Josephine Teo's reply in ST forum
To her, as long as the intention is good, it is ok for the govt to intervene, in this case the CPF reforms. The govt has a duty and a right to introduce policies and changes that affect the people. True. But is the right to one's own money a sacred right to be protected? The govt has acquired land and properties, in the past and paying a fraction, for redevelopment of the infrastructure. Now it is paying market rate compensation. The withholding of people's money in the CPF and insisting that they buy annuities are different issues. Should the govt next insist that the people must buy their coffins and a place at the columbarium, deducted from their CPF, and put aside a sum for funeral expenses? If individual rights to their own properties and money can be so easily violated on the ground that the govt said it is good for the people and nation in the long run, what are the implications? And also the sanctity of a contractual agreement entered into at one time and can be changed later without the consent of the other party. Violations in such nature have very serious consequences in the long term. An agreement is an agreement. That is what we told the Indonesians and foreign investors. Are we setting a very bad example in the changing of CPF terms and conditions? Are these things important at all? Siew Kum Hong better push for a discussion on these matters in Parliament soon.