Singapore is the only country in the region that fully exempts foreigners from social insurance — EP/S Pass holders pay 0% CPF, and paying CPF for a foreigner is an offence. Vietnam is the opposite: foreigners must join social insurance at 20.5% employer cost. Two opposing welfare philosophies.
Singapore: 0% CPF for foreigners — paying it is illegal
CPF (Central Provident Fund) applies only to Singapore citizens and permanent residents: 37% total (employer 17% + employee 20%, age ≤55, from 01/01/2025), Ordinary Wage ceiling SGD 8,000/month from 01/01/2026. Foreigners (EP, S Pass, Work Permit) are outside CPF — contributing CPF for them is an offence, not a perk.
Remaining mandatory costs for foreigners: SDL 0.25% of wages (all employees) and the foreign worker levy for S Pass (SGD 650/month) — but that is a quota fee, not social insurance. Result: welfare cost for 50 EP specialists in Singapore ≈ 0.25% of payroll — near zero.
Vietnam: foreigners mandatorily insured at 20.5%
The complete opposite: under Decree 158/2025/ND-CP and Social Insurance Law 41/2024/QH15 (effective 01/7/2025), foreigners working in Vietnam are mandatorily covered — employer 20.5% (14% pension/death + 3% sickness/maternity + 0.5% work accident + 3% HI), employee 9.5%, no unemployment insurance.
For 50 specialists averaging VND 100 million/month: employer SI cost is 20.5% of payroll — about VND 1.025 billion/month for the group (within the 20×-base-salary cap). This is a cost line that does not exist in Singapore.
Side by side: 0% vs 20.5% — opposing philosophies
Philosophy: Singapore — welfare is for citizens/PRs; foreigners handle their own retirement (compensated by higher net pay, since no 20% CPF deduction). Vietnam — foreigners working in Vietnam join the common welfare system, contributing like Vietnamese (minus UI).
Cost for 50 specialists: Singapore — ~0.25% SDL; Vietnam — 20.5% of payroll. A gap of over 20 percentage points — with a large payroll, billions of dong per month.
Compliance traps: in Singapore the trap is wrongly paying CPF for foreigners (an offence); in Vietnam the trap is not paying SI for foreigners (retroactive collection + penalties). Two perfectly inverted traps — companies in both countries must reverse their compliance reflexes.
Practical recommendations
First, in Singapore: never contribute CPF for EP/S Pass holders — recheck payroll configuration so nationality/residency codes are right; pay only the 0.25% SDL. Second, in Vietnam: register all 50 specialists for SI as soon as eligible — 20.5% is mandatory, not optional; apply the 20×-base-salary cap correctly. Third, when comparing offers across the two countries, explain to specialists: gross pay in Singapore is higher partly because no SI is deducted — but they must self-fund retirement; in Vietnam 9.5% is deducted but buys HI coverage and pension accrual.
Frequently asked questions
Do foreigners in Singapore pay CPF?
No. EP, S Pass, and Work Permit holders are outside CPF — 0%. Paying CPF for a foreigner is an offence, not a perk. Only Singapore citizens and PRs participate (37%: 17% employer + 20% employee).
What are the mandatory costs for EP specialists in Singapore?
Near zero for welfare: 0.25% SDL on wages for all employees. EPs carry no foreign worker levy (S Pass: SGD 650/month). No mandatory social insurance for foreigners.
Must foreigners in Vietnam join social insurance?
Yes, mandatory under Decree 158/2025/ND-CP and Law 41/2024/QH15: employer 20.5% (14% + 3% + 0.5% + 3% HI), employee 9.5%. No unemployment insurance.
What does SI cost for 50 specialists in Vietnam?
20.5% of payroll on the employer side (within the 20×-base-salary cap). At VND 100 million/month average, about VND 1.025 billion/month for 50 people — a cost line absent in Singapore.
What if CPF is wrongly paid for a foreigner in Singapore?
It is a CPF offence. Companies must audit payroll configuration against each worker’s residency status and not contribute CPF for work-pass holders.
For detailed advice on social insurance for specialists in Singapore or Vietnam, companies may contact FLAT Law Firm.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council