Model ID: cee562ad-2919-4b2a-a1a1-32b2e8b2d545
Sitecore Context Id: cee562ad-2919-4b2a-a1a1-32b2e8b2d545;
Introduction
Mr Speaker Sir, the topic of the Central Provident Fund is a central one 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.
Improving Accessibility to Retirement Account with Auto Top-up Function
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 is to be an important first step towards a more user friendly and accessible CPF.
Simplifying Language for Approachability and Effectiveness
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 we do not lose nuances that protect the same people that we have set 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.
Clarification on Definition of ‘Significant Conditions’
More specifically, I am concerned with the new definition of ‘significant conditions’ in inclusion for the purposes of s 15 and the new s 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 Speaker, this isn’t a matter of mere semantics. Rather, there are two issues from this change that 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 CPFs 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. That 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, thinks 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 Speaker, in Mandarin please. 不知道大家是否曾经和爸妈讨论过储蓄这件事？对于许多前辈的居民们，最好的银行叫做《床底下》，最可靠的退休金叫做《私房钱》。相信在座的各位对于现代金融的矛盾都略有感触。
但是对银行提款机素不相识的Uncle Auntie 而言，很多对公积金并没有感到反感，恐慌。 这并不是因为公积金比银行系统更容易操作，或比银行可靠。相反的，对许多人民公积金繁琐的程度值得我们退思补过。
对于他们而言，公积金的不同之处在于信任。他们相信政府的品德，政府的诚信，政府的一诺千金。中央公积金局沉重的包袱里装的何止是钱，更是民众血汗和信任交织而成 的结晶。
这次的修正案为 自动充值机制，为Uncle Auntie 和许多国人打造更亲民、更方便的公积金。但我们不能固步自封，而是必须加快脚步，让公积金成为推动有尊严、没压力的退休生活的主轴。
Conclusion
Mr 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.
