By Low Ching Ling

PICTURE this, mums and dads.

Staying home to care for your newborn child for 13 months.

No need to rush off to work.

No need to leave your baby at your parents' or in-laws'.

No need for nannies or maids.

And you still get a big chunk of your pay every month.

Sweet deal, right?

That is what Swedish parents enjoy. They can take 13 months of gender-neutral and paid leave.

The New Paper spoke to 15 married men and women of child-bearing age and all gave the thumbs-up to adapting the Swedish system to Singapore.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had recently hinted that Singapore should perhaps do so to solve our baby blues. But can employers be convinced to embrace the Swedish way?

Twelve of the people we interviewed were concerned that longer parental leave may make them less attractive to employers.

Perhaps their worries are not unfounded.

When the Government extended paid maternity leave from two to three months in 2004, the media had reported how some employers, especially the smaller ones, lamented about the extra costs and manpower problems they would incur.

Longer parental leave also means labour pains for the bosses.

Civil servant Louis Loke, 30, who is expecting his first child in three months, said: 'Now, mothers have three months of maternity leave and fathers have three days of paternity leave. It would be a 400 per cent jump from three to 13 months.

'The impact is great for employers who would be paying for a non-working employee and have to suffer from lower productivity.'

Marketing assistant Hazel Hamzah, 26, said some employers would not hire pregnant women or would terminate a woman's employment because of pregnancy.

DISCRIMINATION

Last July, it was revealed in Parliament that more mothers-to-be had complained about discrimination at work.

Under the Employment Act, it is an offence to sack an employee during her maternity leave. Dismissal because of pregnancy is also considered unfair.

Madam Hazel, a mother of two, claims to have been overlooked for jobs while she was with child.

'Employers are generally turned off at having to pay for a non-working employee. I don't think Singapore employers are ready (for extended parental leave).'

Events coordinator A L Chan, 30, who is newly-wed, agreed. 'My husband and I are likely to have kids in the next two years,' she said.

'If we decide to change jobs then, and if longer parental leave is introduced, I'm not so sure we would get hired. I think the boss may prefer to give the job to someone who is less likely to have a child soon.

'It's worse for couples who work in the same company as they may go on leave at the same time.'

Human resources experts we spoke to were also skeptical.

Dr Chan Teng Heng from Nanyang Technological University's Nanyang Business School said it would take Singapore employers a longer time to accept this because of 'costs and workforce replacement reasons'.

He also pointed out that the Swedes can do it because 'quality of life is the most important aspect of work life', and they pay high taxes, which mitigate some of the costs incurred by long parental leave.

'Will the Singapore public accept higher taxes?' he asked.

Mr Paul Heng, founder of NeXT Career Consulting Group, said: 'Most organisations are operating at optimum manpower strength. Who is going to do the work during the prolonged period of absence?'

Even in some European countries which have introduced long parental leave, not all is rosy.

Last week, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in the UK expressed concern that the extension of paid maternity leave from nine to 12 months may sabotage British women's careers by making employers wary of hiring or promoting them.

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr Lim Soon Hock, chairman of the National Family Council and a father of three, said employers should view making babies in the same vein as National Service.

He said that when reservist training was first introduced, many employers were not receptive but grew to accept it.

'They should see having children as important as defending the nation. It will take time, and hard-sell, to convince them it's in the national interest.'

But can bosses really afford to discriminate against workers of child-bearing age?

Businessman Ken Seah, 31, said: 'Maybe, initially, I may hesitate to hire such people. But most are going to get married sooner or later, so how many of them can I avoid hiring?'

Manager Davinder Singh, 35, a father of three, said: 'If you're of value to the company, you won't be dismissed just because you want to be a parent. (By supporting long parental leave), the company shows it takes care of its workers and this would make them more loyal.'

This article was first published in The New Paper on Jul 21, 2008.