Number of CPF Members Aged 65-67 Still in Employment and Review of Dependants' Protection Scheme to Increase Age Limit of 65

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower for each year in the past three years, what is the number of CPF members below the age of 65 whose Dependants' Protection Scheme coverage has lapsed due to non-payment of premium.

As of 2024, 94,500, or 33% of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members aged 65 to 67, are in employment. We regularly review the DPS to ensure that it remains relevant to members.

In 2021, we raised the maximum age coverage of the DPS from 60 to 65. In taking this decision, we sought to strike a balance between providing insurance protection for members’ dependants for a longer period, while at the same time, ensuring the adequacy of members' retirement savings. Raising the maximum coverage age beyond 65 would result in higher premiums due to higher mortality rates after age 65 and consequentially, would reduce members' savings for retirement.

The DPS lapse rates have held quite steady and low, at less than 0.2% in the past three years. All members will receive notifications via both SMS and mail if their CPF balances are insufficient and they can opt to pay their DPS premiums in cash. Members who have lapsed on their premium payments are given at least 60 days of payment grace period and a final notice before the DPS coverage is terminated. Those who wish to re-join the scheme can subsequently still apply to Great Eastern Life, which is the current administrator of DPS to do so.

Thank you, Minister, for your responses. I have three supplementary questions to my first Parliamentary Question and one supplementary question to my second Parliamentary Question.

On coverage for seniors above 65, my supplementary questions would be – I understand that there are implications in terms of premium cost, but more seniors are remaining in the workforce beyond 65. In fact, our own Re-employment Age has moved to 67. And they are supporting dependants, both children as well as seniors, with our increased life expectancy. So, would the Minister consider the current age limit to remain appropriate and fit-for-purpose, given the current realities?

Two, could the Minister share what actuarial studies have been done on the feasibility of extending DPS coverage to align with the current Re-employment Age and what the implications might there be for premiums? How much of an increase are we talking about?

And thirdly, if a broad-based approach is too costly, could the Minister consider more targeted approaches or optional DPS extension, perhaps at a higher premium? Because I think of the cost of not having coverage, if something bad happens and DPS is a great scheme. It would be great for those who are still in employment to benefit from it.

On the Parliamentary Question on non-payment, I appreciate the data that there is only 0.2%, which is quite comforting. Does the Minister have insights on the reason for non-payment? Is it mostly due to financial difficulties or is it lack of awareness? The Minister mentioned that members could apply, so, I am glad to know that there are grace periods. Could the Minister also consider additional safeguards, in terms of premium assistance and more flexible reinstatement arrangements to support people who really need it?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I think there are a total of six supplementary questions; three for each one of the Parliamentary Questions. I will try to address all of them.

For above 65 coverage, alongside what actuarial studies have been done to align with the Re-employment Age and the suggestion of targeted approach, we are indeed considering this. As I have said, we constantly review these. At the next bound, some of the measures that we are looking at to see how we can align the coverage with the potential raising of that retirement age to 65 before 2030 and the Re-employment Age to 70 before 2030 – certainly, these are things that we will look at across, as a package.

I think the actuarial studies done thus far have shown that the premiums do go up quite disproportionately if we try to extend the cover beyond 65. But with the very fact that we are also rapidly ageing and the age of the workforce is also getting there, if we have a sizeable pool, looking at how that pooling of that premium can be spread across, I think extending coverage is certainly something that we are open to considering. We have not stopped reviewing this framework because we want to try to provide for the coverage for as long as possible. But we always have to balance between sustainability, affordability and also, ensuring that there is a sufficient sum left behind for the members to tap on when they are finally eligible for that payout, at age of 65 or 70, depending on how they choose.

With regard to the Member's point on non-payment, for those members whose DPS coverage has lapsed, about 75% of them are aged above 55 years old. Many of them are no longer working, or they were self-employed persons before. Thus, they do not have Ordinary Account contributions which could be used to pay for those premiums. And for those whose DPS coverage lapsed as of 31 December 2022, around 40% of them have reinstated or they have started new cover as of 31 December 2024. So, this has to be taken against the broader numbers. Today, there are over two million Singaporeans and Permanent Residents who are covered under DPS. And amongst the active CPF members between the ages of 21 and 65, 86% are covered under DPS. So, that number, that 75%, is of that 16% that we are really talking about. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister for Manpower", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Correction By Written Statement section.]

There are obviously different types of assistance schemes that are available. Many of these members can also reach out to some of the social agencies to see what kind of help can be rolled out to them. What we are trying to do is to ensure that we can cover as broad-based a scheme as possible for all members if possible, but it would not be possible to cover every single one of them.