SINGAPORE – A High Court judge said it was “puzzling” that while a pre-existing nomination of Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings would be automatically revoked by marriage under the law, a divorce does not hold the same consequences.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin made the observation in a case where an 80-year-old man, who had been divorced for 36 years, made two unsuccessful attempts via the online CPF portal to nominate his only child as the beneficiary of the funds in his CPF account.

The man, Mr Toh Kim Hiang, died just over a month after his second unsuccessful nomination attempt.

His daughter, Ms Adeline Toh, then went to court to seek a declaration that the second nomination was a valid one, which would supersede the previous one in which her father made her estranged mother, Ms Yee Swee Yong, his nominee.

Justice Lee declared that the nomination was valid and ordered the board to release the CPF monies to Ms Toh.

On Wednesday, in written grounds for his decision, the judge said: “This case raised questions with respect to the legislative purpose behind the formality requirements for CPF nominations and how nominations not made in accordance with the required formalities are viewed by the court.”

Justice Lee said he had examined the evidence and found that Mr Toh had the intention of nominating Ms Toh and had made that nomination in the presence of two witnesses even though it was not compliant with the CPF rules.

He said: “Firstly, it is clear from the evidence that the deceased could not have intended for his CPF monies to pass to Ms Yee. They had lived their lives essentially as strangers since their divorce.”

The judge also said the evidence was strong that Mr Toh intended for his CPF monies to pass to Ms Toh.

The judge noted that Mr Toh had made efforts to change his nominee from Ms Yee to Ms Toh, not once, but twice, after he learnt that the first attempt had failed. 

The conclusion that Mr Toh intended to nominate his daughter to receive his CPF monies was also supported by his will, which showed his testamentary intent to bequeath his property absolutely to her as well, said Justice Lee.

However, the judge said that as formalities were not complied with, the CPF Board was entitled to refuse to recognise the nomination until the court orders otherwise. Thus, he did not order costs against the board.

He said the board’s caution was especially warranted in the light of a letter it received from Ms Toh’s sister-in-law – the second witness to the two nominations – in which she expressed discomfort in having signed some lawyer’s letters.

Mr Toh and Ms Yee divorced on Feb 26, 1985. According to Ms Toh, since the divorce, she had made contact with her mother only once, in 2009.

On Nov 7, 2021, when Mr Toh was celebrating his 80th birthday with his daughter and her husband, Mr Ng Chye Aik, he said he believed that his prior CPF nomination in favour of Ms Yee had been voided after his divorce and that his CPF monies would be inherited by Ms Toh.

Mr Ng informed him that he would, in fact, have to make a fresh CPF nomination.

On Nov 22, 2021, Mr Toh made an online submission to nominate Ms Toh to receive his CPF savings.

Mr Ng, the first witness, completed his online attestation to Mr Toh’s signature. However, Mr Ng’s sister, Ms Ng Bee Kien, who was asked to be the second witness, did not.

The submission expired on Nov 29, 2021, and Mr Toh was informed in a text message that his nomination had been unsuccessful.

On Nov 30, 2021, Mr Toh made a second online submission. Once again, Mr Ng completed his attestation to Mr Toh’s signature, but Ms Ng did not.

According to Ms Ng, she received text messages from the CPF Board asking her to log on to the portal to complete her attestation.

However, when she logged in, she could not see any message or notification asking her to take further action. She said she assumed that it was sufficient for her to have logged on to the portal.

Mr Toh fell ill shortly after and died on Jan 4, 2022.

Following requests by Ms Toh and Mr Ng to disburse his CPF savings to Ms Toh instead of Ms Yee, the board said Mr Toh had not successfully made a new nomination before his passing.

Subsequently, it was discovered that Mr Toh had keyed in the identity card number of Mr Ng’s mother, instead of Ms Ng, under the details of his second witness.

Ms Toh, who was represented by Mr Goh Hui Hua of Covenant Chambers, then filed an application in the High Court.

She also succeeded in stopping the board from distributing her father’s CPF monies until the case was heard.

Following two failed attempts to serve the papers on Ms Yee at her last known address in Perak, Malaysia, Ms Toh was permitted to serve the documents via a notice placed in the local newspapers.