Business associations stated that the total contribution rate of 25% to the retirement and survivorship fund is excessively high compared to the regional average. In this structure, employees contribute 8% and employers contribute 17%. Consequently, this level is significantly higher than in Malaysia (13%), the Philippines (10%), and Indonesia (8%).

Accordingly, 8 associations—including the Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association (VITAS), the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), the Vietnam Electronic Industries Association (VEIA), the Vietnam Timber and Forest Product Association (VIFOREST), the Vietnam Leather, Footwear and Handbag Association (LEFASO), the Food Transparency Association (AFT), the Vietnam Plastics Association (VPA), and the Handicraft and Wood Industry Association of Ho Chi Minh City (HAWA)—have submitted proposals to the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, the Government Office, and relevant ministries regarding the draft amended Law on Social Insurance.

According to the official document, the associations argued that the total 25% contribution rate to the retirement and survivorship fund is excessively high compared to regional peers. Of this, employees pay 8% and employers pay 17%. This contribution level far exceeds that of Malaysia (13%), the Philippines (10%), Indonesia (8%), and others.

Furthermore, the group expressed reservations regarding the two salary options used for calculating social insurance contributions. Under Option 1, the salary basis includes the monthly salary, wage allowances, and other supplementary payments of a determined, specific amount.

Under Option 2, the salary basis comprises the salary, wage allowances, and other supplementary payments as stipulated by regulations (excluding performance bonuses and non-work-related allowances or subsidies).

According to the associations, while Option 1 would reduce immediate contribution pressures on employees and employers, it disrupts policy uniformity, creates inequality among enterprises, and widens the income gap between working and retired employees across different firms.

Meanwhile, Option 2—with a higher overall contribution base—would impose heavy burdens on enterprises, undermine competitiveness, and decrease employees' take-home pay. Therefore, all 8 industry associations proposed reducing the social insurance contribution rates under both options. Specifically, for Option 1, the employee contribution should be reduced to 5% and the employer contribution to 15%, bringing the total to 20%.

In addition, the minimum contribution floor should not be solely based on base salary, allowances, and supplements, but calculated on 70% of the employee's actual total earnings. "This approach would be more scientific and realistic: higher earners contribute more, lower earners contribute less," the document stated.

For Option 2, the group proposed that employees contribute 4% and employers contribute 12%, totaling 16%, calculated on actual income (excluding non-wage items). According to estimates, this contribution floor accounts for roughly 90% of employees' actual income. Social insurance fund revenue would remain stable while avoiding large disparities between active and retired workers.

Additionally, the organizations recommended that drafting authorities consider lowering the maximum pension replacement rate (currently 75%) in line with international practices while ensuring higher actual take-home pensions.

Regarding lump-sum social insurance withdrawals, the associations recommended that after 12 consecutive months of non-contribution, employees with under 20 years of accumulated contributions be eligible to withdraw a maximum of 50% of their total accrued contribution period in the retirement and survivorship fund. The remaining duration would be reserved (until retirement age), with the exact entitlement clearly documented at the time of lump-sum payout so workers are fully informed.

Regarding retirement age conditions, the 8 associations proposed allowing workers to retire early upon request at age 60 for men and 55 for women, provided they have participated in social insurance for at least 15 years, with pension payouts proportional to their contribution rates.

The associations explained that in practice, the majority of Vietnamese workers perform manual labor, with many entering the social security system at an early age and accumulating lengthy contribution tenures. Consequently, upon reaching ages 55–60, declining physical health impairs their ability to meet job requirements, exposing them to high risks of unemployment.

If forced to wait until statutory retirement age, workers face severe challenges sustaining their livelihoods. Furthermore, offering early retirement choices opens up employment opportunities for younger generations while reducing the 2% annual pension penalty for early retirement.