Mr. Speaker, the Central Provident Fund or 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 Special Discounted Shares or SDS from the CPF Board to the Central Depository or 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.
The Success of Singtel SDS: A Benchmark for Wealth Creation
To understand the unique and sadly, 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’s goal “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 as then-PM Goh Chok Tong stated, the 45% generous discount was to encourage long-term share ownership.
The illustration as shared by the CPF Board and 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 1st April 2026. In contrast, had that same $2,000 remained in the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) earning a base interest of 2.5%, it would 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 OA by a factor of 2.6 times. For many Singaporeans, especially those approaching retirement, this "kicker" is a vital addition to their retirement adequacy.
Key Clarifications
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 (CPFIS), 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 principal plus accrued interest, yet for CPFIS investments, no such requirement exists?
The Government’s long-standing justification is that this safeguards retirement adequacy. To quote from the 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, for a financial investment under the CPFIS, which is arguably more volatile and which the Government itself has noted in the past, underperforms the 2.5% OA 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 99-year 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 this distinction.
Truly Enabling Singaporeans to Have a Stake in the Country
Returning to former-PM Goh Chok Tong’s National Day Rally Speech in 1992, I note that in addition to Singtel, a company was to be setup to run the “Electricity and Gas Departments of the Public Utilities Board”, which I believe is now corporatised as the SP Group, and remains wholly owned by Temasek Holdings today.
ESM Goh went on further to say, that “the Mass Rapid Transit and Port of Singapore Authority 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 continues to be private as well.
In 1994, after the listing of Singtel, former President Ong Teng Cheong even shared in his President’s address, and I quote “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 automatic creation of CDP accounts under Section 26C (4) is a commendable administrative move. It should 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 MP 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 encouraging 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 at a discount to Singaporeans whenever a company goes for 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 the household wealth in property equity, followed by 33% in net CPF balances and only 14% in other financial equity.
If we want to generate real net worth for Singaporeans and provide a legacy for their children, “we 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 Honourable friend Andre Low shared in this year’s COS 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 would not only provide a financial safety net but also foster a generation of financially literate citizens who understand the value of long-term strategic investment, and who have an interest and a stake in national policy.
Conclusion
Allow me to conclude in Mandarin Mr Speaker.
议长先生，1993年，新电信正式成为上市公司，政府也推出了新电信优惠股（SDS）计划，通过全民拥股，让国人分享国家经济成果。那年我才六岁。时隔三十多年，如今三十九岁的我才真正意识到那项计划的历史意义和重要性。
当时两千元的公积金投资，到了今天总价值已增长至近一万两千元，其中还包括五千元的累积股息。这对很多国人的退休储蓄来说，是一笔非常可观的数目。更重要的是，这比将钱留在公积金普通户头赚取百分之二点五利息的回报高出了两倍多。如果当时政府能兑现承诺，将公用事业局、新加坡地铁公司以及新加坡港务局等公司，也通过类似的优惠股计划让国人参与，我们的退休保障，是否会更加充裕？
但我今天想强调的是，我们不能只停留在，期待政府偶尔分发“一次性”的优惠股票或礼券的框架。工人党在竞选纲领中主张，应该让国人能够将公积金存款与新加坡政府投资公司共同投资。这并不是在要求政府提供“施舍”或“红包”，而是要让每一位国人都能在国家主权财富的长远战略增长中，真正拥有自己的一份“股份”。
我衷心希望，这项法案的通过，不代表新加坡"全民拥股"这一愿景的终结，而是新篇章的起点；好让我们重新认真探讨，如何让国人与政府携手共同投资，公平地、直接地参与国家的财富增长，达到真正意义上的"藏富于民"。谢谢。
