<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Reimbursing NSmen's pay: Help with employers' CPF contributions too
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I AM happy the Government is doing more to recognise the contributions of national servicemen ('In-camp NSmen can stay connected to workplace', Aug2 8).
As a manager in a small business employing NSmen, I have always wondered why the Government reimburses businesses for the gross salary of the NSman during his period of absence, but not the employer's CPF contribution on that gross salary.
Currently, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) reimburses businesses only for the NSman's gross salary, which includes his take-home pay and employee CPF contribution. The employer's CPF contribution, which is usually 14.5 per cent of gross salary, is not reimbursed.
Because businesses claim the full gross salary for the NSman during his in-camp training, the total employment cost of the NSman during his period of in-camp training is in reality not fully borne by Mindef.
Imagine if Mindef paid only 80 per cent of gross salary as reimbursement, there would be a hue and cry from businesses.
Currently, employers are reimbursed for only 87.3 per cent of total employment cost (100/114.5).
When I checked with the Mindef NS Pay hotline, the customer service officer told me this was the employers' contribution to the overall defence of Singapore.
He also said this was mandated by the CPF Act and outside the jurisdiction of Mindef.
Businesses already take pains to rearrange work schedules to cover for the NSman during his in-camp training. Why must they be taxed with the employer's CPF, especially when the NSman is fully in Mindef's employ during this period? Why must businesses contribute to the nation's defence in monetary terms, when we already provide jobs, expand overseas and raise productivity?
For longer periods of in-camp training, employers sometimes have to hire temporary staff to cover for absent NSmen. In this case, the employer has to pay the employer's CPF twice, once for the NSman and again for his stand-in.
I suggest that this be brought back under the jurisdiction of Mindef. Doing so would allow the Committee to Recognise the Contribution of Operationally Ready National Servicemen (Record) to review the matter. Currently, this occupies a no-man's land between two ministries, and neither has a ready explanation.
Chang Yue Chang
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I AM happy the Government is doing more to recognise the contributions of national servicemen ('In-camp NSmen can stay connected to workplace', Aug2 8).
As a manager in a small business employing NSmen, I have always wondered why the Government reimburses businesses for the gross salary of the NSman during his period of absence, but not the employer's CPF contribution on that gross salary.
Currently, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) reimburses businesses only for the NSman's gross salary, which includes his take-home pay and employee CPF contribution. The employer's CPF contribution, which is usually 14.5 per cent of gross salary, is not reimbursed.
Because businesses claim the full gross salary for the NSman during his in-camp training, the total employment cost of the NSman during his period of in-camp training is in reality not fully borne by Mindef.
Imagine if Mindef paid only 80 per cent of gross salary as reimbursement, there would be a hue and cry from businesses.
Currently, employers are reimbursed for only 87.3 per cent of total employment cost (100/114.5).
When I checked with the Mindef NS Pay hotline, the customer service officer told me this was the employers' contribution to the overall defence of Singapore.
He also said this was mandated by the CPF Act and outside the jurisdiction of Mindef.
Businesses already take pains to rearrange work schedules to cover for the NSman during his in-camp training. Why must they be taxed with the employer's CPF, especially when the NSman is fully in Mindef's employ during this period? Why must businesses contribute to the nation's defence in monetary terms, when we already provide jobs, expand overseas and raise productivity?
For longer periods of in-camp training, employers sometimes have to hire temporary staff to cover for absent NSmen. In this case, the employer has to pay the employer's CPF twice, once for the NSman and again for his stand-in.
I suggest that this be brought back under the jurisdiction of Mindef. Doing so would allow the Committee to Recognise the Contribution of Operationally Ready National Servicemen (Record) to review the matter. Currently, this occupies a no-man's land between two ministries, and neither has a ready explanation.
Chang Yue Chang
