By HK | May 28, 2015
Vietnamese lawmakers on May 27 had a heated debate on whether the country’s top legislative-body National Assembly (NA) should amend Article 60 of the Law on Social Insurance or issue a document supplementing the implementation of the law.
During the discussion, some lawmakers suggested giving Vietnamese workers more options in social insurance payments, including receiving a lump-sum benefit if they prefer to, while others pointed out that Article 60 is correct as it protects them in their retirement age.
Currently Article 60 regulates that workers are not allowed to receive a big one-time payment when leaving a job; instead they have to contribute to the social insurance fund for 20 years to be eligible for a monthly allowance at the retirement age.
According to the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs, on average each year about 500,000 people get their lump-sum pension; this number rose to 605,783 in 2014 from 129,100 in 2007.
Deputy Nguyen Kim Thuy from Danang city said most lump-sum insurance recipients come from rural areas or work in industrial zones, and thus, they are yet to understand the full implication of Article 60 and need guidance from the government.
She suggested the NA issue a decree allowing workers who have stopped working for one year to choose between reserving their social insurance payment until retirement age and taking the lump-sum benefit. The decree will be reviewed afterward, enabling lawmakers to decide whether to include it in the law or to amend the law directly, she added.
Similarly, deputy Ho Thu Thuy from the northern province of Vinh Phuc urged the NA to tread carefully in amending any law because of public backlash as this could create a bad precedent in legislation.
In contrast, deputy Truong Trong Nghia from Ho Chi Minh City said Article 60 is correct but not sufficient for failing to taking into account the right to choose of workers.
Deputy Ngo Van Minh from the central province of Quang Nam pointed out that the law is incomplete for raising such controversial public reaction, and to use the unresolved issues in Decision 176 on one-time pension payment to supplement Article 60 is not suitable because Decision 176 was issued back in 1989, a completely different socioeconomic period.
Summing up the discussion yesterday, NA Deputy Chairman Uong Chu Luu noted that many lawmakers agreed on keeping Article 55 of the 2006 Social Insurance Law on reserving insurance payment and benefit for an indefinite period. He said the NA will review all suggestions and survey opinions of workers before deciding whether to amend Article 60 or not.
The debate, part of the on-going NA sitting until June 26, followed a large labor strike in March when 90,000 workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in Vietnam’s southern economic hub of Ho Chi Minh City went on strike to oppose Article 60 to take effect next January.
Height Insoles: Hi, I do believe this is an excellent site. I stumbledupon …
http://fishinglovers.net: Appreciate you sharing, great post.Thanks Again. Keep writi…
Achilles Pain causes: Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this site, as i w…
May 28, 2015
Vietnam Lawmakers Have Diverging Opinions on Lump-sum Social Insurance
by Nhan Quyen • [Human Rights]
By HK | May 28, 2015
Vietnamese lawmakers on May 27 had a heated debate on whether the country’s top legislative-body National Assembly (NA) should amend Article 60 of the Law on Social Insurance or issue a document supplementing the implementation of the law.
During the discussion, some lawmakers suggested giving Vietnamese workers more options in social insurance payments, including receiving a lump-sum benefit if they prefer to, while others pointed out that Article 60 is correct as it protects them in their retirement age.
Currently Article 60 regulates that workers are not allowed to receive a big one-time payment when leaving a job; instead they have to contribute to the social insurance fund for 20 years to be eligible for a monthly allowance at the retirement age.
According to the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs, on average each year about 500,000 people get their lump-sum pension; this number rose to 605,783 in 2014 from 129,100 in 2007.
Deputy Nguyen Kim Thuy from Danang city said most lump-sum insurance recipients come from rural areas or work in industrial zones, and thus, they are yet to understand the full implication of Article 60 and need guidance from the government.
She suggested the NA issue a decree allowing workers who have stopped working for one year to choose between reserving their social insurance payment until retirement age and taking the lump-sum benefit. The decree will be reviewed afterward, enabling lawmakers to decide whether to include it in the law or to amend the law directly, she added.
Similarly, deputy Ho Thu Thuy from the northern province of Vinh Phuc urged the NA to tread carefully in amending any law because of public backlash as this could create a bad precedent in legislation.
In contrast, deputy Truong Trong Nghia from Ho Chi Minh City said Article 60 is correct but not sufficient for failing to taking into account the right to choose of workers.
Deputy Ngo Van Minh from the central province of Quang Nam pointed out that the law is incomplete for raising such controversial public reaction, and to use the unresolved issues in Decision 176 on one-time pension payment to supplement Article 60 is not suitable because Decision 176 was issued back in 1989, a completely different socioeconomic period.
Summing up the discussion yesterday, NA Deputy Chairman Uong Chu Luu noted that many lawmakers agreed on keeping Article 55 of the 2006 Social Insurance Law on reserving insurance payment and benefit for an indefinite period. He said the NA will review all suggestions and survey opinions of workers before deciding whether to amend Article 60 or not.
The debate, part of the on-going NA sitting until June 26, followed a large labor strike in March when 90,000 workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in Vietnam’s southern economic hub of Ho Chi Minh City went on strike to oppose Article 60 to take effect next January.