes up, and the father’s employer may not see it in their interest to agree to the extension of his parental leave.
If this is not possible, can we consider extending the eligibility period for the parental leave to be taken within 24 months of the child’s date of birth, instead of within 12 months from the child’s birth? Doing so can also give both employers and parents the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances and needs within the household and with their employers.
Flexible Work Arrangements
This brings me to 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.
However, the recent uptick in employers, such as Grab and Amazon, requiring employees to return to office for all five days of the week has undone the progress made to normalise FWAs in the workplace. 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, 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?
As many parents with young children may know, they would need to take significant time off from work to care for their children as they often tend to fall ill. For instance, I have shared in my adjournment motion speech on FWAs in 2023, that I clocked 20 visits to the paediatrician over a period of 9 months! With medical leave durations ranging from three to five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs?
Moreover, the reality is that parents would also 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. So, as it is, the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone for when our children fall sick.
In response to calls by Members of this House to enhance the childcare leave provisions, the government has articulated its concern about the impact that increasing such leave benefits have on the manpower and operational needs of businesses. However, seeing how we are facing a TFR crisis of generations, perhaps the government should channel greater efforts toward granting Singaporeans who wish to start a family the opportunity to achieve that dream. Furthermore, employers could still stand to benefit as it has the effect of boosting staff retention and productivity.
Nevertheless, 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.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, my journey in Parliament pretty much coincides with my parenthood journey, given that my first child was born in September 2019 and less than a year later, I was elected together with my Sengkang teammates in July 2020. A year later in November 2021, my second child was born. Like many of my peers with young children, to say that parenthood is like a roller coaster ride is not an understatement; with many ups and downs, unexpected twists and turns where you could be screaming in terror half the time or shedding tears of joy the other half.
I have absolutely no regrets being a father, but I also feel deeply the sacrifices and difficulties that a working parent has to go through in the Singapore that we live in today. So, for some of my peers who have decided to not have children, I do not blame them when they question whether or not all the sacrifices that are necessary in becoming a parent is worth their time, money and effort. Why wake up at 3am in the morning for a feed when you could be sleeping in over the weekend? Why fret over paying for diapers, food, childcare and clothing when you could be on a nice holiday to Japan? Why scramble to pick up your kids from school when you could be striving to advance your career in the office?
As lawmakers, we cannot force Singaporeans to have more children, just as we cannot force members of this house to lead by example and meet the replacement TFR of 2.1. But what we can do is to minimise the pains and difficulties faced by parents and parents-to-be, just so that they can better see the joys and wonders of parenthood. And this is where we need to enact the right policies and legislation, putting in place something as simple as an incentive and disincentive framework for employers, to make sure that fathers and mothers all take their full share of parental leave, they have sufficient leave to care for their child, and that parents are not robbed of the ability to have FWAs just because of business needs. Just so that we can place the sustainability of Singapore as a nation, as an utmost priority.