Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.

6.21 pm

The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I now move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has assessed that there is no conflict of interest for Members holding Singtel shares to participate in this debate and to vote on the Bill. In the interest of transparency, I declare that I am a holder of Singtel Special Discounted Shares (Singtel SDS) as a Central Provident Fund (CPF) member.

The CPF is a key pillar of Singapore's social security system and has been updated over the years to meet our members' changing needs and ensure its continued effectiveness. This Bill is one such effort. It updates a legacy arrangement by enabling the transfer of Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to the Central Depository (CDP) accounts of SDS holders. This will benefit SDS holders by enabling them to manage their shares directly.

The SDS scheme was introduced in 1993 to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore's economic success through share ownership. During Singtel's initial public offering (IPO) that year, where 11% of its total shares were traded for the first time, CPF members were offered the opportunity to buy Singtel shares at a discounted price using their CPF savings, first in 1993 and again in 1996. This was an option given to CPF members. And though it was not compulsory, many chose to take this up.

At that time, many CPF members were unfamiliar with share ownership. Hence, to support them, the CPF Board was appointed as the trustee to facilitate these purchases. Since then, these Singtel SDS have been held in CDP accounts under CPF Board's trusteeship.

The landscape has since evolved. Today, Singaporeans are more financially savvy and familiar with share ownership. Many have their own CDP accounts and are experienced in trading shares.

Over the years, the SDS scheme has benefited many CPF members, the youngest of whom are now above 50 years old. In 1993 and 1996, SDS holders were able to buy their Singtel SDS with an upfront discount. Those who held on to their shares also received loyalty shares equal to 40% of their initial holdings, along with regular dividends.

Prior to the start of this exercise in April, there were around 615,000 SDS holders, whose SDS holdings collectively represented less than 5% of Singtel's total shareholdings. The median SDS holder had around 1,360 shares that were worth about $6,800 in equity value.

In other words, every $100 invested back then would have accumulated about $600 in dividends and equity value to date. This does not include the interest earned on those dividends. In fact, their total dividends received alone would have exceeded both the CPF savings used to purchase the Singtel SDS and the interest they would have otherwise received in their CPF Ordinary Account.

Following the Singtel Group's proposal to transfer the Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to SDS holders, MOM and the CPF Board consulted relevant agencies to assess the proposal's impact on SDS holders and whether this would be beneficial to CPF members.

The SDS scheme has already achieved its intent of building up assets of CPF members. The legacy arrangement where the CPF Board is the trustee for members' SDS is no longer necessary, given that Singaporeans are more financially savvy and familiar with share ownership. Amongst the current Singtel SDS holders, close to three in five now have their own individual CDP accounts.

With the transfer, SDS holders can hold and manage their shares directly. They will also benefit indirectly as the Singtel Group will have greater flexibility to carry out corporate actions in a timely manner for them.

We have worked and will continue to work with the relevant parties, including MAS and SGX, to ensure a smooth transfer. This includes availing options to SDS holders to ensure that their interests are protected and allowing them the flexibility to decide how they would want to manage their Singtel SDS moving forward.

Let me now outline the options available to SDS holders.

For those who prefer to keep their Singtel SDS, no action is required. The Bill amends the CPF Act to effect the automatic transfer of the shares to CDP accounts under the respective SDS holders' names, thereby ensuring that the process is seamless for SDS holders. The transfer is planned for November 2026.

For the three in five who have their own individual CDP accounts, also known as direct accounts in the Bill, we will automatically transfer their Singtel SDS to their individual CDP accounts. This consolidates all Singtel shares of an SDS holder into one account, making it easier for the holder to monitor and manage their shares.

For the remaining two in five who do not have CDP accounts, we will automatically transfer their Singtel SDS to designated CDP accounts under their respective names, also known as "designated shares account", in the Bill. This account will be created specifically to only hold Singtel SDS and its related entitlements.

Singtel SDS in designated CDP accounts will remain under the SDS scheme, which means that these SDS holders will largely continue to receive similar treatment and support as they do today. They will continue to receive future dividends in their CPF Ordinary Accounts. If they sell their Singtel SDS at any point of time in the future, they can opt to receive the sale proceeds either in their CPF Ordinary Accounts or in cash.

For SDS holders who prefer not to retain their Singtel SDS, they may choose to sell and receive their sale proceeds either in their CPF Ordinary Account or in cash.

Given that the SDS scheme has achieved its objective of allowing SDS holders to benefit and share in Singapore's development, the CPF Board has reviewed its rules and decided to allow those who sell their SDS to withdraw their proceeds in cash if they wish to do so without having met CPF withdrawal conditions.

We have effected this from 8 April 2026 through subsidiary legislation amendments. Those who wish to keep their proceeds in their CPF Ordinary Accounts to earn higher interest may continue to do so.

SDS holders have ample time of around seven months to decide if they want to sell their shares before the planned transfer in November. Those who do not wish to make a decision now will still have the option to sell at any one point in time in the future, including after the transfer exercise.

We have worked with CPF Board and Singtel Group to reach out to all SDS holders regarding the proposed transfer. All SDS holders would have received a hard copy notification letter in April 2026, issued jointly by the CPF Board and Singtel Group. It informs them of their Singtel SDS holdings, the options available to them and where they can seek clarifications and assistance.

Dedicated touchpoints have been set up to assist SDS holders on enquiries and sales. These span multiple channels, including a dedicated hotline, website, SingPost branches and CPF service centres across Singapore. SDS holders who wish to sell can do so either online, in-person at SingPost branches or through select SGX brokers.

In addition, we have identified over 20,000 SDS holders who may require greater assistance. We will conduct targeted outreach to help them understand their options. We have also put in place safeguards to help protect all SDS holders from potential scams.

Through these efforts, SDS holders will be able to make an informed decision as to which option best meets their needs, while ensuring that whichever option they choose – either to sell or to keep their shares – the process is kept simple and safe.

Allow me to conclude. The objective of the SDS scheme has already been achieved. CPF members who have purchased the discounted Singtel SDS have made significant gains over the years. This Bill updates a legacy arrangement by transferring Singtel SDS from CPF Board to individual CDP accounts or designated CDP accounts of SDS holders, thus allowing those who prefer to keep their Singtel SDS, to hold and manage their shares directly. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

6.32 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The transfer of Singtel SDS from CPF Board to SDS holders' CDP closes a chapter of a scheme that helped ordinary working Singaporeans build up assets, not just get by. I declare my interest as an SDS holder. I welcome the move to waive CPF withdrawal conditions for sale proceeds, so SDS holders, especially those who may need the money for daily needs or healthcare, have more flexibility.

About 615,000 SDS holders will be affected by this transfer. The median SDS holder paid about $2,000 for the shares; they are worth about $6,800 as at April and have received about $5,000 in cumulative dividends. These are not abstract numbers. This is real money that can help a worker's family and make retirement a bit more secure. That is why we must make this transition safe, simple and supportive.

SDS was a simple but powerful idea: give Singaporeans a stake in our economy through share ownership. In other words, it helped workers turn wages into wealth, step by step, over time.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

In the 1990s, Singapore was in a period of rapid growth and optimism. Today, the pressures are different: job insecurity, higher costs and longer retirements. For many workers, the worry is straightforward, can I still make ends meet today and have enough for tomorrow? As SDS comes to an end, we should renew a worker-first promise: growth must translate into security, and no Singaporean should be left behind simply because they are less financially confident.

SDS worked because CPF Board served as a trustee, putting guardrails in place for first-generation retail investors, many of whom were workers with little experience in the markets. Today, more Singaporeans invest. But a worker-first approach means we must still ask: who may be left behind, especially the older workers and those with lower financial literacy? We cannot build a "me first" economy where only the savvy benefit.

Looking ahead, are there plans to refresh broad-based ownership models, like SDS, so that as Singapore invests heavily in artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies, workers can benefit – not just through wages, but also by sharing in the upside? I welcome the earlier Budget announcement on enabling long-term investment, and potentially stronger returns for CPF members.

On the transfer exercise, I have three practical points to raise.

First, on selling. After the shares are moved into CDP accounts, some holders may end up with odd lots. Will this make it harder for them to sell without topping up? What guidance will CPF Board provide to help SDS holders transact smoothly and avoid unnecessary costs? I believe there will be sales charges if they want to sell their shares now, or in the future when it is ported over to their CDP account. Will these sale charges be higher than what they enjoy today when held via CPF Board?

Second, on safeguards. Scams will follow wherever money is involved. Many SDS holders are older, indeed, the youngest are in their 50s, and about half are 65 and above. A worker-first approach must also be a senior-safe approach. What measures are in place to protect them from scammers who may exploit this entire transfer exercise? Does CPF Board expect an uptick in related scams and how will it pre-empt them?

Third, on communications. I note CPF Board has sent notification letters, set up a dedicated hotline and conducted door-to-door visits for vulnerable SDS holders. Will CPF Board also notify SDS holders with clear anti-scam advisories, whether via SMS or any other means, especially with emerging modus operandi by scammers? This is so that the message reaches them properly and reduces confusion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with these questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

6.37 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, at the outset, let me state that the objective of this Bill, which seeks to provide Singaporeans with greater flexibility and ownership over their Singtel shares that they hold in their CPF accounts, is a good one. The SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993 and many Singaporeans who bought shares under the scheme would be seniors now.

The proposed transfer would enable SDS holders who hold shares in their individual CDP accounts to consolidate all their holdings and make it easier for them to track and trade these shares. This is a positive move. However, there are several aspects of the implementation that warrants closer scrutiny.

First, more than two in five SDS holders do not have individual accounts. I would like to ask why the Government has chosen to create designated CDP accounts for the sole purpose of holding Singtel SDS for these SDS holders, instead of simply seeking the consent of SDS holders to create standard individual CDP accounts and transfer the SDS into these accounts for them? A designated account appears to be a workaround rather than a fully empowering solution. If the policy intent is to give shareholders true ownership and control, then enabling them to hold these shares in regular individual CDP accounts would seem more consistent with the goal.

Second, I note that only a select list of brokers has been authorised to facilitate the sale of these shares. What is the rationale behind limiting participation to this group? In today's market, there is a wide range of brokerage platforms offering competitive commission rates lower than the commission rates currently cited for selling Singtel SDS. Currently, the commission rates are 0.24%, if the shares are sold through Philips Securities, or a flat fee of $17.95 cents if sold through SingPost.

Meanwhile, low-cost brokers in the market offer rates as low as 0.03%, or even flat fees of around $1 to $2. Why were these lower-cost options not included in the list of approved brokers? By allowing SDS shareholders to sell their shares only from a short list of brokers, competition may be reduced. This may, in turn, disadvantage shareholders, especially those who are already unfamiliar with accessing financial services.

Additionally, senior SDS holders with mobility issues or limited digital savviness are only able to authorise a third party to sell the Singtel SDS on their behalf at SingPost branches. The flat fee of $17.95 charged for this transaction may represent a large proportion of sale proceeds for SDS holders who hold small quantities of shares.

Half of the SDS holders own less than 1,360 shares, or a shareholding of less than approximately $6,000. For those small holdings, these fees will materially erode the value realised. Will the Government consider waiving the fees for the very elderly SDS holders that are selling only small amounts of shares through SingPost, so that they can unlock their holdings for use during their golden years at no cost?

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

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. Not here. Mr Louis Chua.

6.41 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the CPF (Amendment) Bill introduced today marks the closure of an important chapter in the history of Singapore's social security system. Specifically, it facilitates the transfer of Singtel SDS from the CPF Board through the CDP accounts of over 615,000 Singaporeans.

The Workers' Party supports this Bill. Even as Singtel may stand to benefit from the scheme through an easing of its administrative requirements and the ease of undertaking future corporate actions to enhance its own shareholder value, ultimately, Singaporeans will benefit from such an exercise.

However, the closure of the Singtel SDS scheme also presents a timely opportunity to reflect on its successes, its inconsistencies and the broader question of how we truly enable Singaporeans to have a tangible stake in our nation's wealth.

Before I proceed, I wish to declare that I am not old enough to obviously have SDS shares, but I do have regular Singtel shares.

To understand the unique and what appears to be a one-off Singtel SDS scheme, we must look back at what then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated as the goal of his Government – to make Singapore a share-owning society. A statement by Singtel on its website explains it best: that the SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993, as part of the Government's efforts to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore's economic success through share ownership.

On this note, the 1993 and 1996 SDS exercises were arguably ahead of its time in inclusive wealth creation. By offering shares at a massive discount as low as $1.90 for the ST "A" shares in 1993, and $2.50 for the ST2 shares in 1996, the Government ensured that even the smallest retail investor was in the money from day one. This was by design, and then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated the 45% generous discount was to encourage long-term share ownership.

The illustration, as shared by the CPF board in Singtel is clear – for the median SDS holder with approximately 1,360 Singtel SDS shares, a $2,000 investment in Singtel SDS has grown into nearly $12,000 in total value today, comprising $5,000 in cumulative dividends and $6,800 worth of shares as at 1 April 2026.

In contrast, had that same $2,000 remain in the CPF Ordinary Account, earning a base interest of 2.5%, it will be worth only approximately $4,500 today, a mere 38% of the value of the SDS shares, or in other words, the SDS has outperformed the CPF Ordinary Account by a factor of 2.6 times. For many Singaporeans, especially those approaching retirement, this kicker is a vital addition to their requirement adequacy.

Mr Speaker, I have several broad clarifications on this Bill.

First, I note that under section 26E(2) of the Bill, while shares remain in the designated shares account, dividends and sale proceeds must be returned to the CPF Board. However, once the shares are transferred to a direct CDP account and sold, the funds do not need to be returned to the CPF. This is a departure from the standard CPF investment scheme, where sale proceeds must typically be returned to the CPF account.

While I am supportive of this arrangement, what is the Government's rationale for why the SDS proceeds are treated differently? Furthermore, the amount withdrawn for SDS does not require the payment of accrued interest upon sale. This highlights a glaring inconsistency in our system. Why is it that when a Singaporean uses his or her CPF savings for a home, which the Government has called an appreciating asset and a store of value, they must pay back the principle plus accrued interest. Yet, for a CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) investments, no such requirements exists.

The Government's long-standing justification is that this safeguards retirement adequacy. To quote from the frequently asked question (FAQ) section on the CPF Board's website, "refunding both the principal amount and accrued interest ensures your retirement savings are fully restored to what they would have been if they had remained in your CPF account. Without this refund, your retirement funds would be permanently reduced."

Yet, from a financial investment under the CPFIS, which is arguably more volatile and which the Government has itself noted in the past, underperforms the 2.5% Ordinary Account rate for many CPF members, no such accrued interest is clawed back. Is the Government suggesting that housing is a value-destructive asset that will ultimately permanently reduce the value of one's retirement savings due to its leasehold nature, while financial investments are value appreciating and bear less risk of endangering our retirement funds? I hope the Minister can clarify the policy logic behind the distinction.

Returning to former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally speech in 1992, I note that, in the addition to Singtel, a company was to be set up to run the electricity and gas departments of the PUB, which I believe is now corporatised as the SP Group, and remains wholly owned by Temasek Holdings today. Emeritus State Minister Goh went on further to say that the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) will be corporatised and publicly listed. These are well-run profitable enterprises. Their shares will appreciate as long as Singapore continues to be stable and prosperous and good management is in charge of the companies. Fast forward to today, SMRT was listed and then privatised by Temasek Holdings subsequently, but there was no SDS. PSA was never listed, and its real estate arm, Mapletree Investments, continue to be private as well.

In 1994, after the listing of Singtel, former President Mr Ong Teng Cheong even shared in his President's Address, "The Singapore Telecom flotation was a resounding success: 1.4 million citizens bought Group A shares. Significantly, people are holding on to them as long term investments instead of selling them immediately for quick profit. Other major privatisations will follow Singapore Telecom. The next likely one will be the PUB electricity and gas departments in two to three years' time. The Government will use these privatisations to enhance the assets of Singaporeans."

The automated creation of CDP accounts under section 26C is a commendable administrative move and could serve as a blueprint for future Government-led asset transfers. However, I am concerned that the closure of the SDS scheme signals an end to the share-owning society vision.

As a Member of Parliament who was only in primary school back then, will the Minister enlighten me on what happened to all these bold and attractive plans to enhance the assets of Singaporeans? Why was it that there was only one SDS scheme? Does the Minister and the Government not see the value and enhancement to Singaporeans' retirement savings with the SDS scheme?

As I have shared in my past speeches, we can give this current generation of Singaporeans a stake in the country via a meaningful IPO of the next wave of various private companies held by Temasek and encourage them to list on the Singapore Stock Exchange to fulfil the promises set more than 30 years ago. The Government will also be leading by example as part of its suite of measures under the recently introduced Equities Market Development Programme.

More importantly, the point here is not just about a one-off distribution of shares and a discount to Singaporeans whenever a company goes to an IPO. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not about one-off handouts. It is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth.

The middle 20% of households have the majority of their household wealth in property equity, followed by 33% in net CPF balances and only 14% in other financial equity. If you want to generate real net worth for Singaporeans and provide a legacy for their children, you must move beyond being property asset rich but cash poor.

I suggest the Government consider a Temasek or GIC for every Singaporean model. Imagine if every newborn was given a small share in a diversified portfolio held until retirement, similar to what my hon friend, Mr Andre Low, shared in this year's Committee of Supply debates. He proposed that Singapore study the introduction of a baby bond, a universal state endowed account opened automatically at birth, invested in a diversified low-cost portfolio over 18 years. This will not only provide a financial safety net but also foster a generation of financially literate citizens who understand the value of a long-term strategic investment and who have an interest and a stake in national policy.

Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in 1993, Singtel was officially listed as a public company and the Government launched the SDS scheme, allowing citizens to share in the nation's economic gains through broad-based share ownership. I was only six years old that year. More than 30 years on, at 39, I have only now come to truly appreciate the historical significance and importance of that scheme.

A $2,000 CPF investment made at the time has grown to a total value of nearly $12,000 today, including $5,000 in accumulated dividends. For many Singaporeans, this represents a substantial contribution to their retirement savings, and more importantly, it is more than twice the return that would have been earned by leaving the money in a CPF Ordinary Account at 2.5% interest. Had the Government fulfilled its promise to extend similar discounted share schemes to companies, such as PUB, SMRT and PSA, would our retirement security be considerably more robust today?

What I wish to emphasise today, however, is that we cannot remain confined to a framework of waiting for the Government to occasionally distribute "one-off" discounted shares or vouchers. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not a call for "handouts" or "red packets" from the Government – it is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth.

It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving what it truly means to keep wealth among the people.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.

6.52 pm

Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party (PAP) Government has consistently shared the fruits of our nation's success with our own people. The Singtel SDS scheme, which we are wrapping up today, is one such example. There were others over the years in different forms, such as the New Singapore Shares, the Progress Package and Growth Dividends. These are not simple handouts. They are expressions of a social compact. More than a social distribution, they represent the sharing of the nation's success with our citizens, reminders that we all have a stake in the Singapore story.

But our fiscal landscape is changing. We face structural shifts in our society that are both inevitable and expensive: an ageing population, rising healthcare and social spending, massive investments required for climate resilience. This increases structural pressures mean we cannot rely on Budget surpluses to fund this kind of generous redistribution we saw in previous years.

Yet, we must recognise this. Each generation, having contributed to this nation in turn, also deserves to partake in the fruits of their labour. I was actually asked this question: what are the Singtel SDS shares of our generation? I leave this as a philosophical question for the House to ponder.

Sir, I am convinced that the CPF Board is well prepared for this transfer exercise. On the operational aspects, I believe we are in good hands. Instead of the how, I would like to touch on the why.

The amendment before us facilitates the transfer of SDS from the CPF Board to the CDP. There are no issues there. But crucially, for this transfer exercise, CPF withdrawal conditions will be waived and shareholders have the option of withdrawing proceeds in cash. This is a significant departure from how we have always approached the CPF, a system built on the tight discipline to ensure long-term retirement adequacy.

For years, the fundamental covenant of the CPF system has been clear. Funds utilised from CPF must be returned to the CPF. By allowing a direct cash-out today, we are departing from this long-standing principle. We have upheld CPF principles for decades for good reasons. Are there sufficient reasons to depart from them now? The reason given that the scheme has met its original intent does not fully answer the question.

We must remember these Singtel shares are originally purchased using CPF monies. The default expectation has always been clear. Proceeds will be returned to CPF accounts upon sale. That was the understanding from the outset.

Nor can we rely on the reasoning of simplifying "direct ownership" under the CDP because even under the transfer plan, specially designated CDP accounts for those who do not already have one. These accounts are under the shareholders' names but restricted in function to only handle transactions and profits from SDS shares and proceeds from those special CDP accounts are automatically channelled back to CPF by default. So, clearly, a path to return funds from CDP to the CPF directly already exists.

Sir, I must make clear here. This is not about trying to meddle in what people do with their own money. It is about protecting the rules of the system that has served us well. By opening this door, will there be further calls for waivers and exceptions under other circumstances for cash-out? This is also about protecting our most financially vulnerable senior citizens.

I understand that SDS shareholders and now in their 50s and above. They are already eligible to withdraw a portion of CPF savings at age 55. For those who met their retirement funds, these proceeds are merely an additional bonus. Even if this bonus ends up back into their CPF, they would still have been able to take this additional sum in cash anyway.

I understand all these, but I have reservations for the shareholders who have not even met their basic retirement fund. This is really about them. The media reported about 20,000 members with low CPF balances and no CDP accounts. For them, these shares are not simply a "bonus". They may form an important part of their retirement adequacy.

By allowing this cash-out waiver, we must ask ourselves: are we unintentionally encouraging those who can least afford it to drawdown on retirement savings too early, especially as the Basic Retirement Sum raises to $110,200 this year. Would it not be safer for sale proceeds to return to CPF by default as has always been the practice. This would continue protecting retirement adequacy for members who have already met their retirement needs could still choose to withdraw their monies in cash.

Sir, I fully appreciate that for some seniors, these proceeds may help with immediate daily expenses and household needs. Different households will have different realities and priorities.

I also appreciate that some members may prefer to retain flexibility through their Ordinary Account, particularly for housing, healthcare, education or other long-term financial needs. These are entirely understandable consideration. But I strongly encourage those members who have not yet met their Basic Retirement Sum, if their circumstances allow, to consider transferring part or all of their proceeds back into their CPF.

I would also like to offer a tip for those who decide to do so. For those who have not met the Basic Retirement Sum, please check your eligibility for the Matched Savings Retirement Scheme (MRSS). Under MRSS, every dollar voluntarily topped up to $2,000 a year, will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Government. So, for shareholders who do not urgently need to utilise all the proceeds immediately, this scheme can significantly stretch the long-term value of the SDS proceeds. With an average shareholding of about $6,800, eligible seniors who make gradual MRSS top-ups over several years could potentially see these savings effectively doubled through Government matching. This could translate to close to $13,600 in retirement savings over time.

Now that I have highlighted this possible option, this tip, I would encourage the CPF Board to also help communicate this clearly to eligible members so that they can make informed decision based on their financial circumstances and priorities.

Actually, we can go one step further. Can the Government consider automatic MRSS matching for eligible shareholders who voluntarily choose to sweep part of their proceeds into their CPF retirement savings. This would reduce administrative hassles and help strengthen retirement adequacy for lower balanced members.

Let us do better for our most vulnerable seniors. Sir, I have recorded my suggestions and reservations. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

7.01 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I will begin with a disclaimer. I am the chief economist emeritus of a wealth management and advisory firm. However, unlike the Minister of State, I do not unfortunately hold any shares in Singtel SDS or otherwise although I regret that that does not necessarily make me all that much younger than him. Unlike the declarations of the other Members in this House, they have gleefully declared that they are too young to receive SDS.

The CPF (Amendment) Bill is in many ways a procedural Bill aimed at facilitating the transfer of designated shares, notably the Singtel SDS, first through CDP Accounts in individual investors' names. This will then allow such shareholders the option of either choosing to receive proceeds from their sale in cash or to direct them back to their CPF Ordinary Accounts. By removing the CPF Board as a trustee, the Bill affords individuals' greater flexibility in how they sell their shares and what they do with their earnings.

Returning agency to Singaporeans is always welcome and even just on the spaces alone, the Bill will have my support.

Still, I have three points that I wish to make which relate to the treatment of stocks for deceased shareholders, whether the Bill may inadvertently open up less sophisticated Singaporeans to scam risk, and most generally, why the Government appears to have retreated on schemes that can expand share ownership of state-linked firms?

First, I believe that that many of us have in our Meet-the-People Sessions encountered cases where the relative of the deceased resident has sought to sell their loved one's Singtel's SDS. Doing so required a special appeal to CPF, an extended and involved process just to recover what was often a relatively small amount of money. Would the process be even more inaccessible now after the transfer to individual CDP accounts?

My understanding is that the CDP account of a deceased person may be accessed by a legally appointed personal representative of the estate, such as the executor of the will or the administrator in the event that there is no will. But obtaining grants or probates or letters of administration are typically costly matters, especially for estates valued at more than $50,000.

Even for smaller estates, the Public Trustee can assist with administration, but there are nevertheless costs involved. This cost could sit easily outweigh the value of the residual Singtel SDS.

After the passage of the Bill, will the Government have a low-cost mechanism to accommodate such eventualities, other than relying on the Public Trustee for smaller estates? Otherwise, we may be left with a situation where Singtel shares are held in CDP accounts in the deceased name with no effective means of transfer.

Alternatively, we may wish for CPF to remain a trustee in such special circumstances and perform the share disposal at the market price before transferring proceeds to the deceased's consolidated CPF balances.

Relatedly, is there a possibility that thousands of these CPF accounts might become zombie accounts should related family members be unaware that their departed relatives actually hold such shares? Will the CPF nomination originally made by members continue to apply after the shares are transferred to CDP? If not, what mechanism is there to ensure that the Public Trustee's Office can identify and contact potential beneficiaries?

Separate from deceased account holders, I should also point out that the complexity of the transfer mechanism sketched out in the new sections 26C and D may impose a non-trivial, ongoing administrative burden. I appreciate that this complexity may be necessary to preserve the veracity of shareholders. Still, perhaps, the Minister of State could share with us an estimate of how many such account transfers would need to be affected in future and if the Civil Service has already transmitted a set of standardised operating procedures to security firms to guide them on practical implementation.

Onto less morbid points, my second point relates to the interaction of clause 12 of the Bill, which establishes CDP accounts for the estimated 40% of shareholders who have never otherwise actively traded equities, with clause 6, which allows a direct cash payout of sales proceeds. Taken together, there is now a clear route to encash these discounted stocks.

Alas, the increased flexibility of allowing the withdrawal of equity sales proceeds were well meaning, also means that there could be a double-edged sword with unscrupulous fraudsters and scammers, potentially already licking the teeth at the prospect of accessing this pool of previously locked up funds. This is exacerbated by how most of the original discounted shareholders are now seniors who may be unsophisticated in the operation of stock trading accounts.

I am unable to conjure up all the possible scenarios for such nefarious actions, but it behooves me to ask how the Government will pursue its duty of care to ensure that this unlocking of wealth does not go awry owing to financial illiteracy.

What measures will CPF and Singtel take to educate their shareholders on the possible risks of scams during this transition period and will there be a dedicated hotline or other channels of assistance that can help this group navigate the CDP system safely? At the very least, we should ensure that basic safeguards aligned with the ones we already have in place for scams, such as cooling off periods, are adapted to this channel.

Third, in the debate surrounding the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore Bill, which formalised the privatisation of Singtel and allocated discounted shares to CPF shareholders, the Government of the time declared that its intention for offering such discounted shares was to, and I quote, "give an opportunity to share in the success of a national asset, promote long term widespread share ownership, and give Singaporeans a direct stake in the country's success."

These are laudable goals and one that even today many of us can get behind. But since that first step, there have been no further efforts to offer discounted shares to the public. This is despite how several Government-linked corporations (GLCs) have been listed since – ST Engineering in 1997, SingPost and SMRT in 2000, and Semcorp in 2002, among others.

Despite these further opportunities for more stock ownership by ordinary Singaporeans, the Government had demurred. If anything appears to have gone in the other direction, favouring either privatisation under the rubric of Temasek, or choosing property trust as a listing platform.

The reason cannot simply be because we have already accomplished the goal of making Singapore a shareholding society. After all, this was arguably already achieved back in 1993, when 1.45 million Singaporeans, or about 86% of those eligible accepted the discounted A share offer. In one fell swoop then, the Government had raised the share ownership rate from less than 9% to more than half, which is similar to the rate today. Yet the Government went ahead with a second discounted tranche of Singtel in 1996, where 1.53 million citizens happily took up the secondary offering.

So, if the goal was to raise the prevalence of share ownership among Singaporeans, this was already achieved in 1993. The decision to further issue discounted Singtel shares must surely then have been motivated by other goals listed by then Finance Minister Richard Hu – to give Singaporeans an opportunity to share in the upside of the country's success and to imbue in them a stronger stake in the country.

If so, then the absence of more discounted share offerings tied to the listings of other GLCs since strike me as missed opportunities. One could alternatively argue that Singaporeans all enjoy indirect exposure to stocks via our sovereign wealth funds – GIC and Temasek. This may be so, but given how these funds operate with little or no direct input from the average Singaporean, it is difficult to see how this very indirect ownership via these funds foster a sense that they have any direct stake in the country's success.

Sir, I will close with some thoughts on the proposed amendments to section 77, which enables the introduction of CPFIS. CPFIS, is a mouthful, is not novel, but at the top of mind for most policy observers must be the impending Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme scheduled for 2028.

I believe that more legislation specific to the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme is to follow, and there is a fair degree of excitement over how a more explicit involvement of CPF account holders in the local stock market might further revive the SGX's fortunes.

I trust that the amendments here, which appear to set the stage for proceeds and benefits that may accrue to any such Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme to be credited back to the members' account, does not preclude a more consequential debate on the details of this scheme within this House when the time comes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

7.11 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, before I proceed, I declare my interest as President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE).

Sir, the Singtel SDS scheme has served Singapore well. It was a bold initiative, introduced in 1993, that enabled ordinary Singaporeans to participate in nation-building and share in the growth of Singapore's flagship telecommunications provider.

Back in 1993, the scheme was conceptualised with the CPF Board appointed as the trustee, to facilitate Singaporeans' share purchases, as many then were unfamiliar with owning shares.

Today, more than 30 years on, the context has changed significantly. Singaporeans are more financially literate, markets are more accessible and the administrative structures that once made sense may no longer be necessary. In that regard, transferring ownership of these shares from the CPF Board to individual holders and integrating them into the Central Depository system, is a logical and forward-looking step.

However, from a consumer protection standpoint, this Bill is not just a technical amendment. It is a significant shift in responsibility: from the system to the individual.

Previously, these shares were held within a CPF-linked framework. There were built-in safeguards, including restrictions on withdrawals and a trustee structure that provided a degree of discipline. With this Bill, these safeguards are effectively removed.

Singaporeans will now have full control over these assets, including the ability to liquidate them and withdraw cash freely, rather than retaining their sales proceeds in the CPF Ordinary Account. This creates exposure to new risks, which we must mitigate.

Allow me to highlight three key concerns from the perspective of consumers.

First, the risk of premature liquidation. Many SDS holders are not active investors. Some may have held these shares passively for decades. For them, this change may be perceived simply as an opportunity to "unlock cash".

Second, the issue of financial literacy and decision-making. Owning shares directly in the market requires a certain level of understanding – of price volatility, timing and transaction processes and costs. Not all consumers have this knowledge. In our experience at CASE, when consumers are placed in unfamiliar financial situations, they can be vulnerable and may inadvertently make sub-optimal decisions.

Third, and of particular concern, is the heightened risk of scams and mis-selling. Once these shares are directly owned and easily tradable, they become a potential target.

Many in this House would be familiar with salespeople who approach Singaporeans unsolicited, asking consumers to purchase a course or a product using the latest Government grants. What is there to stop bad actors who seek to persuade or pressure individuals to tap on the SDS transfers to convince these shareholders to sell their shares and channel the proceeds into unsuitable or even fraudulent investments. Bad actors could also convince unsuspecting consumers in downloading a fake trading application, and scam victims.

This is not a theoretical concern. We have seen similar patterns whenever consumers gain access to newly liquid assets.

Mr Speaker, these risks do not detract from the merits of the Bill. But they do call for a stronger consumer protection framework to accompany its implementation. Allow me to suggest several practical measures.

First, more targeted and effective consumer education. Communications should be clear, simple and tailored to different groups, especially our seniors. Consumers must understand that once they sell these shares, the proceeds are no longer protected within CPF and decisions taken are not easily reversed.

Second, the introduction of light-touch safeguards at the point of sale. For example, when a consumer attempts to sell their shares for the first time, there could be a clear prompt or a short cooling-off period. This is not about restricting choice but about encouraging informed decision-making.

Third, enhanced vigilance against scams and misselling. We urge the relevant agencies to closely monitor the situation during the transition period. There should also be strong and visible public messaging to warn consumers against unsolicited advice or high-pressure sales tactics. In addition, financial advisers should be required to exercise heightened care when recommending the liquidation of these shares, particularly for vulnerable clients.

Fourth, support for consumers who may need assistance. Not all Singaporeans are comfortable navigating CDP accounts or trading platforms. Accessible help channels, including hotlines and physical touchpoints, will be important to ensure that no one is left behind.

Finally, I would recommend a post-implementation review. This should examine outcomes, such as how many consumers liquidate their shares, whether there are concerning patterns among vulnerable groups and whether complaints relating to scams or misselling increase in tandem. Such a review would allow us to respond quickly and timely if unintended consequences arise.

Mr Speaker, this Bill reflects a broader evolution of our system, one that places greater trust in individuals to make their own financial decisions. This is a positive development. But with greater autonomy must come stronger support and safeguards, especially for those who may be less equipped to navigate these decisions.

At CASE, we strongly believe that consumer empowerment must go hand-in-hand with consumer protection. If we get this balance right, we can ensure that this transition will benefit all Singaporeans and not just the financially savvy, but also the more vulnerable among us. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

7.18 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has a relatively narrow purpose – to transfer Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to the direct ownership of individual Singaporean holders. I support the Bill, but I have a few clarifications and suggestions.

First, giving Singaporeans a stake in growth. Sir, the SDS scheme has been an extraordinary success story. It gave more than 600,000 – in fact, about 615,000 Singaporeans today – a direct equity stake in our nation's economic growth. For many, the value of these shares has increased several-fold over time, even before accounting for dividends and loyalty shares.

This was not just a financial scheme; it reflected a broader principle – that Singaporeans should have a stake in Singapore's success. That principle remains relevant today. So, I would like to ask, first, why have we not seen much more initiatives since then? And as we invest in new growth areas, such as AI, digital infrastructure and emerging sectors, will there be opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in these national growth engines?

Second, the rationale for the current change. Sir, I welcome the move to transfer these shares to individual ownership. It simplifies the structure and gives members direct control over their assets. However, I would like to seek clarification.

First, what triggered the need for this transfer at this point in time? Were there specific limitations or inefficiencies in the previous trustee arrangement?

For those without CDP accounts, how many SDS holders fall into this group? What will be the practical experience for them under the designated accounts?

Third, waiver of withdrawal conditions. Sir, I also note that withdrawal conditions have been waived, allowing proceeds to be taken out in cash. As the SDS were issued back in 1993 and 1996, SDS holders may be younger than the age of 55. What is the reason for not applying the general rule that assets in the CPF system can only be withdrawn after the member has set aside the Full Retirement Sum at age 55?

Following the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, the increase in prices and in overall uncertainty exacerbating my concern over the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans. What is the policy rationale for this, especially for members below age 55? In today's uncertain global environment, this could have implications for retirement adequacy, which remains an important concern.

More importantly, does this risk sending an unintended signal for holders to sell rather than hold? Since the First Reading of this Bill, the news headlines have been dominated by articles analysing whether individual SDS holders should sell or keep hold of their shares. Should we be concerned with the market signals that are being sent out by this present Bill? What discussions has the Government held with Singtel in that regard?

Fourth, ensuring no one is left behind. Sir, beyond policy design, execution will be critical, especially since many SDS holders are older. Allow me to speak briefly in Malay.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, a large proportion of SDS shareholders are seniors. For them, these changes may be hard to understand.

We must ensure that no one is left behind. Information must be clear, easy to understand and delivered through appropriate channels – including face-to-face outreach. What matters most is that every citizen is able to make a confident and informed decision.

(In English): Fifth, Sir, practical implementation points. Sir, if I may, I would like to highlight three practical implementation areas, together with one point on timelines.

First, on those who may be unaware. There may be individuals who do not respond to letters or may not even realise they still hold these shares. Could the Minister share how many SDS holders have not engaged with outreach efforts so far and what additional measures are being taken to reach those who may be unaware of their holdings? Additional touchpoints, such as Singpass notifications or CPF statements, may help ensure no one is left out.

Second, on ensuring real understanding. These are not simple concepts. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government is ensuring that key concepts are truly understood, beyond translation into different languages? Understanding is not just about language. It is about making the unfamiliar, familiar.

Third, on behavioural inertia. The default option is to do nothing. Has the Government assessed whether this leads to optimal outcomes or whether some form of guidance or simple decision frameworks could help members make some informed choices?

Sixth, Mr Speaker, timeline and flexibility. Sir, on timing. How long do SDS holders have to decide whether to sell or keep their shares? If they choose not to act now, can they still do so next year or later without losing flexibility? And after the transfer, will they continue to have full flexibility to hold or sell their shares at any time? Clarity on this will be important as many members may prefer to take time before making a decision.

Seventh, Sir, safeguards and scams. Many Members have shared this. I will just keep it short. Sir, with greater flexibility also comes greater risk. What safeguards are in place to protect, in particular, seniors from scams or financial exploitation during this transition? Even broad contours would help provide reassurance.

Eighth, market behaviour and outcomes. Sir, I would also like to understand how members are responding. Could the Minister share how many SDS holders have sold their shares since the announcement and how many have withdrawn proceeds in cash versus retaining them within CPF? This will help us better assess behavioural outcomes.

Sir, lastly, ensuring policies benefit the many. Sir, this Bill also raises a broader principle and I think this is the most important point to me in my speech. When designing policies, we must ensure that they do not result in windfall gains for a narrow group while the majority do not benefit.

Singapore's approach has been, use market mechanisms for efficiency while ensuring broad-based participation and inclusion. This balance is critical not just for economic outcomes, but for maintaining trust and fairness in our system.

Sir, this Bill is a sensible and timely amendment. It modernises a legacy scheme and gives members greater control over their assets. But its success will depend on clear communication, strong safeguards and ensuring that all Singaporeans, especially those less familiar with such matters, are able to benefit. More importantly, it prompts us to think about how future policies can continue to enable Singaporeans to share meaningfully in our nation's growth. With these considerations, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.

7.25 pm

Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I am mindful that I am the last speaker on the last Bill on the last day of what has been a very long Parliamentary Sitting. It is also the birthday of one of my daughters, so I am doubly incentivised to make this a short speech.

I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. There is no longer a need for the CPF Board to serve as a trustee for Singaporeans' SDS. The Government's approach to sunset this programme is fair and it is prudent. It should save the CPF Board some resources.

I hope that the Ministry can share an evaluation of the programme, both where it went well and areas for improvement. For example, did the scheme achieve its original objectives? Have we become more of a nation of investors? And has financial and investment literacy improved? In addition, can the Ministry share the overall administrative costs associated with the scheme and therefore the resource savings once the scheme is closed?

In terms of the implementation approach, I support the Government's effort to reach out to legacy shareholders, many of whom are seniors, who are not financially savvy and who are more vulnerable to scams. For such seniors, trusted physical touchpoints that provide financial advice are crucial.

Can the Government clarify how long any physical touchpoints will be operating for? I suggest that the CPF Board can provide resources to some of our community centres to set up physical touchpoints, especially those in neighbourhoods with a lot of seniors, such as those in Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

Can the Government confirm that Silver Generation ambassadors will also be empowered to direct our seniors to channels to receive appropriate financial advice? I believe there is definitely demand for such advice. Even I myself have been approached many times by my residents on what to do with their shares. When they ask me, I will reply: I am only a grassroots advisor, not your financial advisor.

Mr Speaker, taking a leaf from the experience of the SDS programme, I would like to make a few larger points.

First, the spread of policy reviews on the CPF system this year reflects good policy housekeeping. It is a bit like taking care of a 70-year-old tree, since the CPF Board just celebrated 70 years last year. We need to keep pruning our policies – remove the unnecessary ones so that new ones with green shoots will flourish and provide more shade for all in retirement.

One such policy with green shoots is the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. The scheme will empower Singaporeans to take a larger role in investing for their retirement. With the upcoming LRIS, other schemes which have outlived their purpose should be sunset, like the Singtel SDS.

In my view, it is time to consider closing the CPF Investment Scheme for the Special Account, where three out of four who invested through the scheme have been worse off compared to leaving their savings in the Special Account.

In fact, taking it a step further, the Special Account itself should just be called the Retirement Account from day one, instead of the current system where the Special Account is closed and the Retirement Account is created at age 55. To the CPF member, there is no functional or financial difference between the two. Hence, doing so could simplify the CPF system significantly.

Second, we should continue the spirit of the SDS programme – the spirit of providing ordinary Singaporeans access to the returns from otherwise privileged financial instruments. The spirit of sharing economic success directly with our citizens, who form the backbone and lifeblood of that very economic success.

We have done this in a few ways. Singapore has historically not shied from innovative policies that marry economic objectives with our social compact. HDB flats are a great example. Mr Louis Chua mentioned this just now. Singapore's land increases in value when our economy grows and because Singapore is a nation of property owners, many Singaporeans benefit from this land appreciation through owning HDB flats.

Another way is through surplus sharing programmes. Such as the Growth Dividends of 2006 and 2008. But these surplus sharing programmes have been ad hoc for now. Perhaps we can think of a longer-term programme to allow Singaporeans to have a stake in the economic upside of Singapore, even if they are no longer in the workforce and are not business owners.

Third, we should emulate the attitude of the Government in the 1990s. It was a Government that was not afraid of taking some policy risk. Today, the SDS programme is seen positively because Singtel has done well; well, at least, Singtel shares have done well. But this was not a foregone conclusion when the scheme started. The company could have done poorly or the business environment could have been worse. And shareholders would not be in-the-money. It is not that hard to imagine.

Yet the decision makers of that day decided that it was worth the policy risk. They took a bet. Singaporeans, with their eyes wide open, took a bet with them. And the bet paid off.

I hope this will continue in our Government schemes today. Minister Chee Hong Tat mentioned this in the previous debate for the previous Bill, to be able to take some policy risk. The Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, for example, is also not without policy risk. And I am glad that we are taking this bet together again.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I acknowledge the SDS' positive outcomes for the CPF members who benefitted. It was a good chapter in our nation-building story, with a happy ending. I support the closing of this chapter and look forward to CPF Board writing similar chapters in the future. And may they all have happy endings too.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.

7.32 pm

Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their support for the Bill and I would also like to thank the Members for affirming the benefits that the SDS scheme has brought to CPF members and the move to give shareholders greater control and management of their shares, given that the scheme has met its intent.

I also note that two Members, particularly my friends from the Opposition, highlighted my relatively young age in a tongue-in-cheek manner, or rather, my experience, as I would like to see as. And I assure you that I would not use your lack of experience nor youth against you.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Shawn Loh asked whether there would be similar opportunities for younger cohorts. Mr Loh also asked whether the SDS scheme has achieved its original objectives.

Also, in response to Mr Louis Chua's comments, the SDS scheme is a legacy scheme rooted in a very specific context of its time and there are no plans to extend this scheme as of now.

In the 1990s, we took the decision to privatise the telecommunications portion of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore into what is known as Singtel today. Singtel’s subsequent IPO in 1993 allowed the Government to offer Singaporeans an entry point into share ownership and to give them a stake in the nation’s growth. Over the two tranches in 1993 and 1996, over a million members chose to participate in this voluntary SDS scheme. SDS holders have also benefited from returns of up to six times, not inclusive of interest earned on dividends. By these measures, the scheme had achieved its intended objectives.

Since then, Singaporeans have become a lot more familiar with shareholding. Today, three in five SDS holders have CDP accounts. There is therefore less need for a scheme similar to SDS to serve as an entry point to share ownership.

I want to highlight that beyond Singtel, there are other companies such as ST Engineering and SingPost that were also eventually listed on the Singapore Exchange and were subsequently owned by many Singaporeans among us.

The Government has continued to use a range of measures to allow Singaporeans to share in the benefits of our progress, such as the SG Bonus cash payout in 2018 and SG60 Vouchers last year. Our CPF and housing policies have also enabled Singaporeans to build up assets over time.

Mr Saktiandi asked about the rationale for the transfer of the Singtel SDS to the CDP. CPF Board operates with members’ best interests at heart and a strong duty of care. It is having assessed that it would benefit SDS holders that the Government decided to embark on this exercise.

The upcoming transfer will benefit SDS holders by giving them greater flexibility to consolidate their shareholdings in their CDP accounts. They also have the option to sell and encash their SDS holdings anytime, if they wish.

The transfer will also give Singtel Group the flexibility to carry out corporate actions in a timely manner.

Under the trustee arrangement currently, communication for Singtel’s corporate actions to SDS holders are made through CPF Board. For example, during the scrip dividend exercise in 2020, notification letters to SDS holders were sent by CPF Board and time was required for CPF Board’s system to be changed to allow for the scrip crediting to take place. After the transfer, Singtel will be able to communicate with shareholders directly and execute corporate actions, such as scrip dividends, in a more timely and cost-efficient manner.

SDS holders will also stand to benefit as they will be able manage their shares seamlessly.

So, indeed, as Mr Saktiandi and Mr Loh mentioned, this Bill reflects good policy housekeeping by modernising a legacy arrangement.

As demonstrated by this exercise, CPF Board regularly reviews and finds ways to update and streamline existing schemes and processes.

Mr Saktiandi, Ms Gho and Mr Melvin Yong also asked about the reason for allowing the SDS proceeds to be withdrawn in cash without having to meet the CPF withdrawal rules and if this sends out a signal to sell rather than to hold the Singtel SDS. Mr Yong also spoke about the need for sufficient financial literacy.

When the scheme was inaugurated, CPF members had a choice to be part of the Singtel SDS. Similarly, whether SDS holders should sell or keep their Singel SDS is a private decision that members must take, just as they did when they came onboard the scheme in 1993 and 1996. If they prefer liquidity, they can choose to sell. If they prefer to stay invested and to reap future gains, they can do so.

We decided that the SDS sale proceeds would not be subject to the CPF withdrawal rules given that the SDS scheme has met its intent of enhancing the assets of CPF members. This arrangement also gives SDS holders options, and ensures that those who do not have individual CDP accounts are not disadvantaged; in fact, they can receive their sale proceeds in cash without even needing to open one.

As mentioned, those who prefer to keep their sale proceeds in their CPF Ordinary Accounts to earn higher interest can still continue do so.

We also welcome Ms Gho’s tip to encourage eligible SDS holders to top up their CPF Retirement Account under MRSS to receive a dollar-for-dollar matching grant from the Government. It is a safe and legal hack, and I would encourage you to let your residents know about it too.

As of end April, around 81,000 SDS holders, or 13%, have sold their shares. Around nine in 10 chose to receive the proceeds in cash.

SDS holders have the flexibility to decide when they would like to sell. As mentioned in my earlier speech, even after the transfer, those who sell their SDS held in designated CDP accounts will still be able to withdraw the proceeds in cash without being subject to CPF withdrawal rules.

We agree with the spirit of Members’ comments, that there are needs to be safeguarded as we update this legacy arrangement, so as not to disadvantage those who are less financially savvy. With this transfer, we have sought to ensure that every SDS holder has access to resources that support them in making an informed decision about how best to manage their Singtel SDS.

For investors who already have individual CDP accounts, they will be able to consolidate shareholdings and manage them within the CDP framework that they are already very familiar with.

For the SDS holders who do not have individual CDP accounts and who may be less familiar with investing, their shares will be transferred to designated CDP accounts. This means that these SDS holders will largely continue to receive similar treatment and support as today, even after their Singtel SDS is transferred to their designated CDP accounts.

Specifically, on the sale process post-transfer, it will largely remain the same as today. Singtel SDS, including odd lots, can be sold through channels such as Phillip Securities at the same rates as today.

On Mr Fadli Fawzi's question about charges, the sales process and charges during the period are the same as what they were prior to the exercise. SDS holders are not limited to selling via SingPost or Phillip Securities as it is up to the Singapore Exchange brokers whether or not they wish to facilitate the sale of Singtel SDS, which also includes costs.

I also wanted to add at this point that for members, particularly the seniors who go to SingPost outlets, about 95% of sales transactions are actually done online by them, and therefore, circumventing the need to even pay the $17 that was raised by Mr Fadli. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]

To Mr Fadli's point on why we chose to create designated CDP accounts, this is in recognition that not everyone needs an individual CDP account, especially some of the SDS holders who do not intend to trade or hold other shares. The Government also cannot open individual CDP accounts on SDS holders' behalf. Doing so requires the members to complete comprehensive compliance screenings, including tax residency declarations and risk appetite assessments to ensure adherence to regulatory requirements and international tax obligations are fulfilled. SDS holders without an individual CDP account can apply to open one if they wish to trade actively or transact in other products.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Loh, Mr Fadli and Mr Yong raised important questions about the special outreach efforts undertaken to ensure that SDS holders who require greater assistance are not neglected. This is also an issue that is close to my heart.

To support different segments of SDS holders, we have a range of measures in place. I thank Members for their suggestions, which will further strengthen our outreach over the coming months.

For SDS holders who are less comfortable with digital platforms, there are accessible, physical touchpoints. SDS holders may go to more than 30 SingPost branches for assistance with the sale of their shares, or any of the five CPF Service Centres for general assistance. Staffing at these centres have been beefed up in anticipation of the higher load from walk-in queries.

I would like to assure Mr Loh that the CPF Service Centres will also continue to assist any SDS holders, even post-transfer. A dedicated hotline, 1713, has been set up for those who prefer to seek help over the phone.

Information about the exercise is also available in print and via broadcast media, ensuring that it reaches those who may not have easy digital access. Key publicity collaterals and notification letters to SDS holders have also been translated into vernacular languages, ensuring that those who are more comfortable in their mother tongue can access important information clearly and easily.

Some SDS holders may face physical accessibility challenges. CPF Board and Singtel are partnering the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to conduct door-to-door outreach and visits to nursing homes and care facilities. This ensures that even those who are homebound or residing in institutional care settings are personally reached and made aware of their options and the channels for assistance.

Caregivers and family members assisting SDS holders are also welcome to engage any of the service touchpoints on their behalf.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank AIC, their staff and their volunteers for their invaluable support in this important initiative.

On Assoc Prof Jamus Chua's question — I am sorry, on Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question – forgive me for that; might be the relative age coming in now, I suppose – following the transfer for SDS holders who have designated CDP accounts upon their passing, their Singtel SDS will be handled in accordance with CPF nomination rules. This is no different from today.

For those who have individual CDP accounts, their Singtel SDS will be treated as any other CDP shares and will form part of their estate.

I would also like to highlight Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point on administrative complexity. I want to just highlight that this is really a one-off exercise and the number of SDS to be transferred will be dependent on how many SDS holders who have decided to sell prior to the cut-off point that we have in November. And hence, the complexity is something that we have to balance and ensure that we are reasonable and prudent, and to accept some degree of administrative complexity in the short run, at least.

We would like to emphasise that no action is required for those who wish to retain their Singtel SDS. SDS holders who are uncertain or need assistance can approach the readily available service touchpoints that I have mentioned earlier.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Yong, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Tay have also raised concerns about the risk of scams during this exercise period. This is a legitimate and important concern today. We have built in multiple layers of safeguards into this exercise to protect SDS holders from potential scams. Let me elaborate.

First, the personalised notification letters containing each SDS holder's specific details will be sent only to their verified addresses on record. This ensures that individualised information is directed solely to the intended recipient.

Second, sale proceeds will be credited only to SDS holders' bank account registered with the CPF Board or via their PayNow-NRIC registered bank account. This ensures that sale proceeds can only flow to a pre-verified account and cannot be redirected to an unknown or unverified third-party account. We have also reiterated in our collaterals that CPF Board and Singtel will never ask or never request bank account details or any payment from SDS holders in connection with this exercise.

Finally, on scam awareness. The CPF Board and Singtel have incorporated clear scam advisories across all communications to SDS holders. SDS holders are reminded to remain vigilant and refer only to official communications and touchpoints. When unsure, SDS holders can always call the SDS hotline, 1713, or the 24-hour ScamShield anti-scam helpline for verification.

We are closely monitoring the post-implementation situation and will respond quickly if any situation arises. I wanted to just add that the implementation thus far, has been smooth. The dedicated hotline and physical service touchpoints have been operating well, with queries being resolved promptly and efficiently. Perhaps due to the safeguards against scams, we have, thankfully, not received any complaints about residents being scammed thus far. But we will continue to watch this.

Mr Loh also raised some other questions and suggestions about the CPF system. We note and thank him for his suggestions.

Some Members have also called for more broad-based investment opportunities for CPF members to participate in. In fact, both Mr Loh and Mr Tay had mentioned the upcoming new investment scheme, which would also give Singaporeans another opportunity to benefit from investments schemes more broadly in a structured manner. We are developing the scheme further and will share details and updates in due course.

There were several references to the discussion and policy thinking back in the day, when this particular scheme was raised, and I thought I should just flag up some of the comments that were highlighted by the then-Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong on 9 March 1993, and I quote: "The Government's primary duty is to build the right conditions for Singaporeans to create wealth for themselves. These conditions include security, law and order, political stability, social discipline, a level-playing field, the free market, meritocracy and rewards in accordance with persons' abilities, both performance and contribution."

Successive People's Action Party (PAP) Governments have done so. The Singtel SDS exercise is but one example. We have since moved into other programmes as well.

There was a comment also made about whether was it because of the comments that were made in 1993 that we had a jump, in terms of our shareholding culture, in Singapore. It was precisely that, and I think Singaporeans had responded positively to Mr Goh's clarion call back then. I am also happy to state that as far as the Singtel SDS is concerned, that almost 70% of people who have the SDS Singtel accounts were from HDB background and dwelling, including myself, and 30% belong to the private sector. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]

As such, the Singtel SDS had been a success, and successive PAP Governments have built on the success to where we are today.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the SDS holders have benefited from the SDS scheme since inception and this Bill recognises that it is timely to update this legacy arrangement by enabling the transfer of SDS Singtel shares from the CPF Board to their CDP accounts.

This move reflects how far we have come since the scheme’s inception. With the transfer, SDS holders will benefit from greater control and those who do not wish to participate in the transfer can also choose to realise their capital gains that they have made, over the decades. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.

7.51 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State Dinesh? Looks like there is none.

Minister of State Dinesh, unlike you and the rest of those who spoke, I am happy to say that I am old enough to have received the Singtel shares.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.