| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Minister Indranee Rajah — Parliamentary Q&A Policy Tracker (2020–2026) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Compiled from Hansard records. Each row represents a parliamentary question and Indranee's stated position. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | S/N | Date | Topic / Question | MP / Questioner | Indranee's Position | What Was Refused / Deflected | Verdict | ||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1 | Oct 2020 | Extra childcare leave for parents of differently-abled children to attend developmental assessments, medical and therapy appointments | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Indranee's Position: Cited progressive enhancements to childcare leave over the years. Said any further enhancement must balance parent needs against employer manpower requirements and avoid affecting parents' employability. Directed parents to FWAs and voluntary Tripartite Standards. Highlighted existing SSCC subsidies and removal of age limit under Grandparent Caregiver Relief for special needs children. | No additional leave entitlement for parents of differently-abled children. No commitment to legislate specific provisions for higher-need caregiving situations. Directed parents to employer goodwill via voluntary FWA adoption rather than guaranteed rights. | PRO-EMPLOYER — Parents of differently-abled children, who face measurably higher caregiving demands, were offered the same standard deflection: ask your employer, rely on voluntary standards, FWAs are more sustainable. | ||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | May 2022 | Whether exceptions have been made to the Baby Support Grant for single (unwed) mothers; and whether the BSG will be extended beyond September 2022 given TFR remains low at 1.12 | Leon Perera | Confirmed BSG eligibility for divorced or widowed single mothers but not never-married unwed mothers. Allowed limited appeals for babies with EDD on or after 1 October 2020. Declared BSG a one-off pandemic measure and confirmed it will not be extended as "the pandemic situation has improved." Pointed to existing Baby Bonus, CDA and MediSave Grant as sufficient ongoing support. | No extension of BSG despite TFR sitting at 1.12 and continuing to fall. No exception carved out for never-married unwed mothers. No acknowledgement that ending a financial incentive while TFR remains in decline sends a contradictory signal. The connection between continued low TFR and the case for extension was raised directly and dismissed. | PRO-ESTABLISHMENT — With TFR already in the red at 1.12, the government withdrew a financial parenthood incentive on the grounds that the pandemic was over. The fertility crisis was not considered sufficient reason to maintain support. Never-married unwed mothers remained excluded even as every birth was needed. | ||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 3 | Mar 2022 | Working Mother's Child Relief & Parenthood Tax Rebate for single unwed parents | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Benefits were designed to encourage parenthood within marriage and reflect 'prevailing societal norm.' Will not be extended to unwed parents. Directed unwed mothers to Social Service Offices. | Extension of WMCR and PTR to unwed mothers refused. Did not provide cost comparison. Did not commit to any review. | PRO-ESTABLISHMENT Explicitly refused to extend financial benefits to unwed mothers — a group actively having children and contributing to TFR. | ||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 4 | Jan 2021 | Review of Government-Paid Childcare Leave (last increased in 2008) | Gan Thiam Poh | Must balance caregiving needs against employer manpower needs. Cautious about affecting parents' employability over 12-year leave window. FWAs are more 'sustainable' solution. | No commitment to increase childcare leave. Deflected to FWAs and tripartite standards — voluntary, not mandatory. | PRO-EMPLOYER Parents asking for more leave; answer was 'ask your employer nicely.' | ||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 5 | Feb 2021 | Extension of childcare leave during the pandemic to help parents care for children placed on mandatory 5-day sick leave due to respiratory symptoms | Murali Pillai | Acknowledged parents face challenges during the pandemic. Cited existing entitlements — 6 days childcare leave (under 7) and 2 days (7–12) — plus annual leave as sufficient. Said any enhancement, even time-limited, must account for employer manpower needs. Encouraged employers to adopt FWAs voluntarily. Called for FWAs to become "a norm" as the sustainable long-term solution. | Refused even a temporary, pandemic-specific extension of childcare leave despite the government's own MOH policy forcing children to stay home for 5 days. No emergency provision. No legislative backstop. Employer goodwill offered as the solution during a national health crisis. | PRO-EMPLOYER — At the height of COVID-19, when the government itself was mandating sick leave for children, parents asking for corresponding leave support were told to rely on voluntary employer flexibility. The state created the obligation; it refused to fund the solution. | ||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 6 | Feb 2021 | Allow childcare leave to be taken in part-day blocks | Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim | Leave can already be taken in shorter durations if employer agrees. FWAs remain key. Will continue to promote FWA adoption. | No legislative change proposed. Solution placed on employers' goodwill, not rights. | PRO-EMPLOYER Made flexibility contingent on employer agreement, not a guaranteed right. | ||||||||||||||||||||
10 | 7 | Feb 2021 | Tiered childcare leave: more days for parents with more children | Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim | Need to balance with employer needs. Must avoid affecting parents' employability. Will 'continue to study'. | No commitment to tiered leave. Study promised — no timeline given. | PRO-EMPLOYER Deferred with standard 'study' response. No action taken. | ||||||||||||||||||||
11 | 8 | Apr 2021 | Is there evidence that increasing childcare leave reduces employability? | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Difficult to isolate childcare leave as the variable. Employer feedback suggests caution. FWAs are more sustainable. | Refused to confirm lack of evidence. Used employer concern as justification for inaction without producing a study. | PRO-EMPLOYER Cited employer anxiety as reason not to legislate, despite absence of hard evidence. | ||||||||||||||||||||
12 | 9 | Jul 2021 | Enhancing support for Singaporeans who wish to conceive but face fertility barriers | Dr Lim Wee Kiak | ART age limits removed. Co-funding enhanced. Encourage couples to 'marry and start families early.' Each couple's circumstances are unique. | No mention of support for singles or non-traditional families seeking fertility assistance. | NEUTRAL-POSITIVE Useful fertility enhancements but framed entirely within married-couple context. | ||||||||||||||||||||
13 | 10 | Oct 2021 | Additional support when parents exhaust all leave and children need home care | Gan Thiam Poh | Existing 6 days + annual leave generally 'sufficient.' FWAs are more sustainable. Grandparents are important support. Whole-of-society effort needed. | No new leave entitlements. COVID hardships acknowledged but no legislative response. | PRO-EMPLOYER Told parents existing provisions are 'sufficient' during a pandemic. | ||||||||||||||||||||
14 | 11 | Jan 2022 | Rationale for cutting childcare leave from 6 days to 2 days when a child turns seven; whether a review is underway, especially for frontline and essential workers who cannot work from home | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Defended the reduction by stating younger children require "relatively more care." Cited the 2013 extension of 2 days for ages 7–12 as sufficient ongoing support. Repeated the standard balancing act between parent needs and employer manpower requirements. Suggested FWAs — including flexi-time and shift-staggering — as the practical solution for frontline workers. | No review of the 6-to-2 day reduction committed to. No acknowledgement that frontline workers — by definition unable to work from home — are structurally excluded from the FWA solution she repeatedly offers. The specific vulnerability of essential workers raised directly; answered with a suggestion that employers stagger shifts. | PRO-EMPLOYER — Frontline workers, the very group least able to use FWAs, were told their employers could stagger their shifts. The structural gap between those who can work from home and those who cannot was identified clearly by the questioner and ignored entirely in the answer. | ||||||||||||||||||||
15 | 12 | Sep 2022 | Extend childcare leave for parents of children with special needs beyond age 12 | Mariam Jaafar | Must balance parent needs against employer manpower needs. Encouraged employers to adopt FWAs voluntarily. Enhanced SSCC subsidies cited. | Extension of paid leave for special needs parents refused. Voluntary FWAs offered as alternative. | PRO-EMPLOYER Parents of special needs children left reliant on employer goodwill. | ||||||||||||||||||||
16 | 13 | Aug 2022 | (1) Lower the gross floor area threshold and increase the number of mandatory lactation rooms in office buildings; (2) Legislate paid lactation breaks for breastfeeding mothers at work | Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Adjournment Motion) | Acknowledged the challenges faced by nursing mothers. Defended the existing 10,000 sqm GFA threshold as a balanced decision reached after a two-year consultative review. Highlighted voluntary efforts by some building owners going beyond requirements. Cited the Accessibility Fund co-funding up to 60% of retrofit costs. On paid lactation breaks — no commitment to legislate. Pointed to existing maternity and childcare leave provisions, employer goodwill, FWAs, and the "Employer's Guide to Breastfeeding" as sufficient frameworks. Said mindsets need to shift. Committed to a Code review "next year" — then when pressed on timing, said "as soon as possible." | Both specific legislative proposals refused. No commitment to lower the GFA threshold. No commitment to mandate paid lactation breaks despite 73% of surveyed countries already having such laws. No timeline given for the Code review beyond "next year" and then "as soon as possible." The specific vulnerability of non-office, frontline and physical-presence workers — who cannot rely on FWAs — was raised and not addressed. | PRO-EMPLOYER — Louis Ng came with data, international comparisons, and two concrete proposals. He got a review promise with no deadline and a reminder that mindsets take time to shift. Singapore sits in the minority of countries without paid lactation break legislation. The Minister's answer did not explain why it should stay there. | ||||||||||||||||||||
17 | 14 | Aug 2022 | Whether there is a correlation between a parent's socioeconomic status and take-up of maternity and paternity leave; and if unknown, whether a study will be conducted | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Admitted no study has been conducted on the correlation. Acknowledged that frontline workers and hourly-wage earners find it harder to take leave in practice. Cited focus group feedback that workplace culture and supervisor support are key determinants. Encouraged parents to discuss leave plans with employers early. Called for a "whole-of-society effort." | No commitment to conduct the study despite admitting it has never been done. The structural disadvantage of lower-income and frontline workers was acknowledged in the same breath as the refusal to investigate it formally. No policy response proposed for the gap identified. Directed lower-income parents — the most vulnerable — back to employer goodwill. | DATA GAP / PRO-EMPLOYER — The Ministry openly admitted it does not know whether poorer parents are being left behind by the very leave schemes designed to support them, and declined to find out. Acknowledging a problem while refusing to measure it is not governance. It is wilful blindness. | ||||||||||||||||||||
18 | 15 | Sep 2023 | Review parental leave for parents of multiple or pre-term babies | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Paternity leave doubled to 4 weeks from Jan 2024. Unpaid Infant Care Leave also doubled. Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs (2018) exists. | No specific additional entitlement for multiple/preterm births beyond general enhancement. Directed to voluntary tripartite standard. | PARTIAL POSITIVE General leave enhanced but no targeted provision for higher-need births. | ||||||||||||||||||||
19 | 16 | Aug 2024 | Whether the Government will increase childcare leave beyond the current 6 days per year, specifically in the context of efforts to support parents and encourage higher birth rates | Edward Chia Bing Hui | Cited recent enhancements — paternity leave doubled to 4 weeks and Unpaid Infant Care Leave doubled — as evidence of progressive action. Said the government is "presently studying" further infant care support. Repeated the standard employer-balance framing. Pointed to incoming Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests from December 2024 as a meaningful step forward. Called on employers, supervisors and colleagues to be supportive. | No commitment to increase the 6-day childcare leave entitlement despite the question explicitly linking it to the government's own birth rate objectives. The question connected leave policy directly to TFR — that connection was not addressed in the answer. "Presently studying" offered with no timeline. FWA guidelines described as "mandatory" but only mandate the discussion, not the outcome. | PRO-EMPLOYER — By August 2024, TFR had already fallen to 0.97. A PAP MP directly linked childcare leave to birth rate efforts and was given the same answer Louis Ng had received repeatedly since 2021. Three years, same deflection, TFR still falling. | ||||||||||||||||||||
20 | 17 | Feb 2025 | Reimburse paternity leave based on average gross salary (including incentives/allowances) | Louis Ng Kok Kwang | Paternity leave is paid at gross rate of pay — this excludes overtime, incentive pay, and travel/food allowances as these are work-dependent. No need to compute average. | Refused to include variable pay components in leave reimbursement. High-incentive earners take effective pay cut during leave. | PRO-EMPLOYER High earners — often in demanding jobs — penalised financially for taking paternity leave. | ||||||||||||||||||||
21 | 18 | Apr 2025 | Whether the Government will re-imagine a "Let's Have One" campaign modelled on the successful "Stop at Two" campaign of 1972, and what lessons can be drawn from it to reverse the TFR decline | Ng Ling Ling | Dismissed the "Stop at Two" comparison as irrelevant — conditions in the 1970s were fundamentally different. Acknowledged declining fertility as a national priority but framed marriage and parenthood as "deeply personal decisions." Cited existing enhancements — Baby Bonus, Shared Parental Leave, Tripartite FWA Guidelines, Large Families Scheme — as evidence of progressive action. Pointed to the "Made For Families" movement as the current vehicle for mindset and culture shift. | No commitment to a bold, nationally coordinated campaign equivalent in ambition to "Stop at Two." The question explicitly asked what lessons could be learned from a campaign that worked — the answer did not engage with that question at all. "Made For Families" offered as a substitute: a branding movement, not a campaign with measurable targets or accountability. | STATUS QUO — Asked for boldness, given a brochure. The irony is stark: the government successfully used a national campaign to reduce births in 1972. Fifty years later, asked whether a comparable effort could reverse the decline, the answer was that times have changed. They have. So has the urgency. | ||||||||||||||||||||
22 | 19 | Sep 2025 | Enhance Large Families Scheme LifeSG credits beyond age 6 | Lee Hong Chuang | LFS designed for ages 0–6 based on research and parent feedback. Wide support exists beyond age 6 via CDA, education and healthcare subsidies. Will 'monitor and consider adjustments.' | No expansion of annual LFS credits beyond age 6. Deflected to existing broad-based subsidies. | STATUS QUO Refused targeted enhancement; cited existing general support. | ||||||||||||||||||||
23 | 20 | Nov 2025 | Introduce permanent Baby Gift for new parents (similar to Finland's baby box / SG60 gift) | Valerie Lee | SG60 Baby Gift is commemorative, not a policy tool. No plans for permanent scheme. Cash is more practical as parents want different things. Baby Bonus Cash Gift already exists. | Refused permanent baby gift. No pilot proposed. No survey data on impact cited. | STATUS QUO Dismissed tangible parenting support as unnecessary; deferred to cash model. | ||||||||||||||||||||
24 | 21 | Feb 2026 | Data on leave days taken due to childcare closures or sick children — does usage exceed entitlement? | Valerie Lee | Government does not track reasons for GPCL use. Data only available for those taking >3 days. 58% of mothers, 53% of fathers took >3 days in 2023. Will 'continue to review.' | No commitment to collect better data. No commitment to increase leave. No action on structural shortfall. | DATA GAP Acknowledged gap in data but refused to act on visible signals of leave exhaustion. | ||||||||||||||||||||
25 | 22 | Feb 2026 | Whether HDB has met the 4,000-unit PPHS target; and what this means for the success rate of newly married or engaged couples applying to the scheme | Gho Sze Kee | Confirmed HDB met the 4,000-unit PPHS target by end 2025. Outlined priority tiers — families with children first, childless married couples second, fiancé-fiancée couples last. Noted that in recent exercises, all top-tier households and only about 30% of the second tier were invited to select flats. Declined to expand supply via Lease Buyback Scheme returned units, saying those should go to buyers not renters. Described 4,000 units as the appropriate "steady state" given the ramp-up of Shorter Waiting Time BTO flats running in parallel. | No commitment to expand PPHS supply beyond 4,000 units despite the MP citing residents failing across multiple application attempts. No acknowledgment that a 30% success rate for the second priority tier — which includes childless married couples, precisely the demographic the government wants to have children — represents a structural barrier to family formation. The suggestion to tap LBS returned units dismissed without exploring alternatives. | STATUS QUO — The government set a housing target, met it, and declared the job done. That only 30% of childless married couples in the queue secured a flat was presented as an acceptable outcome. For couples waiting for housing before starting a family, a 70% failure rate is not a steady state. It is a deterrent. | ||||||||||||||||||||
26 | 23 | Feb 2026 | Number of children excluded from Baby Bonus / WMCR due to unwed birth status | Kenneth Tiong (WP) | ~745 non-marital births/year excluded from Baby Bonus and WMCR. Policy is designed for parenthood within marriage — this is a fundamental position, not a cost issue. No cost comparison provided. | Refused to provide cost of extending benefits. Refused to compare against ComCare/KidSTART downstream costs. Maintained exclusion as a values position, not evidence-based. | PRO-ESTABLISHMENT Refused to cost-test an exclusion that affects ~745 Singaporean births per year. | ||||||||||||||||||||
27 | 24 | Feb 2026 | Miscarriage recovery leave entitlement | Valerie Lee (PAP) | Counselling already available at public healthcare institutions. 'Agree that more can be done.' Will study suggestions. | No commitment to dedicated miscarriage leave. No referral pathways guaranteed. No workplace guideline commitment. | DEFERRED Another 'will study' response to a concrete, costed proposal with international precedents. | ||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Feb 2026 | Committee of Supply speech — TFR at historic low of 0.87 | Parliament (COS Debate) | Declining TFR is a 'global phenomenon.' Compares Singapore to cities like Tokyo, Paris, Shanghai. Calls for 'Marriage & Parenthood Reset.' Will chair new workgroup. 4-pronged approach. Couples need mindset change — focus on 'precious and priceless' gains of parenthood. | No accountability for 5-year decline under her watch. No structural policy reform announced. No commitment on unwed mother inclusion. Mindset change placed on citizens, not system. | PRO-ESTABLISHMENT Named the problem 'global,' avoided structural accountability, prescribed mindset change to citizens. | |||||||||||||||||||||
29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | VERDICT KEY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | PRO-ESTABLISHMENT / PRO-EMPLOYER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | STATUS QUO / DEFERRED / DATA GAP | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | NEUTRAL-POSITIVE / PARTIAL POSITIVE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||