The day has finally come — on Tuesday, Minister for Social and Family development Tan Chuan-Jin (aka this Committee of Supply's undisputed Santa Claus minister) announced the government's decision to allow Singapore's unwed mothers their full entitlement of 16 weeks' paid maternity leave; the same as what their married counterparts receive.

Babies born from the third quarter of 2016 onward will have a child development account opened for them, Tan said, adding that the maternity leave entitlement will likely kick in next year, after legislation is passed in Parliament.

He gave credit to a host of MPs who spoke on the topic in this year's Budget and Committee of Supply debate — NMPs Kuik Shiao Yin and K Thanaletchimi, Workers' Party MP Muhamad Faisal Manap and NCMP Dennis Tan, as well as PAP MPs Tin Pei Ling, Louis Ng and Desmond Choo.

Minister also lauded Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng for persevering in this cause over many years.

This made us wonder: Was Seah the only one lobbying for equal benefits for unwed mothers?

On the other hand, we noticed the Workers' Party sharing a post from former MP Lee Li Lian:

So we decided to check the Hansard — where every single thing said in Parliament since it started is recorded.

And here's what we found (from then till now):

1. September 21, 2004: Tampines GRC MP Irene Ng was the first to bring up the issue of extending paid maternity leave to unwed mothers, in a debate on an Employment (Amendment) Bill.

"... But, at the end, it is the innocent children who would suffer from their continued exclusion from society by discriminating against unwed mothers. Sir, it would seem to me that the better solution would be to educate the men to take greater responsibility for their actions and for the women that they impregnate and for raising a family, and not punish the women who have to bear their children. Rather than abort these children, these women had taken the decision to raise them and give them a better future. We should not place extra burdens on their shoulders."

2. That same day, Nominated MP Braema Mathi spoke on the same issue in the debate on the Children Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill.

"Thirdly, in this Bill, there should be a provision to protect the unmarried mother. She is a woman who falls into either of two categories - that she has become pregnant through an accident and is now with a child or a woman who has decided on her own to walk not down the path of the aisle and forgoes her boyfriend. Either way, she has made a deliberate choice; she has given up the option of an abortion and has decided to bring the baby to full term. Knowing full well the consequences and the stigma that is often attached to such a state, yet she goes ahead to walk this path because she cannot bring herself to abort the child or to be dependent on an unreliable boyfriend. There are such women among us. We have been told, from a recent newspaper report, that there are about 500 such babies, and 50 of such mothers have already formed a support group. I know some of them. They are responsible mothers. They do not play the victim role; neither do they play the martyr role. They are just trying to get by in a place that is not very friendly to them or their children. As such, this Bill does not make a provision for them to enjoy child relief even when these single mothers are working. They are not entitled to any Government paid maternity leave. And as we heard earlier, the Minister is saying that the maternity leave is a way to recognise the fact that the mother needs some recuperation. These single unwed mothers are in the same category, and they have to depend on the goodwill of their employers to gain some maternity leave. While they are more dependent on the kindness of their parents to look after their children, there is no grandparent relief scheme available to them either. This Bill has provisions for those who are married, divorced or widowed. This particular group of women is totally left out. I think we have to face the fact that some men would rather walk away from their responsibility of their unborn child and that some women would rather go the whole way on their own than put up with a marriage that from day one they know it is going to be a tumultuous experience. It is a brave decision to bring a baby to full term and face a lifetime of bringing up a child alone. We ought to bring this group into the fold under these schemes and not see it as a way of encouraging women to have children out of wedlock. There must be enough disincentives to do that already. We do not need to use this."

In response, then-Minister for Community development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan said:

"I want to end by referring to (Braema's) point on unwed mothers. I think Ms Irene Ng also brought up this issue. The fundamental point here is that the State cannot and should not be the surrogate father or surrogate husband. So let us recognise that that is where the crux of the issue is, that is, a breakdown in the relationship. There is a breakdown in the sense of responsibility by the person concerned. Again, to assume wishfully that we can solve the problem by getting the State to step in would be a big, big mistake. Having said that, however, we recognise that unwed mothers have needs, and that is why they still have entitlements to maternity leave under the Employment Act and that is why if they choose to put their children in childcare or infant care while they go out to work, they will also receive subsidies. So the point here is that we cannot argue for equality because that would be missing the crux of the issue. But we recognise that there are needs and we will do our best to help them, but they cannot be pegged at the same level as women who are married, or who were previously married and are now divorced, or are widowed through no fault of their own. So, in this entire debate, let us not get distracted by peripheral issues or by wishful thinking, but focus on what we are trying to do, which is not to prescribe how many children you should have, not to prescribe how you should order your family life or domestic life. What we are all affirming is the value of intact families and the value of children to our society, and that the most that the Government can do is to assist in a small way. But the primary responsibility lies in each of us as individuals, as spouses and as parents to make decisions, and these decisions have consequences."

3. On May 16 2005, National Solidarity Party NCMP Steve Chia asked about the measures available to support single unwed mothers — you can read Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's reply to him here.

4. On March 8 2007, NMP Siew Kum Hong raised this issue in the MCYS Budget debate. Here's what he said:

"Madam, I agree that intact families are ideal, but we live in an imperfect world. The unwed mother is very often a victim of circumstance. She does not choose to be unmarried. Chances are that marriage is not an option. The father may be married, he may be gone, he may simply not want to marry her. In these cases, the choice is not between being a single unwed mother and being a married mother. The choice, a very stark one, is really between being a single unwed mother and having an abortion. And I doubt if the issue of maternity benefits, like Government-paid maternity leave, cross the mind of women grappling with whether to be an unwed mother. A 2004 Cornell study concluded that children of single parents can do as well as children of dual parents, if the single parent is able to provide a sufficiently supportive environment. Withholding support from an unwed mother could end up disadvantaging the child. Should we penalise the child for the sins, if there are indeed sins, of the mother? I would, therefore, ask the Ministry to refine its policy. If the aim is to avoid encouraging women to choose to be unwed mothers, then, perhaps, maternity benefits, like Government-paid maternity leave that is for the ninth to twelfth week, can be provided for the first child, but not subsequent ones. This would not penalise single mothers by circumstance while still sending the message that we discourage unwed mothers by choice."

And here's then-MCYS minister Yu-Foo Yee Shoon's reply:

"Mr Siew Kum Hong has asked whether benefits such as the third month of paid maternity leave and Baby Bonus could be extended to single mothers so that their children are not disadvantaged. Single unwed mothers are not a large group - about 500 children are registered without the father's name annually. Single mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave under the Employment Act, of which eight weeks are paid for by the employer for first and second births. They also qualify for Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession, Childcare Leave, and can rent or buy a HDB flat with their parents, or as a single if they are aged 35 and above."

5. On March 4, 2010, veteran opposition MP Chiam See Tong also talked about "a change of mindset on unwed pregnant girls" during the Budget debate.

6. On March 2, 2011, Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Indranee Rajah asked about the lack of Child Development Credit for "illegitimate children" in the Budget debate:

"Ultimately, not extending this or some other form of help to illegitimate children who come from low-income families is self-defeating because that particular group is also the group that tends to have many children of single unwed parents. In fact, in one of my HDB rental flats, there is a single mother with six children. She is currently expecting her seventh child. It is these children who are most likely to grow up with little or no education because the parents just cannot send them to school. And they are the ones likely to remain at the bottom 20th percentile, and they are the ones most likely not to experience real growth in their incomes."

7. On October 18, 2011, Pasir Ris-Punggol MP Janil Puthucheary speaks specifically (and quite powerfully, actually) about maternity leave for unwed mothers. You can read his speech here (ctrl+f: "unwed") in full, but here's an excerpt:

"However, maternity leave also serves a very specific purpose for the well-being and health of the child. The time allows an increased level of care when the infant is most at-risk, and also allows the establishment of breastfeeding which has a measurable, objective impact on the health and development of the child. Women who have adequate maternity leave are far more likely to fully breastfeed for the recommended time. While there are provisions for mothers to claim more maternity benefits if they subsequently marry, this is a narrow view and only addresses the concept of reward and not what is in the best interest of the child. Why is it that we are denying a Singaporean child, during his most vulnerable days, equality of access to his mother?"

8. A year later, Janil ventured this point again in the MCYS Committee of Supply debate on March 9, 2012. Then-Minister of State for MCYS Halimah Yacob responded by listing the existing leave and benefits available to them.

9. 2013 saw the infamous Population White Paper debate unfold. Here, Arts NMP Janice Koh brought up the topic of equal benefits for single moms on February 8:

"We should eliminate discrimination against our own citizens in our social policies. Childcare benefits, for instance, should be extended equally to all parents, male or female, unwed or married, with biological or adopted children. A Singaporean child, no matter the family situation or circumstances of their birth, should be taken care of and given the best possible start in life. In fact, even more so if the parent is single and struggling to raise the child on his or her own."

10. 2013 also saw the swearing-in of Punggol East SMC MP Lee Li Lian, whom some know added to the voices lobbying for single mothers' benefits. She and Labour NMP Mary Liew chipped in these bits to the Ministry of Social and Family development COS debate on March 14, 2013:

An excerpt of what Lee said:

"Maternity leave is particularly important for the child as well as the mother to recuperate physically and emotional from child bearing. A mother’s marital status is irrelevant. They may be single by chance but mothers by choice. We must remember that such discrepancies in maternity leave only hurt the child who has to suffer from lack of time with his or her parents, simply because they are not married. It is unfair to penalise the child for whatever decision parents may have made that the State frowns upon."

And here's part of what Liew said:

"Unfortunately, there will be instances where a child is born outside a marriage. If these incentives are not offered to unwed mothers, it is the children who will suffer more than the parent. What matters most is the child. The issue is not the circumstances of the mother, or if the child was conceived out of wedlock. In principle, how would a child born outside of marriage be able to be considered socially mobile if the child was disadvantaged at birth? Unwed mothers choose to keep their babies despite the difficulties that they face because they do not want to destroy a life. These parents need help from the Government, as an unwed parent has to take care of the child single-handedly."

Then-Acting Minister of Social and Family development Chan Chun Sing responded to say they will extend infant care and child care leave provisions to unwed single parents. But Lee persisted again:

"I am heartened to know that the same amount of infant care leave, childcare leave and etc, are now extended to single unwed mothers. I also acknowledge the Acting Minister’s reply to Mr Gerald Giam on the 16 weeks of maternity leave that could not be extended to single mums. I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the Minister to consider it seriously because as I have mentioned in my cut, marital status is not relevant because maternity leave is really for emotional bond building as well as physical recuperation for the mother."

11. Less than a month later, NCMP Gerald Giam and NMP Eugene Tan raised this again in a debate on the Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill on April 8.

An excerpt of what Tan said:

"We should not let high principles to blind side us as to who this legislation is for and what it is all about. It is fundamentally about the Singaporean child, regardless of his or her race, language, family background and the like. Madam, I note the Acting Minister’s assurance last month that his Ministry will consider the needs of an unwed mother’s child to determine the appropriate assistance package for the child. Nevertheless, as a society, we must endeavour to endow the child equally regardless of whether they are adopted or born to married parents or an unwed mother."

And an excerpt of what Giam said:

"Single mothers need more of society’s support. As the Acting Minister said, many of them are from vulnerable families. They are mothers first and singles second; not the other way around. The welfare of their children should be our top priority. Do we, as a society, believe in second chances? Do we believe that all children are born equal and that every child is legitimate, no matter how he or she was conceived? If we do, I urge the Government to accord to single unwed mothers the same parenthood benefits as all other Singaporean mothers."

They were backed up by NMP Laurence Lien:

"...we discriminate against the children of single parents and unwed mothers, who struggle harder than other parents because they do not have a partnering spouse to share the load with. Unwed mothers are not eligible for Baby Bonus, and a single mother receives only part of the normal entitlement of paid maternity leave and childcare leave. A single parent would also have obstacles purchasing and renting an HDB flat."

In response, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Grace Fu said:

"The Singaporean society remains primarily Asian, and most Singaporeans still value the traditional family structure of having children within a marriage between a man and a woman. The community at large does not appear ready to accept single-parent families as the norm. In the 2012 M&P Study conducted by NPTD, 80% of single and 85% of married respondents agreed or strongly agreed that only legally married parents should have children. The Government believes that a stable, intact family structure provides a more conducive environment to raise a child. Our policies and the M&P Package carry this belief."

12. In the Budget debate on March 3, 2014, NMP Mary Liew tried her luck again:

"Single unwed mothers are often faced with the burden of being the sole breadwinner and their children already started off disadvantaged. Can the Government extend benefit from the baby bonus to working single mums so their children can benefit equally with other children? Can the Government consider this stance for the sake of the child?"

13. In 2014, MPs Seah Kian Peng and Lee Li Lian led the charge at the MSF COS debate. Here's some of what they said on March 12:

Seah:

"Finally, I also want to single out another group of single parents for special attention. These are the unwed mothers and their children. For whatever reasons and circumstances, they are in that difficult and challenging situation where, based on current policies, they are not entitled to certain benefits for the simple reason that the unwed mother and her child or children are not, by policy definition, considered a family. Can Ministry start a whole-of-government approach and process to review this?"

Lee:

"Single parents are also not eligible for baby bonus. Raising children is not an easy task financially, even if one is married and has two incomes. The cash component and money in CDA will certainly come in handy to help the single parent manage early childhood expenses. I think we can all agree that parents are parents all the same, whether they are single or married. Their parental responsibilities and the needs of their children do not differ. I would urge the Ministry to seriously consider equalising their benefits."

14. A year later, on March 12, 2015, the same two suspects took the floor at the MSF COS again:

From Seah:

"Sir, I urge the Minister to consider extending more help to single unwed mothers and their children. For the single unwed mother, could she be accorded the same maternity and childcare leave as married mothers? Could their children also enjoy various top-ups and grants that they are now lacking such as the Child Development Account? Sir, we are constantly encouraging families to have children in view of our falling birth rate and ageing population. Our notion of a family is determined by what constitutes the societal norm. Yet, we do not accord the family with only one parent the same consideration and compassion as those with two. Many, if not all of them, did not choose to be in the difficult circumstances that they are in. If anything, single unwed mothers are in need of more help and consideration. I hope the Minister can give this a favourable review and I certainly hope it would not require me to raise this for six consecutive years to make it a reality."

And from Lee:

"Sir, I find it ridiculous that we are even discussing this. Today, we penalising children by denying their single parents the ability to support and care for them. Once again, I want to urge the Ministry to consider equalising these entitlements."

The next day, Seah followed up with this:

"I would like the Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether they agree that single unwed mothers should be given the same maternity leave and childcare benefits as married mothers. If they do, can the Ministry set some timeline to achieve these goals? Likewise, for the children of these single unwed mothers, can they also be entitled to top-ups to their Child Development Accounts?"

Then-Minister Chan said "I think there are merits for us to consider this seriously", but returned to the oft-used line on striking a balance between that and supporting parenthood in the context of marriage.

15. NMP Kuik Shiao-Yin contributed a question about this on July 13, 2015. You can read Minister Tan's answer here.

16. She followed up with another question on August 18, 2015. You can read that here.

17. Now here's an interesting participant to this campaign — disgraced ex-Bukit Batok MP David Ong. Here's what he said on January 27 this year in the debate on the President's address:

"If we treat single mothers differently from divorced, widowed or married mothers, such a policy might be premised on the basis that the above assumptions were true. But social spending need not increase deviant behaviour. And we could, and should, treat single mothers as mothers, rather than singles. If our assumptions are false, I call on the Minister to consider making available to all mothers same benefit across the board. Unwed mothers have half the maternity leave entitlements, do not get perks such as the Baby Bonus cash gift and parenthood tax rebates. They cannot access to BTO flats or the ASSIST housing scheme and must also wait until they are 35 years old to buy a flat under the singles scheme. They are currently marginalised under our schemes, and more could be done to assist them in their time of need, especially if there are little or no grounds to differentiate them from other mothers."

18. And finally, April 4 saw new MP Louis Ng file a question on this issue.

So here's the full list of people who spent the past 12 years asking for this:

1. Irene Ng

2. Braema Mathi

3. Steve Chia

4. Siew Kum Hong

5. Chiam See Tong

6. Indranee Rajah

7. Janil Puthucheary

8. Janice Koh

9. Lee Li Lian

10. Gerald Giam

11. Eugene Tan

12. Laurence Lien

13. Mary Liew

14. Seah Kian Peng

15. Kuik Shiao-yin

16. David Ong

17. Louis Ng

And that's who you thank for paving the way for a more equal Singapore. Lots more to do, but hey, at least we've got one thing down.

(Editor's note: In an earlier version of this article, we missed out Eugene Tan, Gerald Giam and Laurence Lien from this bottom list. Our apologies!)

Here's Minister Tan announcing it:

" width="760" height="428" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">

Top photo: Screenshot from video

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.