Rejections of COVID-19 Support Grant Applications Due To Inability to Produce Retrenchment Letters

Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 Support Grant (CSG) supports lower to middle income resident employees who, as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19, are: (a) involuntarily unemployed due to retrenchment or contract termination; (b) placed on involuntary no-pay leave for at least three consecutive months; or (c) experiencing reduced monthly salary of at least 30% for at least three consecutive months.

As of 20 December 2020, MSF had approved the CSG for around 95,000 applicants, including around 15,000 applicants who received the CSG upon appeal. There were about 4,000 applicants who were rejected from the CSG as their employment details could not be verified by MSF. When the applicants do not have supporting documents or CPF records, we would try to contact their employers.

However, MSF does not track the number of applicants whose applications were rejected for the specific reason of not being able to produce retrenchment letters from their employers. We recognise that some applicants might have been unable to do so due to reasons beyond their control. For example, the companies they were working for might have closed down without issuing them any termination letters. In such instances, MSF would verify their employment status by checking their CPF records or contacting their former employers.

Applicants who claim to have resigned involuntarily due to pressure from their employers could appeal to the Social Service Office. As part of the assessment process, we would consider supporting evidence from the appellants, such as their correspondence with their former employers. We would also consider if appellants had extenuating circumstances, or link them up to other assistance schemes, if necessary.

Application for the CSG has closed on 31 December 2020. MSF will launch the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) on 18 January 2021 to support lower to middle income employees and self-employed persons who are financially impacted by COVID-19 in 2021. Similar to CSG, those who genuinely are unable to produce documents for CRG and need help, can approach our Social Service Office for assistance.

Fifteen thousand, okay. The question I wanted to ask was motivated by the fact that many residents come to Meet-the-People Session or MPS. These are low-wage workers who were not able to produce either termination or retrenchment letters, and their involuntary loss of jobs was deemed or seen as voluntary because there was this concern that they wanted to preserve the goodwill with their employers in order to safeguard their future job prospects within the same industry.

So, if the policy here is to cater for involuntary job loss, we do need to have some empathy for circumstances where it is not so clear-cut.

Based on that, would the Ministry be open to give the SSOs discretion to process these cases at the frontline, without necessarily having the applicants go through an appeal process, given their bandwidth tax and also the fact many low-wage workers depend on these payouts for some of their basic needs. So, the question is, can the SSOs at the frontline have the discretion to approve this kind of suspected involuntary but appears voluntary applications, so that we can reduce the bandwidth tax on applicants for the COVID-19 Recovery Grant in the new year?

I thank the Member for her question and I fully appreciate the example she has provided of low-wage workers who may find themselves in a situation that she has shared.

In my earlier reply, I had shared that as part of the assessment process, that we would consider supporting evidence from the appellants, such as whatever correspondence, whatever nature it is – WhatsApp, a letter, an email or it could even be something handwritten, documents of correspondence that they have between themselves and their employers. The SSO would verify those documents. The intention of the SSO, at the end of the day, is to help those who are applying for the CSG. It is with the intent of trying to provide help, rather than trying to withhold help.

But, regardless, the point stands that, at the end of the day, the grant is from taxpayers' money and we have to be accountable for it. That is why the SSO has to verify: correspondence that the resident provides, any document that they provide, it would be thoroughly investigated, looked into. The SSOs would also go to the extent of contacting the former employer, which is what I have shared.

I would like to assure the Member that the SSO does want to help the resident. Another number that I would provide is that 97% of appeals have been successful for the CSG. I think that gives you some assurance that the intent is to help residents who face difficulty in these trying times.