Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should give credit where credit is due. A political leadership that is not responsible would have opted to delay this difficult issue of retirement security for at least a few more election terms. Hence, I salute the Government for deciding to tackle this potential time-bomb head-on.

There are two key thrusts behind the slew of CPF policy changes:

One, to help Singaporeans work longer, and, two, to ensure Singaporeans have enough savings to last their life expectancy.

Behind these key thrusts are four major realities or restraining forces that Government must address if the desired outcome of financial security in old age is to be achieved.

Sir, there are vulnerable groups of Singaporeans who could be left out in this reform exercise unless policy-makers acknowledge them and take a lead in helping these groups. One vulnerable group comprises Singaporeans especially from the average and low-income families - housewives or single Singaporeans who stay home to look after their children or elderly parents not by choice but by necessity. Another vulnerable group is made up of Singaporeans with mild to severe disabilities who will not be able to find sustained employment and, therefore, no CPF contributions unless more impactful support is given by Government.

A third vulnerable group comprises Singaporeans with adult disabled children or people who not only have problems taking care of their own retirement, but also have to look after their disabled dependants. Even if they wish, these are folks who cannot afford to apply the typical airline advice to "put on their oxygen mask first before they help their disabled dependants."

The second reality, Sir, is "not all Singaporeans want to work". Sir, there is a big groan out there on the ground by both elderly and younger Singaporeans who want to retire early and stop working. Many have the psychological clock in their minds and want to drop their vocation for the vacation they feel they well deserve, whether or not they have sufficient funds to retire.

Sir, the third reality is that not all Singaporeans know how much they need to retire for different reasons. Financial security surveys in recent years in Singapore have concluded that the level of financial literacy amongst Singaporeans is appalling, even amongst the educated and English-speaking Singaporeans. Some of them are averse to numbers. Some suffer from what I call the "ostrich syndrome" and prefer not to know the risks the future holds, either due to lethargy, indifference or fear of the big gap between what they have and what they need.

The fourth reality is that not all Singaporeans fully accept the Government's approach, and some of them think that they are being denied access to money that rightfully belongs to them.

Sir, ground feedback has surfaced many key messages that will need to be addressed. The more educated, affluent and financially savvy Singaporeans are grumbling that this is yet another testament of Government's paternalistic style of "I know what's best for you." There are even rumours that the Government is running out of money; that the whole CPF exercise is leaving the people to fend for themselves and Government is bearing no cost, and questions of where the additional GST revenues have gone to. All these questions need to be addressed. Sir, many of these perceptions may be untrue but perceptions are realities and must be addressed and crucial dialogues, not monologues, need to be held.

Sir, the task of finding the sweet spot for the right final solution without over simplifying the subject matter will require skill and wisdom. Here are a few suggestions I hope the committee will consider.

We all know that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to meet the diverse retirement needs of a few million people. Whilst there is no way any government can provide a boutique solution for each Singaporean, it is necessary for policy-makers to identify key demographic groups and provide at least a simple menu of options in (1) retirement planning; (2) promoting financial literacy; and (3) communicating with Singaporeans on the retirement policy reforms.

For a Singaporean who can work, wants to work and needs to work beyond 62, legislation, employer incentives, job redesign and retraining are indeed the key solutions.

For the more vulnerable Singaporeans who are disabled, I want to challenge job-creation and job-design agencies, such as the NTUC and the Ministry of Manpower. The Disability Office that was recommended under the Enabling Master Plan this year for the disabled has yet to physically meet. I ask that the co-coordinating Ministry to please include the NTUC and MOM in their mission so that younger disabled Singaporeans can look to jobs as a means of ensuring their own financial independence, so that they can look towards paying income tax instead of collecting welfare.

For families who are hit by the double whammy of both low income and disability, I urge the Government to look into measures to help top up their retirement accounts. This top-up can be done by, eg, through potential progress package funds, through proceeds from the IR operations, through encouraging philanthropists and foundations to help some of these vulnerable Singaporeans purchase DPS or top up their retirement accounts.

Sir, in promoting financial literacy, we can take reference from the United States Department of Treasury and develop our own "Made in Singapore" blueprint for a National Strategy for Financial Literacy. A coordinating Ministry should take the lead and coordinate agencies, such as the CDC, self-help organisations like the CDAC, MUIS and SINDA, or even private sector firms, to enhance the financial literacy and security of our people. Again, I caution against the one-size-fits-all approach. Do develop a matrix of mix of communication channels to effectively reach the target groups. Portals and interactive web-based financial calculators are only for specific segments of Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans, especially those who are less IT-savvy and less educated, need to be reached differently. Some of the more vulnerable Singaporeans will even need to be hand-held and financial planning done for them sometimes.

Sir, effectively, balancing the tension between over-simplification and over-complexity is one critical success factors behind the reforms. Ex-United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that he would give his right arm for "the simplicity on the far side of complexity". This quote has challenged many leaders in both private and public sectors to develop simpler and more elegant solutions to important problems.

Holmes implied there are two types of simplicity. The first is what we can call "counterfeit simplicity" - the result of ignoring hard realities and complexities. Ignoring the realities that not all Singaporeans can and want to work nor interested in financial planning will be over-simplifying things. Another over-simplification could be for planners to forget that beyond the current Minimum Sum and longevity insurance, are other input factors towards the retirement planning equation, input factors such as healthcare costs, one's asset portfolio, one's desired lifestyle, the HDB flat buy back, ElderShield, MediShield and the DPS. The retirement equation must take into account all these other factors.

The second type of simplicity, a more desirable one that Holmes implied, is the result from the ability to seeing past the apparent chaos of the complexity to develop an elegantly simpler and more optimal solution. This is what is termed as the "elegance on the far side of complexity" - a challenge I would pose to the longevity insurance committee and to all others who are working on the final details of these reforms.

In conclusion, Sir, I applaud the Government for its moral courage to address and not procrastinate this important aspect of financial security of Singaporeans. I urge that in developing the final details, the people's voices are heard and the needs and concerns of major groups of Singaporeans are addressed, especially the vulnerable Singaporeans, and that as far as possible, no Singaporean is left behind.

Sir, I support the reforms.