Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Today, Singapore is ranked as one of the countries with the highest life expectancy and we stay healthier for longer even as we grow older. However, like many other developed countries, our population and workforce are ageing rapidly. The Retirement and Re-employment Bill enables seniors who wish to continue working to do so, allowing them to stay active and contribute to our economy. The Bill will also enable businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers.

I am in support of this Bill. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and the re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market.

I would like to propose three key areas for improvement. Firstly, expediting the legislation of Fair Employment Practices; secondly, promoting a fundamental shift in our HR policies; and, thirdly, the community effort to redesign jobs that leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Let me touch on each of these key areas.

Firstly, we have to expedite legislating the TAFEP guidelines on Fair Treatment at the Workplace to protect and provide opportunities to our senior workers.

In the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, it states, and I quote, “Employers should not stipulate age as a requirement for employment unless there are legal or regulatory requirements which must be stated clearly. Words or phrases that suggest preference for job candidates of a particular age group should also not be used in job advertisements. Examples include “young” or “youthful work environment".

However, a cursory check on recruitment websites shows a clear age-bias. On Jobstreet, a job posting for a Quantity Surveyor describes the job highlights as “good career advancement, young and positive work environment.” Just last week, posted on 25 October, a recruitment ad for a part-time horticulturalist states “Looking for part-timers to work in a young and fun environment”.

These are just two of many examples that can be found.

Beyond recruitment ads, we would have heard anecdotal stories of how seniors were asked pointed questions about their age at job interviews, leading to the common perception that their age hindered them from proceeding further and securing the job.

During our Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), we would have come across older workers who felt that they were forced to retire as they felt their employers assessed their suitability for the job was based solely on age rather than the objective assessment of their job performances or relevant health conditions. Some also highlight that they were subjected, or they felt that they had unfair re-employment contracts as they were offered re-employment with the same job scope while receiving a lower remuneration or benefits package.

Hence, to meet the intent of the extension of the re-employment and retirement age, this amendment must be accompanied by legislation to ensure fair treatment for our senior workers.

In a recent discussion about retirement and re-employment with the residents in Pasir Ris, Ms Judith highlighted the common question of whether it was a case of “have to work” or “want to work” for our seniors.

Residents Raymond Puah and Charlie Cheong shared that, in addition to protecting and providing opportunities for our senior workers through legislation, the best way to secure re-employment is to upskill and remain relevant in this job market. Mr Raymond Puah even shared that he took the opportunity cost of forgoing overtime pay to upskill and better prepare himself for retirement.

Educating employers and legislating Fair Employment Practices will provide opportunities for our seniors who have to work. However, to create a suitable environment for seniors who want to work, we must drive fundamental changes in our HR policies.

To better prepare our senior workers, employers must deliberately engage them in a structured career planning conversation well before retirement age. Job requirements must be clearly defined, along with the relevant skills required such that workers are aware of the prerequisites for future re-employment. This would allow workers to add value to the organisation even as they mature. There should not be a case where age is used to assess the workers’ suitability for any job.

Hence, it is crucial that the extension of re-employment and retirement age must be accompanied by employers spending time developing a retirement and training plan for our maturing workers. For example, given that digital competencies are enablers for re-employment, can the Ministry consider basic digital skills training as a prerequisite for our senior workers in preparation for retirement?

Another area to look into is the feasibility and adoption of flexible work arrangements that are already commonly practised around the world. Most of us start work in our 20s and, as we reach retirement age, we would have spent 40 years or more working. By then, there would be less financial pressure as our children would be independent and would likely want to spend more time outside of the work environment and enjoy a better quality of life as we head towards full retirement. Hence, it is understandable that our senior workers want to continue working but with a more flexible work arrangement more suited for their life stage. How do we encourage companies to consider flexible work arrangements, such as shorter work weeks, part-time employment or even job sharing between two or more persons?

That brings me to my third point on redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors instead of their weaknesses.

I am sure many of us have heard our seniors share their struggles to find employment opportunities outside of roles, such as cleaners, security guards and other labour-intensive roles requiring long work hours.

Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with these jobs per se. However, they can be physically demanding and require long work hours which do not play to the strengths of our senior workers. How can we come together as a community and provide jobs that leverage on the strengths of our senior workers’ knowledge, experience and wisdom instead? What have we learnt from the past 20 months where many of us have been able to work productively from anywhere and at any time? Can we look into these remote and flexible work arrangements to ensure that our senior workers have more re-employment options?

Can we employ our senior workers to conduct virtual training classes to share their intrinsic industry knowledge, or provide virtual customer service assistance, virtual consultation or even virtual career coaching?

We can even harness technology to redesign jobs for non-PME roles as well, such as helpline operators for carpark gantries, or monitoring lift performance and dispatching teams for lift maintenance, which they can easily do from the comfort and safety of their own homes.

We must redesign jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. This will provide better opportunities for re-employment and, at the same time, unlock this potential human capital to support our workforce. Failure to do so would mean that a significant portion, a third of our workforce, not being properly and purposefully allocated to add value to our economy.

For this to be successful, we must work together. Employers must be willing to spend time to restructure jobs. Mature workers must be willing to train while our unions continue to encourage and assist, and Government agencies must provide structural support for this transformation. Though there are many job redesign initiatives in various industries, such as in cleaning and retail, how do we get more companies on board? Of the half million business entities in Singapore, how many are actively looking at job redesign to hire more workers? Given that job redesign takes a lot of effort and guidance, does the Ministry have sufficient resources devoted to this end? As a community, how do we encourage and adopt the right mindset to feel responsible in creating these employment opportunities for our senior workers?

I would also like to highlight that although there are many support schemes available, it is difficult to make sense of all the information available on the MOM website. Can the Ministry consider making it more user-friendly by streamlining the available information to assist the companies?

I have spelt out ways to create an age-friendly labour market. Arguably, this takes considerable commitment of time and resources which many of our SMEs can ill afford. This means that SMEs may simply not have sufficient bandwidth to understand the full range of fair employment practices, nor the time and experience to implement career planning and redesign programmes. Given that SMEs account for an estimated two-thirds of all employment, we need to make the education process easier for our SMEs.

Can the Ministry consider requiring all HR practitioners of organisations having more than one employee to attend a course on understanding fair employment practices before they are allowed to recruit employees and designate at least one employee of the organisation as a fair employment practices champion, similar to what we have for safety at the workplace? Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  This amendment Bill will enable senior citizens who wish to continue working to do so. In view of Singapore's ageing population, the amendments will also enable businesses to benefit from such highly-experienced workers.

However, in order to achieve the Bill's objectives, the raising of the retirement and re-employment age must be complemented with anti-age discrimination laws, such as those provided by the TAFEP Guidelines, so that we can protect our senior workers.

We should also change mindset and HR policies, such as having in place flexible work arrangements or career planning, for re-employment.

We should also strive to redesign jobs that can harness the strengths of our seniors so that we can provide more opportunities for senior workers.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments enable seniors who wish to continue working to do so. Given our ageing population, it also enables businesses to tap on this experienced pool of workers. However, to meet the intent of the Bill, raising the retirement and re-employment age must be accompanied by efforts to reduce and, eventually, eliminate the barriers to a truly age-friendly labour market. We must expedite the necessary legislation to protect our senior workers and implement fundamental changes in our HR policies. We have to look into redesigning jobs to leverage on the strengths of our seniors. Together, we must look at this challenge holistically and realise that we all have a part to play in this solution. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the CPF (Amendment) Bill.

Projected inflation in a post-COVID-19 world has caused much anxiety. Many people are getting increasingly worried that they will not have enough savings to support retirement.

We can take heart that our CPF is an acclaimed retirement income system that is a constant work-in-progress. The Government is always reviewing and refining it to ensure it stays relevant with the times. The latest Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index report graded our CPF system as being on par with countries like Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The grading meant that it has a sound structure with many good features but some areas for improvement. I believe our Government is always working towards closing the gaps.

I would like to seek some clarifications, Mr Speaker.

First, I note that there are plans to allow the Public Trustee to disburse un-nominated CPF monies to a beneficiary representative on a member’s death. The beneficiary representative would then distribute the monies to the beneficiaries. This would apply if the total amount of the member’s CPF monies does not exceed the specified limit. Does this policy serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees? This would be welcomed as I have residents who are still waiting for years to resolve the distribution of CPF monies. Can the Ministry also clarify how this process will be simplified and sped up? Who is eligible to be a beneficiary representative and what is the specified limit?

With that, I understand that there is still some amount of hesitancy towards nominating beneficiaries. The topic of death remains a heavy one to broach and some CPF members tend to take it for granted that there will always be a seamless transfer of CPF monies to their families. I would take this opportunity to remind all that life is unpredictable. We all know that. Arranging how our assets will be distributed would bring great peace of mind. I also urge the Government to remind members in simple terms, if possible, and make it easier for them to nominate their beneficiaries.

Next, can the Government clarify the amendment to abolish refunds of Retirement Sum top-ups to the giver in any event? As far as I am aware, refunds were never supposed to be given for accepted top-ups under the Retirement Sum Topping-Up scheme. And this is especially so because members who make CPF top-ups get personal income tax relief based on their contributions. This policy is clearly stated on the CPF website. So, can the Ministry clarify what were some circumstances under which refunds were approved, if any?

Third, I note with interest that the amendments also seek to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the Act by providing for certain matters to be prescribed by subsidiary legislation, or to be determined by the Board or the Minister, instead of being stated in the Act. May I clarify if this is being introduced with the various appeals for greater flexibility of CPF usage in mind?

Fourth, how long would it normally take for the CPF monies to be returned to the beneficiary when the CPF member has passed away? I think many members have raised this. I note that the payment of interest would cease upon notification of a member’s demise in respect of the amount outstanding to the credit of the member that has not been transferred to the general monies of the CPF. If it takes a significant length of time, like a year or so, that is quite a significant amount of interest that is lost. So, how can transfer be expedited with minimal loss of interest?

Mr Speaker, fifth, when shares or classes of shares in any approved corporation are purchased with money withdrawn from the Ordinary Account, the designated shares will vest in the Board when the Board is notified that the shareholder is deceased. So, who makes the decision if there are rights issues, or opts to sell the shares because of mandatory purchase by a majority owner?

Mr Speaker, Sir, most Singaporeans agree that CPF savings are essential. They also appreciate that it is a safe and effective way to grow one’s retirement savings. I was a member of the CPF Advisory Panel from 2014 to 2016 and one of the recommendations was that every CPF member should be encouraged to have his or her own CPF LIFE plan with incentives to top-up the CPF Accounts for families with lower balances. This is especially important for housewives who are relying on their husband's CPF LIFE payouts, as women tend to outlive their husbands. The Panel had proposed then that members be allowed to transfer their CPF savings above what they require for Basic Retirement Sum to their spouses' Special or Retirement Accounts. In this way, each spouse would benefit from the extra interest for lower CPF balances and have their own lifelong income from CPF LIFE.

So, I am glad to see that amidst the uncertainties of the pandemic, there was a 40% increase in the number of members who made voluntary top-ups of their own or for their loved ones’ CPF savings. This is a testament to the trust that Singaporeans have in the CPF system.

At the other end of the spectrum, I have residents who hesitate to top up their CPF because they are afraid if they need the money, they will not be able to get it out. These tend to be the people who have lower incomes, who would benefit most from the additional top-ups. The difficulty to tap on large sums of CPF savings in times of need, such as a major illness, remains a significant pain point. I hope the Government will take this into consideration and introduce greater flexibility into the system.

Circling back to our performance on the Mercer Global Performance Index, our weakest link is the sustainability of the system, which was given a rating of 59.9 out of 100. What are the Government’s plans, moving forth, to improve in this area? Besides CPF, are we looking at other options, like tax-approved group corporate retirement plans? Are there plans to increase the CPF withdrawal age? The Netherlands, which is among the top ranking on the index, is raising its pensions withdrawal age from 65 to 67 years old in 2024.

Naturally, any change to the withdrawal age should be done with great deliberation, without discounting the concerns of those who worry that they will not be able to leverage their CPF savings in times of crisis. Perhaps, improving flexibility of withdrawals in tandem would help to alleviate such concerns.

Minister Tan See Leng, in his opening speech, had highlighted that amendments to the CPF Act aims to allow more flexibility and to simplify the CPF processes. I am supportive of the move to keep it simple and focused on the retirement objectives. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, with your leave, I will address Members' queries on the disbursement of un-nominated CPF monies and leave my colleague Minister Tan See Leng to deal with everything else.

Sir, I thank Members for their comments and suggestions. I believe the broad thrust of the speeches made by Members has been supportive of a more expedited process to disburse un-nominated CPF funds but some questions have arisen as to the process and how we safeguard the integrity of the disbursements, which I understand. And I will deal with the questions raised by Ms Ng Ling Ling, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira on this point.

Ms Ng Ling Ling and some Members have raised concerns that there could be a lack of recourse in cases where the beneficiary representative, whom I shall call "BR", does not exercise fairness in distributing the deceased’s un-nominated funds or unreasonably withhold the funds from beneficiaries. Ms Ng Ling Ling has raised some questions concerning the application process: how to identify the BR; how the Public Trustee intends to ensure the welfare of the remaining beneficiaries.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat sought clarifications on whether the policy will serve to benefit the family of members who did not name any nominees. He also asked who is eligible to be a BR and what is the specified limit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the BR process: whether it could simplify and speed up the distribution of un-nominated CPF funds.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the recourse that next-of-kin may have in the BR approach. Ms He Ting Ru sought clarifications on the specified limit and how it will be determined; and whether it may be changed over time.

Sir, let me first broadly outline the purpose of introducing the BR approach in this case. It is, as I have mentioned earlier, to simplify and make easier to facilitate the beneficiaries’ claim through the distribution of un-nominated CPF monies via the BR; and also to facilitate the beneficiaries, the speed at which it can be done, while at the same time managing and mitigating the risk of disagreement or conflict which might arise between the beneficiaries.

And to be clear, by beneficiaries, I refer here to those who are eligible for and entitled to the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated monies under the Intestate Succession Act for non-Muslims and the Administration of the Muslim Law Act for Muslims. The BR approach will, therefore, benefit these eligible beneficiaries of the deceased CPF member.

As a comparator, the BR approach, in this case, that we have introduced is not an entirely new concept.

Members might recall the “proper claimant” approach adopted by CPF Board which applies to cases where the nominee passes away after the deceased member has passed away and before the CPF funds could be distributed to the nominee.

CPF Board pays out the CPF monies due to the nominee to a “proper claimant” who is a party that claims to be entitled to the monies or assets. So, the concept and process are similar and, in some ways, modelled on the "proper claimant" approach.

We have considered the operation of that scheme and also thought about the issues of potential abuse that could be mitigated and addressed in this current BR scheme. So, we have introduced various safeguards to ensure that the beneficiaries’ rights and interests remain protected.

Let me now address them in the context of Members' questions.

To answer Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how a BR is identified and also Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question on who is eligible to be a BR, let me first explain that a BR is not “pre-identified” by the Public Trustee's Office (PTO). It is not pre-identified from the list of eligible beneficiaries.

Rather, letters are sent out to the deceased CPF member’s next-of-kin and the individuals who reported the death, to invite them to submit a claim.

Upon receipt of the letter, the eligible beneficiaries of the deceased can come together. They can then, amongst themselves, identify and choose a representative. If they can all agree on that, that is the one representative that will come forward, on behalf of this pool, to make the claim and receive the payment from PTO.

If the eligible beneficiaries, however, cannot agree on a BR, or do not wish to appoint one, or is unable to come to an agreement as to how to distribute the un-nominated CPF funds amongst the eligible beneficiaries, then the current claim process will apply. So, we will default back to the current position. It will be a little bit more complicated, more forms need to be filled up, more information is to be provided to PTO but it will safeguard the process where there might be some disagreement between the beneficiaries.

The PTO will also carry out the following steps to safeguard the rights and interests of the eligible beneficiaries. This addresses Ms Ng Ling Ling’s question on how the Public Trustee intends to ensure that the welfare of eligible beneficiaries will be taken care of.

It will be a requirement of the application process for the BR that the eligible beneficiary applying to be the BR must declare that he or she is either the sole beneficiary, or that he or she has obtained the consent of all the other eligible beneficiaries which the BR is seeking to represent in making the claim.

The PTO will then confirm with the other eligible beneficiaries directly that they have given their consent, before the PTO pays out any un-nominated funds, CPF monies, to the BR for the BR’s onward distribution to the other beneficiaries.

Additionally, upon receiving the information, PTO will also undertake independent checks to verify the eligible beneficiaries’ details provided by the BR against available existing records. So, do a bit of due diligence to cross-check the information, to cross-verify the information provided by the BR. If there are discrepancies, the PTO might require further clarifications or further information before disbursing the funds.

To Ms Mariam Jaafar’s question, in cases of dispute over the nomination of the BR, the eligible beneficiaries may seek recourse by informing the PTO of the dispute. If that happens, the PTO will not proceed with the application for the BR to distribute the un-nominated sums. It will instead discuss with the eligible beneficiaries and see whether some consensus or an agreement can be reached. Failing which, again, we default back to the current standard process, as I mentioned earlier.

If despite these steps taken by the PTO to weed out these cases, there might be situations where the BR receives the un-nominated CPF funds before the disputes are surfaced and, subsequently, there are disputes over how it is disbursed or the manner in which it is done, the eligible beneficiaries can seek recourse against the BR directly under the law.

So, the new proposed section 25A(7) of the Bill makes it clear that any recourse that any person might have against the BR for any amounts paid out by the PTO to the BR are not affected even after payment of the un-nominated sums by the PTO to the BR.

On Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms He Ting Ru’s questions on the specified limit, I think Minister Tan See Leng earlier mentioned that the specified limit will be set at $10,000. Besides the PTO’s actions taken to safeguard the rights and interests of the beneficiaries, the framework is in-built with a safeguard to only apply to cases where the deceased member’s un-nominated sums do not exceed this sum. This specified limit, in our view, strikes a balance between expediency in the disbursement of the funds and safeguarding of the beneficiaries’ rights and interests, particularly in the context of larger estates. A specified limit of $10,000 would allow around half of the current number of cases coming forward to make a claim for un-nominated sums and we believe that, of this half, a substantial number will be uncontentious and will benefit from an expedited scheme like this.

To Ms He Ting Ru's question, the specified limit can be reviewed and adjusted in the future, if necessary, to allow more people to benefit from the BR approach. But we suggest we let this run for some time and iron out any rough spots before we look at adjustments subsequently.

With the various safeguards put in place for this new BR approach, eligible beneficiaries, in appropriate cases, who have consented to the BR receiving and distributing un-nominated sums, can benefit from this simplified and expedient new process.

Both Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how the BR approach will assist in simplifying and speeding up the process. Apart from what I have mentioned earlier, let me highlight that the BR approach only requires the BR to provide proof that he or she is the eligible beneficiary with all the beneficiaries’ details, including his or her own. The BR need not submit proof of eligibility of all the other eligible beneficiaries, so this cuts down part of the administrative time and effort. The BR approach relieves the other beneficiaries from administrative inconvenience. By and large, in the majority of these cases, there is no disagreement, as I have mentioned, and, in such a situation, particularly amongst family members, the facilitation of the disbursements can be much faster.

Once the PTO receives confirmations, as I have outlined earlier, from all the eligible beneficiaries and the verifications are done, the application can be approved. In our estimation, the un-nominated CPF monies under this scheme could be disbursed to the BR within about two weeks from the approval of the application, as compared to a much longer period of time under the current standard claim process.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the efforts made to contact and facilitate the disbursements of CPF monies of a deceased member to Singaporean family members who might be overseas, especially in light of the current continued travel restrictions in the ongoing pandemic.

As the PTO oversees the distribution of un-nominated CPF sums, I will address this point only on un-nominated sums, as far as the PTO is concerned, where the member did not make a nomination.

In such cases, the PTO will take steps to reach out to the deceased member’s next-of-kin, regardless of whether they are residing in Singapore or overseas. Using the next-of-kin’s last available address registered with the National Registration Office, the PTO will write to the next-of-kin using that address. Obviously, efficiency is subject to whether the address is accurate, whether it has been updated. If the overseas address is not registered, then PTO will rely on the member's next-of-kin to provide the office with any available alternative information.

Deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can also choose to contact PTO to enquire about the deceased CPF member’s un-nominated CPF monies. The process is entirely digital, the deceased CPF members’ next-of-kin who are residing overseas can submit their application to the PTO via the PTO’s online application form, together with any necessary supporting documents to evince or substantiate their position, including and proving their familial relationship.

Payments will also be disbursed electronically via telegraphic transfers or demand drafts if they prefer, or whichever other method, to their overseas account. So, generally, the answer to Ms Jaafar's question is that we will take proactive steps within reasonable information to identify these beneficiaries overseas and we will also try and facilitate in as easy as possible the distribution and disbursement of sums to them.

Mr Louis Ng suggested publishing guidelines or frameworks to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses the Public Trustee typically agrees to defray. To Mr Louis Ng's question, relevant information on PTO’s reimbursement of funeral expenses is already currently available on PTO’s website. The reimbursement of funeral expenses out of a deceased member’s un-nominated CPF monies is capped at $6,000.

Eligible beneficiaries who intend to claim for the reimbursement of funeral expenses from the deceased CPF members’ un-nominated CPF monies may do so by submitting the relevant Funeral Reimbursement Form, with the appropriate supporting receipts and so on, after obtaining consent from the rest of the beneficiaries.

Mr Louis Ng also suggested allowing the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who might have incurred these expenses in good faith.

Under the CPF Act, the Public Trustee has the duty to distribute un-nominated CPF monies only to eligible beneficiaries. By extension, reimbursements for funeral expenses can only, therefore, be made to eligible beneficiaries and not to a wider pool, beyond what the statute provides. Such a requirement serves to protect the interests of the deceased CPF member’s eligible beneficiaries when the cost of the funeral expenses is being claimed. This also alleviates the risk of the PTO making payment to a claimant whom the eligible beneficiaries might well dispute the entitlement of the payment to.

Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed the questions raised in relation to the BR scheme and the un-nominated CPF funds. May I seek Members' clarifications on this point, if any, before Minister Tan See Leng proceeds to address the other issues raised by Members on the two Bills?

I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I have two questions. Firstly, the Minister shared that upon receipt of letter, the parties will identify and choose a representative. If they are unable to reach agreement, then the current standard claims process will apply. In this regard, I wish to check whether the PTO can consider offering an alternate dispute resolution process, for example, through a mediation, when parties are unable to identify and agree on a representative so that the matter can still be processed expeditiously. That is the first question.

The second one is locating the beneficiaries, whether the PTO would consider perhaps, to find out whether the beneficiaries have any PayNow accounts and actually explore for the funds to be transferred through that manner.

I thank Ms Hany Soh. On her first point, to the extent possible, PTO will obviously try to facilitate. I think it is in everyone's interest, including PTO, to try and find a solution and find consensus on a BR, so that the process can be simplified and expeditious. Failing that, the Member knows that there are a number of options for mediation for the parties to come to a consensus. It is not always standard and not always easy for every such situation because the reasons for the conflict may differ from case to case. But to the extent possible, PTO will try to facilitate.

On the Member's suggestion on PayNow, obviously, given the range of different electronic options I have outlined earlier, we will certainly consider PayNow or any other electronic payment platform options as viable alternatives.