Singapore's retirement system has held its place as the only one in Asia to earn an A grade in an annual global comparison of pension systems. Hong Kong improved modestly, while Indonesia was the only Asian market to lose ground.

The 2026 edition of the Global Pension Index, published in October by consulting firm Marsh in collaboration with the CFA Institute, gave Singapore a score of 82.0. That was up from 80.8 a year earlier. Hong Kong scored 71.2, up from 70.6, and kept its B grade. Indonesia's score slipped to 50.7 from 51.0, leaving it in the C band.

This is the 18th edition of the index, which was previously published under the Mercer name; its web page says Mercer is becoming Marsh. The 2026 report covers 55 retirement income systems representing 66% of the world's population, after adding the Dominican Republic, Kenya and Qatar. Last year's edition covered 52 systems.

How Asia's systems compare

Each system is assessed on more than 50 indicators grouped into three sub-indexes. Adequacy, which looks at the retirement income a system delivers today, carries a 40% weight. Sustainability, or whether the system can keep paying, accounts for 35%. Integrity, which asks whether the system can be trusted, makes up the remaining 25%.

Singapore's 82.0 was the fourth-highest score among the 55 systems, behind the Netherlands, Denmark and Iceland. Israel and Australia were the other systems graded A. Singapore also placed among the top three on integrity, alongside Finland and Norway. Australia moved into the A group with 80.6, up from 77.6 in 2025, according to this year's index page and Asia Asset Management's report on last year's results.

Hong Kong's 71.2 left it level with Mexico in joint 16th place, based on the published scores. Malaysia, at 61.1, and mainland China, at 60.6, were next in Asia, both graded C+. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand all scored in the C range.

Indonesia's 50.7 put it 10th of the 12 systems the index groups under Asia, behind Thailand at 52.2 and ahead of only the Philippines at 49.2 and India at 46.8. A year ago Indonesia had edged Thailand, scoring 51.0 against 50.6, according to the 2025 results released in October 2025. Across all 55 systems, Indonesia ranked 50th on the published scores.

Every other system in the index's Asia group recorded a higher score than in 2025. China rose to 60.6 from 56.7 and Taiwan to 59.7 from 51.8, the largest gains in the region, according to the two editions.

Ageing is the common pressure

This year's report centers on ageing. It argues that longer lives raise the cost of pensions, that shrinking working-age populations strain funding, and that systems need more flexible designs while managing tensions between generations. Its main point is that ageing itself is unavoidable, while how governments respond to it is up to them.

Tim Jenkins, a partner at Marsh and the report's lead author, said “the pressures on retirement income systems are growing.” The report also puts global pension fund assets at about US$70 trillion and says a growing share is being positioned defensively.

What it means for savers in the region

The index does not change any rules, but each of the three markets is adjusting its system.

Singapore will raise Central Provident Fund contribution rates for workers aged above 55 to 65 again on Jan. 1, 2027. The total rate for those above 60 to 65 will reach 26%, which the CPF Board says brings that group to its target rate.

In Hong Kong, the Mandatory Provident Fund has moved scheme administration onto the government-backed eMPF Platform. The platform's operator proposed cutting its fee to 0.29% of assets a year from 0.37%, effective April 1, according to a paper submitted to the Legislative Council in March.

Indonesia's challenge is coverage and benefit levels. Ogi Prastomiyono, the Financial Services Authority commissioner who supervises pension funds, said in August that the average Indonesian pension equals only 10% to 50% of a worker's final salary, Republika reported. The regulator is pushing pension providers to enroll informal workers.

For individual savers, a national score is a rough guide at best. What a person receives depends on how long they contribute, the funds they choose and the fees they pay, all of which they can review regardless of where their country ranks.

This article is general information, not financial advice.