Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is currently facing two major trends. First, our life expectancy continues to rise, from about 78 years old 20 years ago to 84 years old today and is expected to continue to rise. Singaporeans are not only living longer, but also more energetic and spending more years in a healthy stage. This is a good thing.

There are many factors contributing to this, mainly because of our better quality of life and better healthcare amenities, and that people are more aware of the importance of healthy living and live a more fulfilling life.

Second, because of the rise in life expectancy of Singaporeans, we are also facing a second major trend, which is a major shift in our demographics. We have now entered a phase of rapid ageing.

These two trends mean that, first, Singaporeans are now healthy enough to work longer and stay active in the workforce if, they choose to do so. They extend their active working lives, earn more, save more and enhance their retirement adequacy.

Second, employers can also tap on a wider manpower pool available to continue employing experienced workers to cope with the current manpower crunch. This is also the main objective of the Bill today, which is to legalise and operationalise the implications brought forth by these two trends.

The most important thing is to give employees appropriate legal protection so that they can remain in the workforce until the statutory retirement age. For those who have yet to reach the statutory retirement age, employers cannot stop employing these workers simply because of their age.

Of course, we must also give the employers some flexibility and allow them to adjust the nature of work, role in the company and working conditions for that employee.

Mr Speaker, while this legal mechanism provided by the Retirement and Re-employment Bill is important, it will take some time to achieve a win-win situation where there is no age barrier in the labour market, where manpower resources are used more flexibly and effectively, and where both employers and employees alike have the open mindset.

There are a few issues that we have to deal with.

First, have the employers adjusted their mindset regarding age discrimination and adopted a more positive attitude, and proactively utilised manpower supplement brought about by the increase in the retirement age?

Second, re-employment is a rather new concept. Have employees fully grasp its core meaning? For example, how to adjust their expectations and manage changes in employment terms which can be based on part-time re-employment or time-based employment? In terms of the employment contract, has the employee and the employer come to a consensus?

Third, in terms of job redesign, there is more work for the Tripartite partners to come work together to redesign jobs that are more suitable for older workers so as to attract more older Singaporeans to join the workforce and help companies raise productivity.

Fourth, with the extension of our work-life, we should also make the necessary policy adjustment when we plan employee training. For example, can middle-aged employees be allowed to further their studies in our Institutes of Higher Learning to upgrade their knowledge and skills and improve their re-employment opportunities. We need new thinking on this front and I hope that the Government can reconsider this when formulating policies.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister, with the increase in retirement and re-employment age, will the CPF withdrawal policy remain unchanged? We must clarify this so that Singaporeans do not misunderstand the intention of this Bill.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.

Firstly, to seek the Minister's view on his assessment on the readiness and willingness of employers to raise the retirement and re-employment age to 65 and 70 respectively. Does he see uneven readiness among the bigger and smaller companies, among the different industry segments, global versus local companies and employees of different wage profiles? Does he see different levels of readiness in employers adjusting to the rise in retirement and re-employment age?

Secondly, has MOM surveyed the attitudes of workers on higher retirement and re-employment age and what are their major concerns? I mentioned in my Chinese speech there are some concerns about contractual terms and whether the workers are prepared for those changes.

Thirdly, to what extent can we reduce the dependence on foreign manpower with the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, especially for the PMETs, as there will be a bigger pool of experienced workers for businesses to tap on?

Fourthly, following the progressive raising of the retirement age, will there be further measures to counter age discrimination and importantly, to step up monitoring of undesirable employment practices?

Fifth, with the employment runway of workers extended, will the Government institute new policy measures to help workers stay employable? Among others, would the Government see the need to introduce, for example, mid-career sabbatical leave so that workers can take a longer break during their mid-careers and to stay charged up for a longer working career? Or to allow mature students to become students again by allowing them to admit to the Institutes of Higher Learning to pursue new disciplines and to acquire new professional expertise? Or whether there will be further SkillsFuture support for senior workers?

Finally, a very important part to clarify again with the Minister is whether notwithstanding the raising of the retirement and re-employment age, to clarify that the Government would continue to delink retirement age and CPF payout eligibility age.

I think this is important, especially for today's Second Reading. We are debating both Bills together and members of the public may be confused and think that could be linked together: retirement age and your CPF withdrawal age. I hope that the Minister can clarify this so that there will be no misunderstanding on this part. Sir, notwithstanding that, I support both the amendment Bills.

Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, in view of longer life spans and more golden years, allowing an individual to work to an older age is a sensible and responsible thing to do. For the individual, it enhances financial security, independence and for some, provides a sense of purpose. This also benefits society as active seniors are more able to provide for themselves. This would enable the state Budget to be allocated to other areas of need.

The intent of this Bill as I understand it is to enable the Government to raise the minimum retirement age and re-employment ages by the year 2030. The minimum retirement age will go up progressively from 62 to 65 while the re-employment age will be raised progressively from 67 to 70.

This is a step in the right direction, which I support.

However, Sir, if we truly believe in active ageing, it is worth reviewing whether there should be a prescribed minimum retirement age at all.

At the outset, I would note that there are many employees in the private sector who are not subject to a mandatory retirement age. The prescribed retirement age applies more to the public sector and unionised employees.

However, continuing to have a minimum retirement age set out in law has a signalling effect on society as to the value workers above that age. This needs serious reconsideration. Singapore should review its stance.

I would like to highlight four points in support of removing the prescribed minimum retirement age and re-employment age.

First, life expectancy in Singapore has increased by approximately three years every 10 years. According to a 2019 Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, Singaporeans' life expectancy is among the highest in the world at 81.4 years for men and 85.7 years for women. These ages are merely averages and do not take into account many who live far longer.

To illustrate how longevity impacts retirement decisions, I would like to share a conversation I had some months ago with a cousin of mine, a retired engineer now in his mid-80s.

He shared that when he and his wife retired 30 years ago, they had no idea that they would live this long. He lamented that had they known that they still had so many more years to go, they would have worked longer. If an octogenarian can reflect on his life span in this manner today, what about us or younger cohorts who are likely to live longer?

Even when the retirement age goes up to 65, the prospect of having insufficient savings to fund another 30 years of living expenses and medical costs is real.

Second, we have a national manpower shortage. We often hear that foreign manpower is needed to supplement our local workforce. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a very painful lesson about how we have managed our low-wage foreign workers. Poor conditions in our crowded foreign worker dormitories have contributed to the spread of the virus.

The Government mantra has always been that Singapore needs to continue improving productivity instead of relying on increases in labour inputs. In our push towards leveraging on technology, it is likely that more jobs in different sectors will be redesigned to be less reliant on physical strength, making them suitable for senior workers to fill.

Third, we must ask whether having a prescribed minimum retirement or re-employment age is sensible for the parties concerned.

The fact is that the universe of employees is very diverse. Each person ages at a different rate. Those with health problems may not be able to work when they reach 60 years old while others can go on for much longer.

Finally, it has been said in certain quarters that removing the retirement and re-employment ages would disadvantage workers and give the upper hand to employers. To this, I am not clear how far having a prescribed minimum retirement age protects the worker from being dismissed on account of age.

Our labour market is one of the freest in the world with hiring and dismissal happening efficiently. Most employment contracts have a termination clause with either employer or employee being able to walk away from the contract by giving just one or two months' notice or payment in lieu of notice. No reasons need to be given for the termination of service in such situations.

Sir, I am fortified in arguing for a removal of the prescribed retirement and re-employment ages as there is now some certainty that workplace guidelines issued by the Tripartite partners will have the force of law. This change in policy has the potential to give employees protection against ageism in the workplace.

At this year's National Day Rally, the Prime Minister announced that workplace anti-discrimination guidelines would be enshrined into law. The Workers' Party has argued for anti-discrimination legislation previously and we welcome this announcement. We believe that the proposed law should proscribe discrimination based on age and we look forward to the opportunity to contribute to that debate.

Sir, in making these points, I wish to clarify that I am not advocating that everyone works till they drop dead. To most people, that would not be a life well-lived. Seniors may well decide to reprioritise their time and devote themselves to their grandchildren or charitable causes. Society could very well be better off if they did so. What I am advocating is that instead of having a decision forced on them at a certain age, we empower our seniors to make their own choice in this matter.

In closing, it will be appropriate to quote from a Singaporean who has advocated that there be no retirement age, none other than our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 2010, on the 30th Anniversary of the Singapore National Employers Federation, Mr Lee spoke at a dialogue with senior managers, Government officials and unionists. He told them that there should be no retirement age for workers. He called on older workers to change their mindsets and to continue working, even if for less pay or for a younger boss. He said, and I quote, "Many of our workers have a preferred retirement and then they die early. If you start saying, 'Oh, I am old', and you start reading novels and playing golf or playing chess, well, you are on the way down", unquote.

Sir, not many of us would dare to put it in such stark terms but there is a bigger point for society as a whole. If we are truly non-ageist, we should leave retirement and re-employment ages to choices made by individuals. As a safety net, we should enact an anti-discrimination law that prohibits employment decisions based on age.

Sir, even as I support this Bill, I ask the Government to reconsider this issue of legislating the retirement and re-employment ages.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of both Bills. The Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill seeks to raise the retirement age and re-employment ages in Singapore to 65 years and 70 years respectively by 2030. The first move is to commence from 1 July 2022, increasing the retirement and re-employment ages to 63 and 68 respectively.

The Retirement and Re-employment Act came into force in 2012, because of three main factors, namely, a longer life expectancy of the current population, a tightening labour market with a shrinking citizen population and the need for talent management and retention.

Today, the abovementioned needs continue to exist and underscore the importance of the Act. Although COVID-19 has challenged the labour market, the Tripartite Partners agree that “the important work to enable older employees to continue working if they are able and willing to do so, must continue.”

While I am heartened that the Tripartite Partners remain committed to supporting the re-employment of older workers, I am concerned of more companies not re-employing existing older workers in view of the uneven and uncertain outlook.

I know of some companies who have resorted to making payouts under the Employment Assistance Payment, EAP for short, as an easy and cost-efficient way of circumventing their re-employment obligations. Indeed, this situation is in some way exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the life expectancy of individuals increase over the years, together with the mounting pressures on the sandwich generation, it is crucial that we ensure that all older workers who are keen and able to work, can continue to do so, with reasonable adjustments to their re-employment terms. Accordingly, the EAP should not be used as an easy way out to avoid re-employing older workers. Instead, it should only be offered after a thorough review, as a last resort – if the employer cannot find any internal vacancy.

To that end, I would like to raise six suggestions for consideration.

First, with the increase in median wages and the cost of living in Singapore, it is submitted that the existing one-off payment equivalent to 3.5 months' salary, subject to a minimum of S$5,500 and maximum of S$13,000, needs to be reviewed and increased.

If there is a sizeable increase in the minimum and maximum EAP payable, this might serve to deter companies from cursorily reviewing internal vacancies with a view to letting go of older workers. Companies may have a greater incentive to find suitable internal vacancies for older workers to work at and be paid for.

If push comes to shove and employers genuinely have no other options but to let go of older workers, at least the increased EAP amount would serve to tide them through a longer period of unemployment. We need to ensure that the EAP sum provided is sufficient. We do not want our older workers to be living from hand to mouth.

I, therefore, submit that the Tripartite Partners continue to work at and review the mutually agreed increment in both the minimum and maximum EAP sums, to cater to the increased median wages, changing employment landscape and increased cost of living in Singapore.

Second, additional tiers of unemployment income support for Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) who are involuntarily unemployed.

The findings of the NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce Report show that mature PMEs are particularly precarious when retrenched during the current downturn due to higher costs of living as they provide for both older and younger dependants; longer time periods taken to find a new job in view of their age and lack of relevant skillsets; and increased propensity to suffer from wage loss on re-entry to employment.

PMEs shared that an unemployment income support could provide some breathing space for them to retrain, upgrade their skills and look for suitable employment, while helping to alleviate their anxieties and ensure that those who are unaware of avenues of help do not fall through the cracks. I, therefore, suggest that the Government consider an unemployment income support coupled with active labour market policies for all workers, including mature PMEs, who are involuntarily unemployed, and for the Tripartite Partners to study this carefully in greater detail.

Third, the PME Taskforce Report also found that despite being active in their job search and undergoing training, mature PMEs who were retrenched had difficulties in securing a job.

To assist mature PMEs, the Government could consider providing a short-term salary support, for example, up to 50% salary funding, capped at S$3,800 per month for six months, for companies who hire mature PMEs who are unemployed, to lower the cost and risk for companies to hire this group of PMEs with relevant skills.

If a new company takes on another company’s re-employment obligations, the short-term salary support from the Government would be particularly useful in easing its re-employment obligations with respect to the mature worker transferred.

Fourth, while the current framework provides flexibility in job negotiations for re-employed employees, we need to safeguard against companies’ exploitations of such flexibilities.

Bearing in mind that older workers have performed satisfactorily and been employed in that role over the years, we could require employers to justify in writing, inter alia, any material changes in the re-employment terms of older workers and/or sudden lack of internal vacancies for the said role, when these employees have been employed in that role over the years. This is to avoid a situation whereby companies unilaterally offer significant pay cuts or reduction of employment benefits to the mature worker, under the guise of having re-negotiated the employment terms with the mature worker, while expecting the same standards and deliverables from the mature worker.

Further, with the requirement for written justifications on material changes to the employment terms or sudden lack of internal vacancies, the company bears the burden of justifying that such changes are reasonable. The company cannot simply state that the employee rejected its reasonable re-employment offer as a basis for not paying EAP.

Fifth, even as we embrace digital transformation, we urge employers to continue training and upgrading older staff to acquire the necessary skills to minimise the digital and tech inequality. Where there are incentives and support schemes, to tap on these support schemes and send older workers for training and skills upgrading.

Lastly, through the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen many changes in the work environment. Just to name a few: businesses have pivoted to online platforms, employees have been working from home and international conferences are held online. These non-exhaustive lists of examples show us collectively that Singaporeans are agile enough to adapt to various changes and curve balls that the pandemic has thrown at us.

As Singapore marches towards the "next normal", I would like to encourage employers to consider how various jobs can be redesigned and re-examined to allow for older workers to continue working.

In so doing, companies may consider the relevant skill sets the employees have and their experiences gleaned over the years, to match any needs that the business may have. For instance, if a person was employed in a marketing role, a job redesign could involve not just marketing work to external parties, but possibly internal communications, usage of digital platforms and social media and/or pitching of ideas to senior management. Crucially, older workers may also take on the role of mentoring younger employees.

I would like to call on employers not to view older workers as "slow", "backward" or "expensive to hire". Instead, I urge employers to adopt a change in mindset. There is a Chinese saying, “家有一老，如有一宝”. This is loosely translated to mean that having an elder at home can be likened to having a treasure at home.

I believe this is also applicable in the work context as well. Older employees have amassed a wealth of experience over the years in their specialised areas of work and it would be our loss if we do not tap on this treasure while still available. There is something about decades of work experience, tenacity, soft skills and accumulated knowledge that cannot be quantified, much less deemed as irrelevant for the purposes of re-employment.

Mr Speaker, the Central Provident Fund Bill is put before us for amendment, with the key objectives of: making it easier for members to receive retirement payouts, making it easier for members to build up their retirement nest egg and streamlining the CPF system.

These are all laudable objectives, consistent with the overarching mission of the CPF, which is "to enable Singaporeans to have a secure retirement through lifelong income, healthcare financing and home financing."

While I am fully supportive of the amendments, I have the following questions from an employment perspective for the Minister.

The "Contribute-As-You-Earn" Scheme, the "CAYE Scheme" for short, helps self-employed persons, SEPs for short, contribute to their MediSave as they earn. Under the CAYE Scheme, Government agencies will deduct and transmit a portion of payment due to SEPs into their respective MediSave accounts, for convenience. At present, the CAYE Scheme is only applicable to public sector contracts.

First, I understand that take-up of the CAYE in the public sector is very encouraging. In view of that, would the CAYE Scheme be expanded to include the private sector? If so, does MOM foresee any resistance from the private sector? How else may the CAYE Scheme be expanded to help freelancers? If expanded, it would help more freelancers, particularly those who render services to companies in the private sector, keep up with their MediSave contributions and provide greater financial protection against health issues.

Second, under the CAYE Scheme for Government projects, the Government essentially deducts a portion of monies due to the SEPs and transmits it to the SEPs' MediSave Accounts.

As this House would know, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a decimating effect on the lives and livelihoods of SEPs. With the circuit breaker measures that were implemented last year, together with the existing restrictions on social gatherings, the events and performing arts sector has almost come to a standstill. Their current earnings are a far cry from their earnings prior to the pandemic.

In view of the above, would there be possible circumstances in which SEPs can opt out of the CAYE Scheme, as they may need the monies to tide through this rough patch? If so, what are some examples of such circumstances?

Third, in the context of employment relationships, both the employers and employees make CPF contributions. Even as the distinction between SEPs and employees is increasingly blurred, with some countries recognising SEPs as "workers", perhaps service buyers could be required to make CPF contributions for SEPs too?

To be clear, the existing CAYE scheme applicable in the public sector only requires the Government to take a portion of the fees belonging to the SEP, to be credited to the SEP's Medisave account. What I am proposing is one step further, that the service buyers from both the public sector and private sector, make additional contributions to the SEP's CPF account; which mirrors the employer's CPF contributions under normal employment relationships.

If accepted, this would mean that practically, service buyers would be making CPF contributions consisting of both the SEP's portion under the existing CAYE scheme, as well as additional sums being the service buyer’s contributions too.

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of both Bills put forth today. As a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) Seniors Group, I am delighted to participate in this debate.

Amidst the pandemic, I am heartened that our Government has chosen to stay the course and continue with the planned increase of retirement age from 62 to 63, and re-employment age from 67 to 68. I also hope we can increase the retirement age to 65 and re-employment age to 70, sooner than later, ahead of our target in 2030.

Beyond adjusting the re-employment and retirement age, I also like to make three suggestions for MOM to improve our senior’s livelihood and retirement adequacy, namely: increasing our seniors’ CPF contribution rate, fighting ageism through the upcoming anti-discrimination legislations and exploring new ways of helping seniors above 60 to find and hold on to jobs.

In January 2019, the PAP Senior Group put forth a position paper to empower our seniors to live with purpose and dignity. One of the key recommendations called for a gradual increase in our seniors CPF contribution rate, given that their rate is currently less than that of younger workers. That same year, the Government agreed to this proposal. However, when the pandemic struck, our Government froze this specific commitment for seniors, so as to help as many companies as possible stay afloat.

While I understand and support this necessary action, I hope the Government can resume the planned increase at the earliest possible time. We are seeing an uneven recovery. Some sectors are doing well, some are staying afloat and some are frankly struggling. One way that the Government can consider doing, to balance both the interest of both our senior workers and our struggling sectors, is to: push for the contribution rate for all seniors to increase, as long as the broad majority of our economy has made a recovery, and encourage the National Wage Council to adopt even more overall wage flexibility depending on the performance of the sector and the firm.

My second point is that I hope the Government can put in anti-ageism clauses in the upcoming anti-discrimination legislations. This is something that many of our colleagues from PAP Senior Group would like to see.

Over the next few months, my fellow colleague from the senior group, Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan, will spearhead an intense effort to engage our senior workers and to solicitate their feedback. We hope to identify win-win solutions for both senior workers and employers. We hope to help seniors to not just improve their employability, but also the equality of their employability.

Even before the start of our consultation, I have already heard a number of useful suggestions, including disallowing companies from asking the last drawn salaries or the age of applicants. We will share what we have heard from our senior workers in good time.

Last, I hope our Government continue to find new ways to help our seniors workers, especially those in their 60s. I note that NTUC and SNEF have recently submitted some excellent ideas to the Government to help matured Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs). These ideas will go far to support workers in their 40s and 50s.

However, even if we get our upcoming anti-discrimination legislation right, even if we continue to raise our retirement age and re-employment age, our senior workers above 60 will still be very vulnerable to being displaced. And if they are displaced, it will be very hard for them to find the next full-time job.

As such, we would need to explore and accelerate new employment models such as micro-jobs and job-sharing for seniors above 60. And we may need the Government to spearhead this effort, to demonstrate its full potential to the private sector. I have spoken about micro-jobs on several occasions in Parliament and I think it is time for us to seriously look into that.

And to extend our seniors employability as long as possible, it will be helpful if MOM can convene a panel of medical experts to advise our industries to determine how long our senior professionals and skilled workers can work for in specific industries. For example, the panel can advise companies on how to maximise work opportunities for surgeons, without compromising on patient safety. The panel can advise companies on how long pilots can continue flying a plane and whether that length depends on the number of passengers sitting on the same plane?

Why must the Government get involved? Because without an evidence-based decision-making process, the employment outcome in many industries will be driven by supply and demand for workers and a number of industries will adopt an unnecessary conservative approach. This means that a number of our senior workers, especially those above 60, could prematurely lose the chance to work, even with the Retirement and Re-employment Act in place.

Let me now conclude. For many of our seniors, work creates a sense of mission. It is critical to empower our seniors to age with purpose and dignity. The Bill discussed today is an important step to strengthen senior employability.

MOM has done a lot, but there is a lot more to do. And even as we manage to safeguard the health of our vast majority of seniors through this pandemic, a number of seniors today feel a sense of despair, more than in recent years. Because our seniors are more impacted by social distancing measures compared to the rest, because our seniors have reduced opportunities to interact with others and to stay relevant, and because our seniors feel a deep sense of isolation amidst the pandemic.

Once we get past this stabilisation phase, which we will, we must step up more to increase our seniors' employability. I hope the Government can consider the ideas raised and start preparing for that day.

With that, I stand in support of both Bills put forth in this debate.

Mr Speaker, this latest set of amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act build on the number of positive amendments to the Act that were passed in 2017, which increase the re-employment age by two years to 67 and also strengthened the position of senior workers vis-à-vis their re-employment options while also removing the option of employers to reduce their wages after the age of 60.

The amendments tabled this time propose to further raise the re-employment age to 70, while affording some additional modest protection for dismissals on the grounds of retirement age. This move follows the trend evident in many other advanced economies.

Next year, the United States will raise the age where one is able to draw a full public pension or Social Security benefits, what is typically referred to as the Full Retirement Age, to 67 for those born in 1960. France has sought, with limited success, to raise this retirement age of 62, by two years. Earlier this year, Japan raised its retirement age to 70, while Australia and Spain will gradually hike the retirement age to 67 in the years ahead.

Since Singapore does not have a pay-as-you-go system, the usual justification for countries raising their retirement ages to ensure that their state pension systems are able to remain financially viable in light of an ageing and longer living population, does not apply here. What is instead relevant is the legally mandated age where one's employer is able to request that one retires. Hence, the relevant motivation for us choosing to raise the retirement age is different as it should be. It is a recognition that the nature of jobs in the modern economy are often dramatically different from those of yesteryear.

Most of the menial back-breaking jobs of the past have now, been replaced with machinery and technology. Accordingly, many jobs are now far less physically demanding, thereby permitting the modern worker to continue performing these jobs at a very high level, regardless of their age. Indeed, a number of hard and soft skills, such as technical, oral or interpersonal skills may, like fine wine, even improve with age. Moreover, most of the more sophisticated jobs in the modern economy often require an extended period of education and training, especially if they pursue graduate degrees or endure mid-career retraining and reskilling. This is, of course, coming from an over-educated individual who only completed his formal educational journey the year he turned 30.

While such an extended period of human capital formation is both valuable and positions the worker well for their subsequent career, it also implies that they begin their formal employment journey later than usual. It seems unfair to cut the employment work life's short just by dint of their extended education and training.

Finally, such a move would also be consistent with the tsunami of demographic changes that will unfold over the course of the next decade. Singaporeans are living longer and the number of those entering their 60s and 70s will also swell. By 2030, the number of Singaporeans, aged 65 or older, will be close to a million. It is therefore imperative that we accommodate and extend the work horizon to allow these individuals to continue to participate in meaningful productive activity. If they so wish, such engagement can also positively impact the mental and physical health and delay the onset of memory loss, depressive symptoms and even physical disability.

Mr Speaker, if we may take the arguments I have made above to their logical conclusion, it will suggest the total abolition of any official retirement age. This is the official position of the Workers' Party and one reiterated in this House most recently, by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, when he was a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in the 13th Parliament.

To be clear, this is not a call for our workers to continue working themselves into the grave, nor is it a call to postpone the official age of access to CPF savings, a point I will return to later. Rather, this is a call to permit workers the freedom to continue to choose to work at any advanced age as long as they are able and willing to and are able to secure a job. This call should also be seen as an implicit call to remove discrimination in the workplace on the basis of age, a position that the Workers' Party has likewise championed.

With no clear retirement age, employers can no longer use the excuse that hiring a worker with a short runway before they are officially forced to retire, would be an inferior business decision, compared to hiring a younger worker with no such retirement constraint. Indeed, there is evidence that anti-discrimination laws have been effective at boosting the employment of older workers, to the extent that we subscribe to non-discrimination in the workplace; then, the abolition of the retirement age is an essential complement to a richer set of legislative provisions to that effect.

One natural concern with such a proposal is that doing so could inhibit the renewal of the workforce, as the elderly take up jobs that would otherwise be filled by younger workers. Notwithstanding the fact that there are no legal impediments to replacing senior workers with junior ones, regardless of the retirement age, we should not rely on legal crutches to do what managers ought to be doing, which is to make the difficult decision of firing workers if and when necessary. If anything, the solution requires a realignment of cultural practices that keep unproductive workers in their positions, rather than keeping an artificial legal retirement age in place. Indeed, the economy where this issue is most chronic, Japan, does have an economy-wide retirement age. Clearly, its presence has not alleviated the problem of displacement, which suggests that the solution to excessive youth unemployment lies clearly lies elsewhere.

The other counter-argument, which is almost the opposite of the first, is that a clear retirement age prevents frivolous firings since employers cannot use the excuse that an employee is, generically speaking, too senior, if they are 57 as opposed to 67.

But this argument fails to hold up to theoretical scrutiny. Why would an employer wait for an underperforming employee to reach any level of seniority before they replace them? It will be far more straightforward to simply grant such workers a severance package and release them, regardless of age.

Nor does this argument actually work in practice. I have many residents who approached me and shared with me how they were, indeed, let go a number of years before retirement and how they subsequently faced difficulty securing a job because employers deemed them too close to retirement.

Hence, if anything, a fixed retirement age operates to the detriment of workers and does not appear to have inhibited the retrenchment of workers themselves.

Mr Speaker, what abolishing the retirement age emphatically does not mean, however, is that we should, concomitantly, raise our CPF payout eligibility age. Indeed, the Workers' Party has also repeatedly called for the lowering of this age to 60. This amounts to decoupling the retirement decision from the retirement savings decision.

I am heartened that Minister Tan has made this point clear in his speech earlier. Singaporeans should be empowered to make their own informed choices about the manner by which they wish to draw on their hard-earned retirement savings. Doing so also permits those nearing retirement to be more creative in the manner by which they balance their employment and retirement choices.

For instance, a 60-year-old banker may wish to shift gears towards consultancy or adjunct teaching on a part-time basis but, nevertheless, wish to supplement his or her income with a modest CPF payout.

This does not mean, of course, that we do not design incentives to encourage our seniors, especially if they remain in the workforce, to postpone their CPF withdrawals to benefit from the compound interest and, thereby, allow for larger payouts when they eventually make their withdrawals.

Regardless, such delayed withdrawals should be a purely voluntary scheme. To my mind, nudges of this form are a far more palatable approach to encouraging individually beneficial retirement choices.

Taken together, Mr Speaker, these changes will permit our people to exercise far greater agency, individual self-responsibility and freedom to choose their desired course of employment in their senior years as well as weigh their various retirement options in an informed and unconstrained manner.

In other words, it will allow our people to retire after a long struggle with dignity. This is something that all in this House would wish for those who have blazed the trail before us and for this reason, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I support both Bills and I will speak on the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, I declare my interest as NTUC's representative in and a member of the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers whose report was adopted by the Government. That report was titled "Strengthening Support for Older Workers".

The Report itself contained 22 recommendations and, of the 22, the three most prominent recommendations pertained to the progressive raising of the statutory retirement age from 62 to 65 by the end of the decade, the corresponding raising of the re-employment age ceiling from 67 to 70 over that same timeframe, and also the progressive improvement of CPF contribution rates for both employers and employees for workers aged 55 to 70. That is the subject of the amendments today.

The two Bills before us today, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill as well as the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, they are to give legislative effect to these recommendations so that they can be implemented to the benefit of both workers and companies.

Sir, I think there is a good analogy between what we are trying to do to address the oncoming needs of our ageing local workforce as well as the needs of companies employing these workers when compared with our national efforts to address the equally serious challenges that are being brought about by climate change. I wish to draw that similarity to frame it in such a way that I think will make it easier for all of us, inside and outside of this House, to see what it is that we are trying to do.

The first similarity is that both these challenges – ageing population and ageing workforce, locally and climate change – is that they are both very damaging if they are not properly addressed.

In the case of climate change, one specific known threat to Singapore would be that of global warming leading to rising sea levels. In that scenario, if we do not build up sufficient defences early and well enough, the result will be a loss of coastal areas as the sea level rises.

This is why the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister and has begun to be put into budgets, will invest heavily to raise the foundation level of critical infrastructure to be well above current sea levels and to build sea walls in order to increase our coastal protection.

So, we must do likewise to help our ageing local workforce so that they are not only better protected but would also continue to be a valuable contributor to our economic dynamism.

Sir, ageism exists throughout the world. I think we all agree it is not right. It is not good. It is not fair. But it is there, to a greater or lesser degree. On this journey that we all want to be on to reduce it, if possible, to eliminate it someday, we continue to have to deal with the reality that while it exists, and it does now, what is it that we must do to accord the necessary protection for our workers?

And it was for this reason, that the Tripartite Workgroup on older workers debated long and hard as the first terms of reference that was set for it, on whether that statutory retirement age for older Singaporean workers is still relevant and needed, at least for the coming decade. It concluded that, that was needed. I hear several Members speaking about the need for that. I just want to give a little bit of background as to the thinking when we debated this within that workgroup.

The basic question we ask ourselves is supposing there is no ageism in the workplace and therefore, employers are more than happy and will always employ older workers who are willing and able to work. Then, it is okay with these companies and it does not matter if we have a statutory retirement age because the company will just continue to employ. They are not in any way, held back by a statutory retirement age.

But in the opposite scenario, where you have companies whose practices are ageist, then it is not so simple in the absence of some strong signal from the tripartite partners, from the Government, in law, I think we can understand that these tendencies will become more pronounced.

As it is, we hear examples already cited that residents come to us and say that some of them might have been let go of even as they get into middle age. And they find it more difficult to get a new job and when they do get a new job, the chance of not matching the old terms is quite high. So, we ask ourselves, if indeed there is no ageism anywhere around and age equals experience, equals value and is fully appreciated, then why are we having this scenario? And if you are having this scenario, why is it therefore, not good for us to continue to put in the necessary protections?

So, it was along those lines that we discussed. In summary, if there is no ageism, having a statutory retirement age does no harm. You just carry on employing. If there is, this gives you a strong signal to think again and do not resort to ageist practices so easily.

So, beyond the legality of it, it sends a clear signal to employers on what tripartite partners want businesses and organisations to focus on, namely, to find and put in place effective ways to keep our older workers sharp on the job and not cause them to become a liability prematurely.

Therefore, I certainly support further efforts to protect older workers against ageist workplace practices. And in this regard, I look forward to the outcomes of the Tripartite Workgroup on workplace discrimination that MOM has initiated a few months ago.

Sir, coming back to my analogy of coastal protection. If you look at it that way then, statutory retirement age and re-employment age are like a pair of sea walls, built for our older workers. They stand as visual reminders of our nation's commitment to protecting our older workers as an asset.

This is not merely done to achieve some philosophical ideal, but it is done for a very practical reason. It affects the lives of our people, it effects the livelihoods of our older workers and their retirement.

Sir, the first move to improve the CPF contribution rates was originally to take place in January 2021, as Minister Tan See Leng reminded us just now. That was to be followed by the increase in the retirement and re-employment ages by one year each in 2022.

But as we know, last year, COVID-19 hit us. As a result, the tripartite partners discussed how do we do this in a way that does not derail the entire intent, but take into account the serious circumstances that we have to face. And as a result, we agreed to delay the implementation of the increase of the CPF rates by a year, hence, January 2022, but to keep in place the planned increased in the re-employment and retirement ages in July 2022.

This safeguards the longer-term resilience while tending to the immediate challenges faced by both companies and their workers. I hope that companies and workers alike would draw comfort and confidence from observing this move, knowing that our Government and tripartite partners will always act in the overall best interest of both our workers and companies.

Sir, I would also like to seek a clarification from Minister. I might have missed it. It is with regard the transition offset package. This was mentioned in previous speeches that when you increase the CPF contribution rates, that Government will consider a transition offset for part of the cost that the employees would have to bear. So, in other words, the Government is co-paying with the employers for the improvement for our workers. This would certainly make it easier for the employer's to also implement this and to benefit the workers. So, I hope to seek this clarification from Minister whether that package would be put up.

Sir, I return now to the coastal protection analogy. Building sea walls are necessary but they are not sufficient to ensure key infrastructure can keep above the waves of change, which is why it is necessary to raise the foundation level well above sea level, so that these places can stay dry longer.

And in this light too, I say, it is similar to what we must continually do in order to shore up the employment and employability of our older workers for the journey ahead.

Over the years, the Government has introduced numerous hiring and training incentives that favour the older worker. I thank the Government for that. Examples would include the Senior Employment Credit, the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant, the Part-time Re-employment Grant and various others as well.

These financial incentives have indeed been very helpful in lowering the cost of hiring of older workers and therefore increase the numbers hired. I am glad that the efforts of the tripartite partners and the responsible actions by the vast majority of firms have kept the employment rate of older workers stable despite COVID-19's onslaught. In fact, according to figures released by MOM, the employment rate for workers 65 years and older actually showed a small increase in the year 2020, compared to the year 2019. The Government has also provided preferential subsidies for the training of older workers for many years now.

While wage subsidies serve to lower the cost of hiring of older workers and they would certainly help, they are actually also not the longer-term safeguard that is needed. They are necessary, helpful but they are not the longer-term safeguard that is needed.

For analogy again, you can imagine that they are very, very good sandbags and flood barriers that you can mount right at local level and that helps. But what they do not do is that they do not reduce the inherent vulnerability of that premises to flooding, if the premises itself is too low.

Therefore, we must still continue to undertake the hard work of raising the foundation levels. This is the ultimate way to keep the premises above the rising tides, and in like manner, effective improvement in the employability of older workers is the ultimate way to help as many of our older workers as possible stay above the rising tides of skills obsolescence and workplace value depreciation.

There are very clear signs that we need to pay close attention to this area and to act on it. I said earlier that the employment rate of older workers has held steady and even improved slightly between 2019 and 2020, despite COVID-19. I would qualify it that this was so for workers aged 55 and above.

NTUC and SNEF co-led a task force – we call it the PME's Taskforce – to examine the needs, hopes and anxieties of PMEs. This was done over the past year. Their report was recently submitted to the Government. It is clear from the report that the anxiety over job insecurity among those aged 40 to 60 is palpable.

To be sure, this anxiety was already there before COVID-19 and it came about partly as a result of business model changes, partly as a result of delayering of middle management and also technological changes. COVID-19 accelerated and intensified the factors.

Sir, safeguarding the employability of the mature worker from early middle age must now be a central focus of policy research, planning and formulation. We must not wait until these folks are near retirement age. This must go hand in hand with ensuring a level playing field for Singaporeans in being considered for job openings. This is so that middle aged local workers would not be too easily or prematurely rendered unemployable and have to exit the workforce. Otherwise, legislative improvements, such as the ones that we are considering today, to increase the retirement and re-employment ages would be rendered moot, because they would not even be there. So, we must help them carry on and then with this extension, they will also benefit.

Equally importantly, we must know that policy and incentives themselves are necessary again, but not sufficient to ensure the required outcomes. Effective last mile implementation is critical to ensuring real and sustained outcomes. So, what needs to be done? Sir, I would suggest three areas for consideration.

First, let us invest even more to further boost the capacity and effectiveness of job retraining and employment facilitation mechanism. We must give due credit to the work of WSG, NTUC e2i, SSG and NTUC's Company Training Committees (CTCs) and the Job Security Council (JSC) for each year helping thousands of jobseekers retrain and find new jobs. And many amongst them would be older workers.

At the same time, we must recognise that the size of the mature local workforce will grow rapidly in the coming years because of demography and changes in the business environment will only accelerate. Therefore, we must consider whether our current mechanisms in facilitating retraining and career guidance and job matching on an individual, inter-company as well as inter-industry transfer level, do we actually have anticipated capacity and effectiveness, the swiftness of that switching to tackle the heavier loads that we can anticipate that are oncoming. So, we got to do a study on this and investment what is necessary to expand ahead of that curve.

For if we do not get this right, then we will have to face up to a growing pool of displaced, disillusioned and disgruntled older workers in society. Sir, as I emphasised earlier, effective implementation of the last mile is the key to actual results.

Second, let us factor in more episodes of displacement and to configure the help for that in-between. Every worker now must expect multiple episodes of employment through his working life. This means that it will not be lifelong employment for most. This in turn means that workers will need more help in between jobs to tide over as they job-search, and as they retrain. This is especially so in the cases where the job lost was not voluntary.

While it remains true that we must not encourage pickiness when it comes to jobseeking, but we must also recognise the real downsides of being forced by circumstances to repeatedly take jobs that pay worse or under-utilise ability, without reasonable alternatives. And the latter, if that happens, will come back to haunt society in weakened retirement adequacy and frayed social fabric.

Thus, we must review and strengthen the social support to target the breaks in income that will inevitably affect more people and reduce the cost of their active retraining, job search and job conversion.

Thirdly, let us review the structuring and conduct of CET or Continuous Education and Training. It is common to hear training being divided into two phases – PET or Pre-employment Training, generally the "schooling years", as most people understand it, as well as CET, which is the working years, as many people would understand it. So, PET and CET.

I think it would be quite obvious to all of us that investments in Pre-employment Training (PET), over the decades have been immense. This correctly reflects the Government's recognition of our people as our most important asset, who must be developed and who must be tapped to their fullest potential.

Government funding for CET, that is the employment part of it – during the working years – has also grown very substantially over the years, via course fee subsidies, absentee payroll, paid internships and conversion programmes for mid-career workers. There are also the SkillsFuture credits granted to all Singaporeans aged 25 and above for self-initiated skills development. So, a lot of money is also being invested in those areas, especially in more recent years.

The fast-changing environment creates a serious uncertainties that confound both workers and companies over what training would be purposeful and for whom. This generates inertia at the level of the company and the individual. In other words, I hold back training because I am not very sure what am I supposed to be trained at? And after I get the training, am I headed for something meaningful? As a result, time is lost.

Or sometimes, it might actually result in, instead of inaction, it goes into aimless training; train for the sake of chalking training hours, for example, which is not the point, because it does not help keep your skills sharp. And when that happens, you still face a progressive loss of employability. The risk is therefore that more and more of our nation's human potential can be wasted this way if the uncertainty continues.

To tackle that problem, we cannot tackle it just by introducing more schemes or more subsidies. The current operating landscape may be too fragmented and cannot offer pervasive and sound guidance that links training to ops, future planning in companies. Therefore, more structure, more anchoring, consideration of shared services and periodic check-ins at the company and individual levels – as Minister has also alluded to just now – in terms of what you should be doing with your mature workers, would be needed to produce the required last mile outcomes for the majority of mature workers, starting in their 40s. This must be carefully and seriously studied, so that the current ecosystem can be reshaped to help mid-career mature workers hone and update their skills and strengthen their value and their employability as well as their adaptability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government and tripartite partners have worked hard over the years to strengthen support for our older workers. We must continue to do so, especially given our ageing local workforce. We must fight ageist workplace practices and give our older workers a chance and a choice to continue working.

To do so successfully, we must not only extend the working ages by law or help make hiring cost-effective through wage subsidies – though these are important – but we must also tie our policies, resourcing, partnerships and implementation more tightly together. This is so that mature workers and their companies will update their skills more rapidly and purposefully. This will then help mature workers grow with their companies and be more able to quickly move into new jobs and into new sectors if they are displaced. This will be crucial in helping mature workers keep their value and sense of security, and view the future with optimism.

Mr Speaker, before I end, I just wanted to make a point about something I heard just now as shared by the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim when he recounted what some of his residents shared with him that after they lost their jobs in their mid-50s and they approach employers and the employers told them that "Well, you know, if I employ you then I can't keep you for very long because then you are too near the retirement age."

Earlier, the Minister had clarified that having a statutory retirement is not to force any worker to work beyond what he or she wants to. It is to protect him or her from an ageist employer who cites no other reason than age, to say bye bye to him or her. So, it is that way and not the other way. Employers should not misinterpret this to workers.

So, in that particular example that was cited, for that employer to tell Assoc Prof Lim's resident that, "Actually, I would like to employ you but, you know, you are too near the retirement age", would suggest that the employer is actually saying that, "Well, I am prevented by law from employing you beyond the statutory retirement age" which is false.

So, I hope that we should also make this point very, very clear to employers and to workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bills.

Mr Speaker, I will be touching on the CPF (Amendment) Bill. As the CPF is one of the key financial resources for most Singaporeans, it is imperative that any changes to be introduced are properly communicated and due care be given to enable the public to understand what these changes mean to them.

Given there are a number of amendments to be made and a few areas where the specifics to the conditions laid out are not entirely clear, I wish to seek several clarifications.

Under clause 4 section 15AA, allowing CPF to make automatic disbursements to the member if he or she is suffering from a specified significant condition.

First, can more details be shared on the significant condition that entails this exception? Does it refer to a health condition, and if so what kind, or does it refer to a financial situation of the said member?

Second, if the member is currently covered under a social assistance programme, will the CPF disbursement impact his or her eligibility from continued assistance under the current social assistance scheme? I hope that these discretionary disbursements based on the member’s situation is meant to help supplement their situation and does not have the unintended consequence of putting them in a worse position, should they be relieved of any social assistance programmes or the support scheme being significantly reduced after the lump sum disbursement is made.

Under section 13, lifting the cap annual limit for certain types of voluntary contributions to the Medisave account. I believe this move is a welcome one, especially for those self-employed, better enabling and ensuring that their healthcare needs are taken care of.

Does the Ministry have any projections on the implications of these changes in the form of retirement adequacy and to what extent will it help the self-employed or those working in the gig economy? These voluntary contributions can be paid either by the member or from their family members’ contribution.

With an ageing population in Singapore, whilst the younger generation helps to contribute to their parents' or grandparents’ MediSave accounts and will bridge the immediate support for their healthcare needs, have we considered what are the correlated effect that would be on the family members assisting to top up the CPF of their loved ones? Will the same issue of healthcare MediSave sufficiency be an issue for the next generation if they do not have sufficient cash set aside for medical purposes or are without additional medical insurance? I think it will be more beneficial for the younger cohort of the working population to be offered financial literacy on how to better manage their retirement needs and in the process learn to balance their own needs versus providing for their parents or the elderly.

Another area is providing a new and simplified process for the distribution of unnominated CPF monies on a member’s death. This is certainly an applauded move. As in February this year, it was just shared that only more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination with those among 65 and above higher at three in four having done so.

Tying this point to the earlier note I made about the discretionary automatic disbursements to the member, if he or she is a beneficiary or nominee of the CPF account from another person, would there be a specified limit that prevents them from receiving any future social support?

And, Sir, going beyond the amendments of the Bill, I would like to raise two other points for further consideration.

First, on the special needs community. Caring for the special needs community and having them included in the scheme is something that I feel passionately about. I had previously raised in this House regarding the creation of micro jobs to ensure that these individuals when they become young adults, are able to gain some independence and be a part of the workforce.

Thus, against the backdrop of changes to the CPF in allowing more relaxation on the withdrawal of CPF monies, I would like to suggest that we also consider how best to safeguard this community and by extension to their families and caregivers in times of need. For example, the simplification of processes for them to access the funds when their caregivers are no longer around or to apportion more funds for their medical needs as they are more likely to require that on the long run.

Next, rethinking the CPF’s current allocation rates design. With the landscape of work changing and more choosing to embark on flexi work or self-employment, perhaps it is timely in the near future for us to review the CPF’s allocation rates to the three different buckets – the Ordinary Account (OA), the Special Account (SA) and the MediSave Account – to better provide for retirement adequacy whilst ensuring we meet our housing, education and healthcare needs.

With the current design categorised according to age groups, perhaps it might be worth rethinking if more nuances are required in the current allocation principle and rates. Maximising contribution to the OA during the active income years before increasing the allocation to the SA from 35 to 55 years of age and subsequently for the MediSave to be raised through the SA and OA after a specific age and in line with medical costs during that time period. This is especially so as the nature of work is fast evolving, more are seeking self-employment. The definition of job security and stability do not have the same representation as before. There are also individuals who could be taking on more than two jobs at different stages of their life. Hence, I suggest that a review be undertaken and more holistically ensure that we are able as a nation to better cater for retirement adequacy for all.

Sir, notwithstanding what I have raised, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, retirement is a word that means so many different things to each of us. For the lucky ones amongst us, it brings with it notions of freedom and leisure, golden years where one is no longer a wage slave. On the other end of the spectrum, it brings with it negative connotations of decline, withdrawal and fears about whether the money in the bank account would be enough to stretch to the end of the month.

It is to address this financing of our retirement that prompted the formation of the CPF system in the first place.

Our CPF system was introduced in 1955, before the time when some of our present retirees today were born. Its official mission is to be the bedrock of our social security system, with a strong emphasis on self-reliance.

This is something that we cannot disagree with and, indeed, most of the residents we do meet tell us that they would love to be in a position to help themselves and their families.

Yet, over the years, the changing structure of our economy, demographics and, indeed, the world we live in has meant that many Singaporeans find themselves in a difficult position today, where no matter how hard or fast they run on the treadmill of life, they find themselves unable to keep up and end up falling off and find it next to impossible to get back on again – and not for want of trying.

Our CPF system, as the expressed bedrock of our social security system, has to be sensitive and cognisant of these difficulties experienced by our fellow residents.

Our CPF policies have, as a response to our changing economy and society, evolved and expanded in an attempt to cover functions beyond merely a savings for retirement, to be used to pay for many of lives' expenses – from the funding of the purchase of our homes to paying for medical expenses for ourselves and our family members.

Yet, at the core of it is the notion that our CPF funds must be kept locked up with a special key and that they would only be unlocked at a certain time and in a certain manner. This may be laudable but it is little wonder that many of our residents do approach us for assistance with CPF matters.

I am sure that most of us here in this House have come across cases where a loved one, often the sole breadwinner of the family, either passes away unexpectedly or suffers from a condition that results in them being unable to carry on earning an income.

When such unexpected events happen, family members, more often than not, struggle to process the shock and have to make changes to their daily lives. At the same time, they often find themselves having to deal with the additional stress and paperwork to unlock CPF funds to tide them through difficult times, which not all are well-equipped to tackle even when not dealing with the grief or shock that colours everything in the overwhelming aftermath of such an unfortunate event.

From this perspective, the amendments proposed by clause 50 of the Bill, which allow for greater flexibility and efficiency for disbursement of unnominated monies in the event of a member's death are welcome. These changes allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses incurred by a beneficiary out of the unnominated monies. It also allows the Public Trustee to pay a sum of money up to a specified limit to be released directly to a beneficiary representative for disbursement in accordance with intestacy laws.

However, I would like to request the Minister to clarify what the specified limit would be and how the amount is, ultimately, to be determined. Would it be an amount that changes like the Retirement Sum Scheme?

We also welcome the removal of the ceiling for voluntary contributions to MediSave. This does help to prepare us in an ageing society and gives more flexibility to those who are able to do so to better plan for retirement and care needs while still active in the workforce. However, could we please have further clarity on whether CPF Board has an estimation of how many people would be affected by this?

Moving on to some of the other proposed amendments, I have further comments and would like to seek some more clarifications.

First, we welcome the flexibility introduced in clause 5, allowing a member to withdraw funds from his Retirement Account, subject to the condition that they must be receiving an approved annuity stream that is outside of the CPF. However, I would like to ask for greater clarity on how such other annuity streams are assessed and, ultimately, approved.

Likewise, the same clause introduces automatic withdrawals if the Board is satisfied that the member is suffering from a significant condition, without the need for the member to apply for such withdrawals. The explanatory note further clarifies that this only relates withdrawals from the Ordinary and Special Accounts and not the Retirement Account. If this is on the understanding that the member is extremely ill or incapacitated, it would mean that it would ease the financial and administrative burden on family members who might need to, otherwise, apply through the Courts or otherwise find additional funds to pay for medical bills or living expenses. Could the Minister confirm this is correct?

Would the Minister also please clarify if automatic disbursements would take place in all cases when a member has a significant condition? This may not be necessarily desirable in cases where the financial circumstances of a member could mean that immediate disbursement of funds is unnecessary. Such an automatic disbursement then may deprive the member of interest on these released funds which would be challenging to obtain in other savings accounts.

The final point relates to CPF nominations. The current position is that any nominations for recipients of CPF funds upon a member's death is automatically cancelled upon a member's marriage. Does this remain unchanged with the amendments being proposed?

Mr Deputy Speaker, my clarifications, notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bills moved by the Minister for Manpower

First, the Bill on Retirement and Re-employment. The proposed amendments give older workers the flexibility and choice, not obligation, to continue working for a longer time if they are willing and able, in line with increases in life expectancy and our ageing population. It gives older workers the opportunity to increase their retirement savings.

Older workers bring invaluable experience to any organisation. We all know colleagues, friends and family members who can, want and do contribute, long past the current retirement age. But it is also true that as a person gets older, sometimes, you lose a little in terms of physical ability but also, mentally, you start to lose a bit of sharpness, speed, drive and other priorities become more important.

So, let us face it, for a number of our older Singaporeans, they just do not want to have to keep working at the same pace or keep having to reinvent themselves, because work can be a grind, especially if you are in an industry that is being disrupted, especially when there are younger co-workers who are eager to move ahead, who are all too happy to, as we say, "chiong". And on their part, companies need to be able to create space for these workers to move up the ranks faster.

The re-employment framework has always been given flexibility to employers to adjust re-employment terms and roles. As the pace of change and disruption in industry only continues to grow faster, more effort will be needed, as called out by the Tripartite Workgroup, to promote more inclusive and progressive workplaces, including redesigning jobs and reskilling, providing more part-time re-employment opportunities. Some companies are also looking into how to fractionalise jobs.

When doing these, I urge organisations to engage retiring workers on how best to do this; they are often in the best position to propose the most optimal ways. Indeed, retiring workers can and should also plan and propose it themselves, rather than wait for their employers to do it.

But whether it is redesigned jobs, part-time or fractionalised jobs, more and more older workers may not stay in the same roles when they enter into re-employment contracts. I believe, by and large, older workers will accept that there may be commensurate adjustments to their employment terms – wages or benefits.

In a previous response to Parliamentary Questions, then-Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo shared that the vast majority of re-employed workers in the same job did not experience any cuts to wages and benefits.

This is comforting, suggesting that the majority of employers are playing ball, in line with the spirit of re-employment. However, many of us would have also received appeals from residents, that this is not always the case, such as for my resident Mdm L. Mdm L had worked for 20 years for her company and had recently retired and been re-employed on a re-employment contract. When COVID-19 forced the company to undertake a retrenchment exercise, like her colleagues, she felt anxious. But that anxiety turned into dismay when she learnt that her retrenchment payouts considered her not as an employee who had served for 22 years as she had, but as an employee who had served for two years, because the re-employment contract reset the clock on retrenchment benefits. Mdm L felt incredibly let down, given her loyalty to the organisation.

Having deemed that a given employee continues to be able to contribute to the organisation by offering re-employment, is it not unfair for retrenchment benefits not to recognise his/her full length of service, especially if nothing else has changed in their roles, but even if the roles have been adjusted a bit?

Mr Deputy Speaker, allowing businesses flexibility to make adjustments when offering re-employment contracts continues to be very important. But it cannot be at the expense of long-serving employees.

As the number of older workers on re-employment contracts increases, as a number of re-employment workers who do not stay in the same jobs but are reassigned to different jobs, redesigned jobs, or other adjustments to their roles, or move to part-time status, more attention and protection should be focused on the fair and dignified treatment of re-employed employees, during moments of truth such as retrenchment exercises, which will remain a feature of the landscape, as technology and other disruptions continue. So, I hope this will be given attention in the implementation of any legislation.

At the same time, we should continue to review the social safety nets afforded to older workers, lower-income ones especially, so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned.

Notwithstanding the above, I support this Bill.

Now, the CPF Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the CPF Act provide welcome simplification and streamlining of various CPF processes.

I would like to focus only on the proposed amendments related to the disbursements of unnominated monies to a beneficiary representative. The disbursement process today can take a long time and feel quite complex to family members. This is especially the case when there are large families with a claim to the CPF monies.

Recently, I had a Meet-the-People Session (MPS) appeal where the case had been in limbo for more than a year, with several back and forth queries with the Public Trustee Office. The proposed amendments would allow more families to receive payouts sooner, during a difficult time.

The increased efficiency, however, should not come at the expense of the next-of-kin deserving of a share of the funds, particularly in situations where there are family disputes. I would like to clarify with the Minister for Law the following.

What recourse does a next-of-kin have in the event that they do not agree with the appointment of the beneficiary representative, or with how the beneficiary representative disburses the CPF monies? Does it automatically become a private matter to be settled among the beneficiaries, which may or may not result in a Court process or do they continue to have recourse to a public agency which may be more trusted to administer the disbursement process in accordance with the relevant Acts.

Regardless of whether they are named as nominees or the account is un-nominated, what efforts are made to contact and facilitate disbursements to Singaporean family members who are overseas, which is now not an insignificant number, especially in light of continued travel restrictions that may make it difficult for them to come back to settle the affairs?

Notwithstanding the above questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall speak on the topic of the CPF first. The CPF Fund is central to Singaporeans of all ages. From prospective home buyers to retirees, the CPF is the joint result of the blood and sweat of Singaporeans and their firm trust in our Civil Service. More importantly, it is a crucial safety net that Singaporeans rely upon to support themselves and their loved ones when the unfortunate strikes – the loss of livelihoods, be it due to economic circumstances, age, infirmity or permanent disabilities.

The proposed amendment follows closely to this matter and I welcome two main changes to this Act: first, minimising disruption of the Retirement Account with the use of auto top-up; second, the simplification of the language of the Act to inch it closer towards the common everyday person.

First, the Retirement Account. It takes conscientious effort to maintain and keep track of one's own bank account and this is especially the case for our senior citizens. In our pursuit of the bigger, better and faster, Singapore has rapidly morphed itself into a Smart Nation. The flipside of which is that we risk detaching some of our citizenry as we shed the cocoon of a developing nation. It is an uphill battle for many working adults to help their parents navigate finances, and the myriad of accounts at their disposal only complicates the matter. The auto top-up mechanism streamlines the decision-making process of many retirees, some of which could really benefit from this help. I believe this to be an important first step towards a more user-friendly and accessible CPF.

Second, the simplifying of the language of the Act. Streamlining the headers and process to align the practices with MediSave, for instance, makes the CPF Act more approachable and thereby more effective. Previously, I have raised the issues of the disconnected – both in terms of digital skills and language for the residents in my constituency – and this step signposts an important direction to make the word of the Law the word of our people.

In this simplification, however, it is important that we do not lose nuances that protect the same people we have set out to look out for with these changes. As more complicated terms are stripped down, merged or simplified, we need to be clear the intention behind certain changes, as they are not simply a matter of semantics, but whole matters of inclusion and exclusion.

More specifically, I am concerned with the new definition of "significant conditions" in inclusion for the purposes of section 15 and the new section 15AA. It is explained in the Bill that this criterion would be "similar" to that of the previous language of "mental and physical incapacity". I welcome the new lexicon, foremost because it differentiates a disability from one’s identity better than the previous set of language, but I can imagine this new definition, to which the Minister interprets, might prove to be rather ambiguous until tested by real life cases.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a matter of mere semantics. Rather, there are two issues from this change I am concerned about.

First, if any existing beneficiaries would be left out because of the change in wording. On this matter, it would be ideal if the Minister can confirm that the new criteria of "significant condition" is broader and includes those previously counted under incapacity.

Second, this shift in language can send the wrong message to those who are excluded from withdrawing from their CPF because they cannot meet the criteria. Previously, not being able to withdraw funds, as outlined in section 15AA, would simply mean that they cannot prove that their disabilities incapacitated them. This does not discredit or make light of the condition that they do have; we simply mean that this condition, as bad as it is, does not disempower our residents completely. It is a positive message for those who are rejected, one that affirms that they still have some means to fend for themselves.

By changing the language to turn this into a matter of "significance", someone rejected in their application for withdrawal may be misled to believe that the Board and, by extension, the Government, think their condition "insignificant". In such matters, sensitivity, reason and flexibility must be applied in the first few cases under this amendment and the process may be messy. It is my responsibility to raise a word of caution on this matter and it is with time that I trust this interpretation will bring about clarity and trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I wonder if you have discussed with your parents on the issue of savings. For many senior residents, the best bank for them is called "under the bed" and the most reliable retirement fund is called "secret stash". I believe that we all have conflicted feelings towards modern finance.

However, for uncles and aunties who are not familiar with ATMs, many are not resentful or fearful towards CPF. This is not because it is easier to navigate the CPF system or because it is more reliable than the banks. On the contrary, for many people, the complexity of CPF can be daunting and this is something that we should improve on.

However, for them, the difference is that CPF is trustworthy. They trust in the character, integrity and commitment of the Government. What is contained in CPF is not just money, but also the blood and sweat and trust of the people. This amendment Bill provides provisions for automatic top-ups so that it is more user-friendly for the uncles and aunties. However, we cannot stay stagnant. We must quicken our steps and allow CPF to become the pillar of a dignified and less stressful retirement life.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in English. In all, this amendment is in line with what I stand for. It brings law to the ground where it matters, it makes the law easier to understand, it makes the content of the law more useful to the people it is to serve. With time, I trust that the initial ground messiness will be resolved with sensitivity, caution and flexibility of ground issues. These concerns notwithstanding, I support this Bill.

Now, onto the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA).

In a country like ours with no natural resources and hinterland, our source of pride and success has always been our people. In a world where seniors begin to comprise a growing proportion of society as people live longer and healthier lives, the continued success of our country hinges on the ability to leverage on the experience and expertise of our older countrymen and women.

This is why the Labour Movement welcomes the impending changes to the statutory limits for the prescribed minimum retirement and re-employment ages, as the Government looks to adapt to our changing demographics in accordance with the recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers.

The emerging generation of seniors is perhaps the most well-educated, healthy and capable of their age group in history. They are a diverse, dynamic group with varying interests and passions. Furthermore, medical and technological advancements of today provide the prospects of a full and enriched life even as our seniors continue to age. As people live longer, lives must be viewed through a different set of lenses. Indeed, we are now looking at a 100-year life. Instead of the conventional way of thinking about life in three phases: education up to the early 20s, working life until the 60s and then a long retirement. We must now be prepared for a multi-stage life, perhaps a more flexible life structure where the end goal is no longer retirement and stopping of work, but one where time as a resource is redistributed differently.

Therefore, approaching our silver years in life need not be merely confined to the idea of retirement and fading off into career obscurity, but rather be seen as an opportunity to live meaningful and happier mature years as we continue to contribute to society while staying active and healthy.

At this juncture, I would like to share an inspiring story of my constituent, Mdm Lucy Ho, who is 71 years young. Lucy worked in SIA Engineering for 39 years. After her first retirement, she took a security course from the WDA and is now working in the Singapore Cruise Centre as a security officer. Lucy believes that her continued journey in the workforce not only allows her to be independent, but also empowers her with a sense of self-worth has she is still able to contribute actively to society.

It is for this reason that the RRA remains relevant, as these age requirements serve not to determine the retirement age of Singaporeans, but to protect eager workers from being retired earlier without taking away their choice as to when they wish to stop working. If the RRA no longer exists, there is nothing to stop a company from choosing to reimpose or reintroduce an earlier company retirement and re-employment age. Furthermore, the ongoing pandemic undoubtedly has depleted the life savings for some and the guarantee of employment for our senior employees provides a longer runway to build up their nest egg once again. Therefore, the changes to the statutory limits to increase the RRA thus is a welcomed move as we look to protect our older Singaporeans who desire to work as it gives them a greater sense of job security and clarity while also providing I would say, businesses the opportunity to continue to tap on a pool of experienced workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, although these changes to the RRA provide greater employment protection for our older workers, I am concerned that such measures might not necessarily hit the nail on the head. There is no doubt that raising the statutory limits further advocates for senior employment. Yet, raising the statutory retirement and re-employment ages may not be meaningful if senior workers are unfairly displaced even before they reach retirement age. Similarly, raising the statutory ages may not translate to more offers of re-employment.

The point I am driving at is that these changes ultimately do not address the fundamental problem of a negative perception towards ageing. Misperceptions about older workers and persistent ageist attitudes regrettably still exist within our social fabric, as many employers worry about being stuck with workers who are unable to adapt to remain competitive and become an increasing liability for their business.

Yet, ageing does not have to always be associated with deteriorating health, disempowerment and dependency. Instead, we can be a society where seniors are empowered, skilled, healthy and active contributors to society. I recall in the early 2000s as Singapore was establishing her strength in the biotechnology field, we tapped on the expertise of cancer researcher Yoshiaki Ito, who at age 63 was then facing forced retirement from a university in Japan. Prof Ito made the move to Singapore in 2002, and along with him, he brought his laboratory members and became a mentor to many other fine researchers who are now part of Singapore's valuable scientific research community. The experience and know-how of seasoned experts like Prof Ito in the early years were crucial building blocks in helping Singapore achieve her status as the regional biotech hub.

The successful integration of senior employees would require a shift in mentality in the workplace that requires a partnership between both employers and senior employees. Employers have to be willing to take the leap of faith and utilise the current Government schemes to hire and retrain mature workers for the benefit of their companies. Likewise, older employees have to be willing and committed to learning and adapting in an ever-changing workplace. Learning does not cease in our teens or early 20s, and as we have longer lifespans, our society must reconcile with the notion that midlife reskilling and upskilling is not merely a passing phenomenon, but a consistent feature in our 100-year lives.

As such, if reskilling and upskilling is to be a mainstay in our workplaces, then I call on the Government to provide greater support and leadership in providing greater and better career guidance to our older workers in order to extend their work life lifespan. Although the Government has provided various avenues through SkillsFuture Singapore and others, more can be done to engage mature workers in their career plans and provide counsel for those navigating these uncharted waters. If we are to extend the productive years of our seniors, we must look to increase the employability of our seniors and provide them with the proper job fits.

Just as we drew on the experience of Mdm Lucy Ho and Prof Ito, we must now look for opportunities to allow Singapore to use the skills of our senior employees despite potential physical or technological limitations.

In conclusion, while this amendment Bill advances our desire to provide greater protection for our older workers, we must also take measures to ensure that our older workers are well supported in this endeavour for lifelong learning as we seek to ensure that our seniors remain employable. These concerns notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unions have advocated for a raise in retirement age and also re-employment age to provide older workers the opportunity to continue working, only if they wish to do so. On behalf of my fellow union leaders, I would like to put on record that such appeal is not about requiring our workers to work longer, but more so providing the platform for our workers who still want to continue working, not forcing them as it may be perceived.

We believe our older workers can continue earning an income to help meet ongoing living expenses and also strengthen their retirement adequacy. NTUC believes that "having a job is the best welfare". Workers still have the choice to retire early if they decide to do so.

I would like to share with this House on some of the works that our union leaders and NTUC had started much earlier. If I recall correctly, back in the 2018 Budget debate, NTUC had called for tripartite discussion to review the long-term retirement and re-employment ages. Thereafter, a Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers was convened in May 2018 to review the retirement and re-employment ages and also to consider adjustments to the CPF contribution rates for Older Workers. NTUC then engaged close to 500 union leaders across the services, industrial and public sectors over multiple focus group discussions to hear not just the aspirations that workers have but also their concerns. After several engagement sessions with leaders, our NTUC representatives, Deputy Secretary Gennerals Heng Chee How and Ms Chiam Hui Fong, and my fellow Central Commitee leaders Brother Phillip and Sister Eileen relayed our collective views to the tripartite workgroup.

The workgroup also studied overseas models of retirement and re-employment to analyse best practices that may aid in their tripartite discussion. From their studies, the workgroup then proposed several recommendations prior to raising the retirement and re-employment ages progressively starting in 2022 and not later than 2030. In addition, they also recommended that CPF contribution rates for our older workers from age 55 to 70 have to be raised accordingly.

Notwithstanding the two factors above, the key to successfully raising the retirement and re-employment ages is creating an inclusive and progressive workplace. This means that employers proactively discuss and apply a structured career development plan with their older workers. This will then allow for training and job redesign to raise productivity and longevity at the workplace. Employers must also be encouraged to provide more re-employment opportunities to retain these experienced workers.

Sir, I would like to highlight some recommendations from the workgroup and share some ground feedback.

Our workers cannot be terminated on grounds of age, assurance for continued employment up to the statutory re-employment age and not forgetting allowing our employers to redesign jobs. The role of our fellow workers will have to be reviewed not just with age but also emergence of new technology. This conversation has to start early for our fellow workers, not limiting to just at age of mid-50s. The job redesign is critical so that our fellow workers go for training early and as they age, they can be less physical but more productive with use of technology in their course of work. NTUC can offer our Company Training Committee, or in short CTC, as the platform to train and prepare our workers for re-employment, company by company.

Sir, currently there are already several support measures provided by Government to employers to offset the cost to re-employ our fellow old workers. Measures such as Senior Worker Support Package and the Early Adopter Grant. Employers should be using such schemes to provide re-employment opportunities to workers. Employers should no longer cite cost of hiring or business needs as an expense of having an experience worker at the workplace. Hopefully, such grants terms can be further enhanced to encourage more employers be early adopters and not wait till 2030.

I would like to urge employers to continue to do their part in helping our fellow mature Singaporean workers to continue working if they want to and tap on their experience to guide and mentor the younger workforce.

Sir, I would like to reiterate that unions calling for this raising of RA and REA is not about us wanting our fellow Singaporeans to work longer but, doing our part as unions to ensure our fellow workers that are able and wish to work longer can continue to do so. There will also be workers who may not want to continue working, and hence that is another beauty of this Bill as it does not enforce workers to work longer, but instead, make employers exercise their responsibility to allow older workers to work longer if they want to. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Raising age limits under this Act is a measure taken by the Government following several recommendations by the Tripartite Workgroup in 2019. As a worker there are some points that I would like to raise.

First, employers need to conduct early planning for employees by reviewing their jobs. Employers should accept that early planning is important to give their workers confidence that they can still contribute and continue to work longer. I urge employers to make early preparations for their employees and avoid waiting until the employee approaches the retirement age. Employers should also realise that there are many assistance grants to help them continue employing their workers. Avoid focusing too much on the financial cost of retaining your employees, who have been with them from the beginning.

Secondly, this Act does not compel a worker to work until old age. Instead, it is available only for those who wish to continue working for their own reasons.

The unions and the Labour Movement will continue to serve by giving recommendations to employers and the Government only for those workers who wish to continue working. For those who do not wish to continue working, you can carry on with your retirement plans.

This brings me to my last suggestion for those who opt to retire early. We know that the amendments to this Act are also related to the Central Provident Fund Act. I would like to appeal to the Government to study whether the workers' CPF monies can be withdrawn much earlier for those who choose to retire before the statutory age. This can help ease their financial burden so that they can have a life using the money they had earned when they were working.

Mr Speaker, as this Act does not compel a person to work longer, I would like to ask that the Government consider my appeal for an earlier withdrawal of the CPF, instead of having to wait until they are 65 years old.

(In English): The journey post retirement for a worker always requires some thought. From my engagement with retired workers, it is a real stigma to wake up the next day with no employment and wondering what is next. I remind myself and fellow workers to have a plan early on what to do upon retiring. We should avoid working actively, if possible, at that age, and spend time catching up with our hobbies and what we may have missed or not able to do so earlier.

On this ground, I hope the Government can be flexible to allow CPF LIFE payout to be earlier at the time when the worker decides to retire. I am also aware that more Singaporeans are even topping up their CPF to earn better interests and payout. However, not many are fortunate to be in this condition. Hopefully, the Government can consider this appeal for our workers to enjoy their retirement years with a steady income.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above, I support this Bill and appeal to all employers to exercise this Bill with improved benefits to reflect your appreciation to our older workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer.

Since last year, CPF members have been able to log in to the CPF portal and nominate their beneficiaries using Singpass. Earlier in February this year, the Minister had, in response to my written Parliamentary Question, shared that more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination as of 1 February 2021. I believe and I am confident, that we can do better to improve this figure.

Many Singaporeans may still be unaware that making their CPF nominations before their passing will benefit and bring much convenience to their loved ones.

If a person does not nominate a CPF beneficiary before their own demise, the CPF Board will instead take up to three weeks upon the member's passing to transfer the monies to the Public Trustee Office (PTO) after accounting for transactions such as MediSave deductions for hospital bills. The PTO will then begin searching for eligible beneficiaries under the law after that. Furthermore, I understand that the PTO will then typically disburse the un-nominated CPF monies within four weeks after the eligible beneficiaries submit the required documents and pay an administrative fee.

I am therefore glad to learn that one of the amendments brought about from this amendment Bill aims to achieve more expeditious payouts by allowing the PTO to disburse un-nominated CPF monies to a beneficiary representative.

In this regard, can the Ministry share how the amendment will assist in shortening the timeframe for issuing the un-nominated CPF monies to the eligible beneficiaries?

Apart from streamlining and expediting the release of funds for the un-nominated cases, I believe that we can do more to encourage Singaporeans to make their CPF nominations, as that will allow their CPF monies to be distributed to preferred beneficiaries faster and without incurring fees.

In the past year, it has been heartening to see the efforts made by the Government in raising awareness in this aspect through short skits featuring the famous Liang Xi Mei character and estate planning workshops organised by various Community Clubs (CCs) with partners such as The Law Society of Singapore.

Apart from these efforts to raise awareness amongst Singaporeans regarding the importance of making CPF nominations, I believe that we should also introduce more tangible benefits to encourage more people to do so.

Currently, the Registry of Births and Deaths would notify the CPF Board upon registering a member's death, who would then distribute nominated CPF monies, typically within a month of the member's passing.

During the Budget debate earlier this year, I stressed on the importance of releasing the funds expeditiously to the deceased's family and subsequently shared with the CPF Board several anecdotes about my Woodgrove residents who became financially strapped and approached me for assistance when their pillar of support passed away unexpectedly.

Making life easier for a deceased's loved ones should be approached as a practical pushing factor for one to make their CPF nominations during their lifetime.

I hope the Ministry can look into revising the existing SOPs such that upon the passing of those who have made their CPF nomination, the CPF Board will automatically trigger a notification and an immediate upfront payout of $10,000 will be transferred to the nominee via PayNow to the nominee's bank account. The nominee can then use this sum to defray the funeral expenses of the deceased.

Next, the CPF Board should target to release the remaining sum to the nominee within seven days after that, which will come just in time to alleviate the family's financial burden. Typically, the family will, after completing the deceased's funeral and cremation, begin to discuss how to resolve the other estate-related issues pertaining to the deceased, such as the need to expend more costs in engaging a lawyer to apply to the Court for either a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration.

In the Homes-Rahe Stress Scale, the death of a loved one, particularly a spouse or parent, is ranked as the most stressful life event, while a divorce is ranked second.

Mavis Hetherington, a renowned professor of Psychology, and a leading researcher on the impact of divorce on children's development, once stated that "divorce is not a single event, but a process of transitions affecting the entire family". Such stressful periods may cause a grieving family member to overlook certain vital matters, such as the remaking of one's CPF nomination.

During the series of law awareness talks on estate planning that I have conducted over the years in the community, I have held numerous polls to determine if residents are aware that marriage automatically revokes CPF nominations while divorce does not. What I learned was that majority of the participants actually knew that marriage automatically revokes CPF nominations. I believe the credit of such high awareness should go to the dedicated CPF team for diligently sending out written notifications to remind members to make fresh nominations upon their marriage. However, most of the residents were surprised to learn that divorce does not automatically revoke the nomination made previously upon their marriage.

I am assuming that the CPF Board's rationale could be that the nominations made during the marriage may have been meant to benefit the children from the marriage and thus, need not be automatically revoked.

But to avoid such unnecessary controversial family disputes from arising between the estate of the deceased with the nominated beneficiary, perhaps the Ministry can consider adopting the same approach by sending a notification to a member upon their divorce to remind them about a possible need to consider making a new nomination. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many Singaporeans may not know that CPF nominations made before marriage will lapse immediately after marriage, but nominations made after marriage will not lapse after divorce.

In the event of a divorce or loss of family members, people often feel helpless and forget the need to amend their CPF nominations.

Therefore, I hope that the relevant authorities can consider giving a gentle reminder to CPF members upon knowing that their nominated beneficiaries are divorced or have passed away, to consider nullifying their previous nominations and make a new nomination.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my requests for clarification and suggestions, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act which will pave the way for our retirement and re-employment ages to reach 65 and 70, respectively, by 2030. This will offer more protection to older workers who are able to and want to continue working, whether it is for financial reasons or to remain meaningfully engaged in the economy and community.

However, some residents had shared their concerns with me about the potential impact on the CPF withdrawal age. I hope that the Ministry will continue to reassure CPF members through public education and outreach programmes that this amendment Bill will not change the CPF withdrawal age.

Most of us will experience some changes to our health and stamina as we age, and this will affect the intensity and type of work which we can take up for re-employment jobs. I would like to ask the Ministry to share an update, with data and information on the numbers, percentages and gender of seniors who have been re-employed. What sectors are they in? Are they working in large corporations or SMEs, local or foreign companies? What about the nature of their work? How many of these are flexible arrangements, part-time and full-time positions? Does the Ministry have a breakdown of the salaries across sectors, occupations and genders?

I appreciate the various incentive schemes to encourage companies to hire senior workers such as the Part-time Re-employment Grant and the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant.

Would the Ministry share with the House how has the response been to these programmes so far? What are the take-up rates and how many senior workers have benefited from the scheme? What is the breakdown of the various sectors and type of companies which had applied for the grants?

Would the Ministry also share updates on the Senior Worker Support Package, which includes the Senior Employment Credit and CPF Transition Offset?

As our SMEs employ so many Singaporeans, will there be additional measures to incentivise and support them in our collective effort to keep our senior employees in the workforce?

Although we are improving in our drive to be more embracing of older workers, age discrimination continues to persist in some pockets of our economy. What more can be done to minimise this?

Finally, I would like to conclude with my support for the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill as well.

Among the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers' recommendations is the raising of CPF contribution rates for senior workers aged above 55 to 70. This will certainly help with providing greater assurance of retirement adequacy, as will the changes to the CPF Act, which will make it easier for members to build up their CPF savings and receive retirement payouts. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the CPF must provide Singaporeans with a home, old age support, social safety net and protection. Under the home ownership policy, Singaporeans can purchase a HDB flat using their CPF. In addition to providing retirement payouts, CPF also allows residents to have a health insurance.

Singaporeans born after Independence would have a certain amount of CPF fund to help them live through their old age. It is only the older generation that needs the Government's and their families' support to thank them for their efforts in nation building.

What is worrying now is the new jobs and industries that have emerged in the new digital age. Workers in these industries may not have sufficient CPF protection and this will have a far-reaching impact on their retirement security in the future.

Here, I would like to ask the Minister the following questions.

First, how many workers in related industries are currently not covered by CPF?

Second, how many people have insufficient minimum retirement deposits in their CPF but have homes that can be monetised with the assistance of Lease Buyback Scheme or other schemes to provide old age security?

Third, how many people can continue to mortgage HDB flat or private properties to CPF to reach the minimum retirement sum?

Fourth, how many people would like to make more CPF deposit or contributions personally but had been rejected? Can the Government consider allowing them to increase their deposits?

Fifth, can the Government consider allowing and encouraging donations to third-party CPF accounts to promote a caring society?

Sixth, can the Government provide more incentives to mothers' CPF to encourage fertility?

Seventh, can the Government allow children to not ask their parents to refund payments made from their children's CPF when purchasing the HDB flat?

Eighth, can parents allow their children to return education fees paid from their CPF account without any deadline?

Sir, CPF is an important institution to help Singaporeans prepare for their retirement. It affects Singaporeans in a direct and tangible way.

I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, which grants greater flexibility in CPF rules and simplifies various CPF processes. This will allow CPF to better support Singaporeans at various milestones in their lives.

That said, I have three points of clarification to make.

First, I seek clarification on what will be considered a "significant condition", particularly in relation to auto-immune diseases.

The new section 15AA allows withdrawals to be made by members who have not reached 55 years of age but are suffering from a significant condition. Additionally, the amended section 77 will provide that the Minister may make regulations, including to provide that a condition is a significant condition only if approved by the Minister and causes disability of a description or to an extent specified by the Minister.

Can the Minister confirm that this is not intended to limit all significant conditions to only conditions that cause disability and that the Minister retains broad discretion in determining what conditions are deemed significant conditions?

Can the Minister also clarify if serious auto-immune diseases, such as those included under the Chronic Diseases Management Programme (CDMP), will be considered and included as significant conditions?

Early withdrawals will ease the burdens on these patients by giving greater liquidity to manage their finances. The increased financial support and flexibility by allowing CPF withdrawals before reaching 55 years of age would be immensely helpful to patients of auto-immune diseases.

My second clarification relates to the reimbursement of funeral expenses on the death of a member with no CPF nomination. The new section 25A provides for the reimbursement of reasonable funeral expenses but only to a beneficiary, which would be persons entitled to the CPF monies under various rules.

In reality, funerals are often arranged expediently upon a person's death. Loved ones may not know how much CPF funds are available, how much they can use and, indeed, whether they are even beneficiaries at all. This may lead to confusion and stress over funeral arrangements.

I have three suggestions that would help.

One, can the Ministry publish guidelines or a framework to help beneficiaries understand how much funeral expenses will the CPF Public Trustee typically agree to defray?

Two, can the Ministry expedite the process of informing beneficiaries of their nomination and of the CPF funds available upon a member's death?

Three, can the Ministry allow the Public Trustee to reimburse reasonable funeral expenses to a wider class of beneficiaries who have incurred these expenses in good faith?

The death of a loved one is always painful. I am glad this Bill helps soften the blow and I hope the CPF Board will consider my suggestions to take further steps in that direction.

My third clarification relates to the option to apply for a refund of money transferred to top up Retirement Accounts before 1 November 2008.

Currently, I understand that Retirement Account top-ups before November 2008 are returned to the giver when the recipient passes away. The repeal of section 19A changes this and such top ups are no longer returned to the giver. What are the reasons for this change?

Members who made top ups before 1 November 2008 would have done so based on their understanding of the rules at that time. Certainty of the rules is important for members to have confidence in our CPF system. By changing the rules and allowing a period for refunds, could this lead to a risk of an exodus of funds from Retirement Accounts as members choose to exercise this option?

Will exceptions be made to allow for the prior rules to apply to members with valid reasons?

Next, the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill proposes to give our older workers the option to work longer if they choose to do so. Our older workers are treasure troves of experience and our younger workforce has much to learn from them. I support this legislative move to allow them the flexibility to work longer should they wish to do so.

In line with this short Bill, I have three short points of clarification to make.

My first point is about the minimum retirement age. Section 4 of the Act is being amended to constrain the minimum retirement age the Minister can prescribe. Currently, the Minister can prescribe a minimum retirement age of anywhere between 62 and 67 years. With the new amendment, that range shrinks to between 62 and 65 years.

Can the Minister clarify why this range has been reduced? I understand the Government's current plans are only to raise the minimum retirement age to 65 by 2030. Is the amendment merely to align the new law with the Government's stated plans or is there some other reason for legislatively tying the Minister's hands on this matter?

My second point is about differentiated retirement and re-employment ages. The Bill appears to tweak the Minister's power to specify retirement and re-employment ages.

The Bill empowers the Minister to prescribe each age to "any class of employees". This is new language not present in the current Act. The term "class of employee" is not defined in the Act or in the Bill.

Can the Minister share whether this change is meant to give the Minister the power to apply a differentiated retirement age and re-employment age to different types of employee?

Can the Minister share if the Ministry has plans to apply differentiated retirement and re-employment ages to employees in different sectors?

My last point is close to my heart. Today's Bill is about senior workers but I would also like to emphasise the importance of senior volunteers, which I know is outside the scope of the Bill. Specifically, I would like to emphasise the importance of not discriminating against seniors who serve in volunteer roles.

We have made a strong stand on discrimination at workplaces based on age. We are now proposing to increase the retirement and re-employment ages to give people the opportunity to work longer.

Can we also ensure that there is no discrimination based on age when it comes to volunteerism? It seems contradictory to say that someone is not too old to work but is too old to volunteer.

Volunteers may start their community involvement only late in their lives. They should be given the opportunities to serve for an appropriate amount of time. I do agree in leadership renewal but restrictions on leadership tenure should be based on time served and not age.

It is clear that volunteers help to shape our society and country into a better place. They make time, despite their busy schedules and out of the goodness of their heart, to help others. If a senior volunteer's age does not hinder his or her performance in any way, there is no reason why they should be discouraged from continuing their good work.

We should be rewarding them instead for their kindness and desire to give back to our society. In the same spirit of this Bill, senior volunteers should not be discriminated against and we should similarly take a strong stand on this.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our workforce is ageing rapidly. There is an urgency to review our retirement and re-employment, or R&R, framework to prolong our workforce's longevity. This is important to drive economic activity.

As our seniors live longer and healthier lives, their expectations for living standards will increase. Raising the R&R ages makes it possible for seniors to stay productive and enjoy greater financial independence.

However, it is not uncommon to hear stories of seniors facing difficulties seeking employment in their silver years. I have five issues to raise.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must ensure that senior workers are employed in meaningful roles. These would be jobs that match their skill sets, experiences or interests.

It is heartening to note that the employment rate of those aged 65 and above has increased from 27.6% in 2019 to 28.5% in 2020 despite a pandemic-ravaged economy. However, we need to go beyond numbers to get more insights into the employment landscape for seniors.

Can the Minister share data on the types of professions and roles that seniors are employed in? How many were successfully re-employed in different sectors from their previous roles? How many were re-employed in the same sector but in different roles?

From my conversations on the ground, I understand that many employees who have reach the retirement age are actually not re-employed. Others were constructively dismissed by employers who deliberately reduce their working hours, responsibilities and consequently, their salary and benefits without prior consultation. This indirectly pressurised the senior to leave on his own accord.

One Yio Chu Kang resident who was in a managerial position shared that he was asked to relinquish his position so that the company could groom a younger employee to take over. He thought this was a fair intention but he expected to take on a mentorship role. Instead, they offered him an entry-level position that was completely unrelated to his previous job scope, skill set and interest. Feeling insulted, he decided to resign and accept the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). It was worth noting that his HR manager did not even ask why he rejected the re-employment offer.

When re-employment does not work out, getting a new job after 62 can be a tall order due to the misconceived notion that older employees are less productive, amongst other things.

In a February 2020 survey on ageism in the workplace, older workers were stereotypically ranked lower in alertness, ambition, productivity and so on. They were ranked higher in susceptibility to accidents and resistance to innovation and change.

These findings are not true across the board. They can severely dampen seniors' employability. Such beliefs may likewise ingrain ageism. They may lead seniors to sense that age, by default, limits opportunities. This stiffens their morale and desire to retrain or upskill for career advancement.

It is interesting to note that a highlight of the MOM Labour Force Report 2020 was the increased number of discouraged workers concentrated in older residents. If employers do not change their mindsets, we will lose precious human capital.

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, both employers and employees need to adjust their mindsets and expectations about re-employment. Many companies still use a seniority-based wage system, translating to the belief that wages should rise annually. Correspondingly, older employees are perceived by employers to be more expensive. Last year, middle-aged and senior residents who have lost their jobs would tell me that they were more than willing to accept a pay cut for their new job. However, prospective employers have assumed otherwise, simply because of their age.

The mindset that a wage system is necessarily based on age needs to be phased out. This is especially so in this era, where we expect to change careers multiple times in a lifetime. When we start a new job in a different industry with fewer responsibilities and relevant skills, we, generally, do not expect to command a similar salary to our previous job. Likewise, if a re-employment contract stipulates fewer job responsibilities, it is fair for the salary and benefits to be reduced correspondingly. Basically, we should pay an employee based on his worth.

On the other hand, changing someone’s responsibilities without consulting them in advance may result in unnecessary misunderstandings and misconceptions. Companies should be upfront and discuss such issues with employees who are due for re-employment and ask about their plans and aspirations moving forward. The employee should also be consulted on his or her ability to cope with the demands of the position. If the company would like to offer the employee a different role, clarifying their intentions would go a long way to reduce misgivings and increase retention rates. There must be a way to implement and promote these conversations for all our employers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my third point pertains to the timeline for raising the retirement age. The timeline from now until 2030 appears to be unnecessarily prolonged. Many things can happen in 10 years. The decision to raise the retirement age to 63 was deferred once because of COVID-19. How can we ensure that the plans to raise the R&R ages will not be affected yet again? As many companies will look to the Government to take reference, what is the timeline for the Civil Service to implement the raise?

Furthermore, what is next beyond 70 years old? Will we raise the ages again? Or will we abolish the retirement age altogether? A number of countries, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the US, have no mandatory retirement age, with exceptions made for certain professions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my next point is on the impact of COVID-19 on workforce transformation. This has an impact on the R&R framework. One such change is the acceptance of flexible working hours and arrangements. Some seniors may choose to work less or work from home more, because they want to spend their retirement years with their family or to pursue their own interests. Others may no longer be fit to work long hours at a stretch, but are still willing to contribute. We should capitalise on workforce transformation to encourage and support employees who have job-sharing and flexible working hours as part of their re-employment options. Have such workforce changes been taken into account for the R&R framework revision?

The pandemic has posed a threat to senior workers in some ways. Some elderly frontline workers have resigned from their jobs as they were afraid to contract COVID-19. We have to press on to leverage more on technology to redesign jobs, so that they are less labour-intensive and can be done remotely. This will increase job inclusiveness, so they can be done with reduced risks and lower demands physically or mentally. I am pleased to note that redesigning jobs at the workplace is among the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers recommendations. Can the Minister share more details about this? Specifically, whether there is a specific timeline for the expected progress and what can employees expect from the redesigned jobs?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my last point is on CPF payouts and contributions. Many of my senior residents are concerned about the impact of raising the retirement age on CPF payouts and Silver Support. They worry that if the retirement age was to go up further, so, too, will the CPF withdrawal age and Silver Support Scheme eligibility age. This worries the lower-income residents, who have less confidence in achieving the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) by 65. Will the Government increase the BRS? The current recommendations only mentioned the BRS until 2022. What will it be in 2023 and beyond? Furthermore, what are the Government’s plans to assist lower-income Singaporeans to achieve the BRS?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, raising the R&R ages must be accompanied by policies and mindset changes. This is to support Singaporeans to stay in the workforce for as long as they desire. In Yio Chu Kang, I spoke to two residents, both 62 years old and currently employed. Mdm A would consider putting off retirement plans, if her working hours can be reduced. She wants to spend more time with her family and her grandchildren and pursue her interest in calligraphy. The additional income from her part-time work would supplement her retirement savings. On the other hand, another resident, Mr B, wants to continue working full-time to accumulate more retirement funds. He is concerned that his employer would not re-employ him on the same terms as before. He works in an office and does not believe his workload should be reduced or changed because of his age.

The difference in attitudes between both seniors is a reminder that there is no one-size-fits-all policy. As a progressive society that strives for a senior-friendly workforce, we must avail more employment options so that seniors like Mdm A would not have to choose between working full-time and leaving the workforce completely. Meanwhile, seniors like Mr B, should be able to contribute their fullest potential to the workforce for as long as they wish. This would be facilitated by raising the R&R ages. Their fears and anxieties about age discrimination are valid. We must continue to engage employers, with the goal of eradicating ageism. Employers, too, must communicate with their employees to understand their wishes and to bring out the best in their senior workers.

Finally, as our workforce becomes older and more age-diverse, we need to encourage Singaporeans to continue working and to contribute meaningfully to society for as long as possible. We need to keep the support structures and the assurance that they will receive their CPF payouts. Retirement should not become a problem but, rather, a milestone to look forward to. I support the Bills.