For advertisement

Sample

3/12/2010

Who the f@#% does he think he is?

CPF Life will be compulsory for those with $60k in their retirement accounts at the age of 65. They missed them when they got the bulk of their money out at 55. Now the net closes in and they are going for those who slipped out to be caught again at 65. Who does he think he is? It is the people's money. Don't touch, you have no right to confiscate the people's money at your whims and fancy. You are no god, boy. 'Such was the level of interest in CPF Life that it was opened up last Sept to Singaporeeans and permanent residents aged 55 and older. Since then, some 37,000 people have signed up, committing a total of $1.7 billion.' Why such a great and popular scheme only had 37,000 members? If it is so great, people will all be rushing into it. And why the need for compulsion? Is the govt so short of fund that it has to resort to locking up the people's money in all kinds of scheme? Boon Wan is waiting to transfer more money into Medisave. The people who are not happy with a govt that thinks it can do anything with their money must vote for the return of their money in the next GE. They must assert their rights to their own money and tell whichever joker to lay his hands off their money. I will definitely vote for the right to my money.

24 comments:

Wally Buffet said...

Hehe,

I am so glad to be old.

I withdrew all my monies as allowed. Instead of signing up for CPF life, I opted to have what is left in the Retirement account returned to me in monthly installments instead of CPF Life. To their credit, there was NO hard sale by CPF staff to entice me to do the CPF Life. Not much but it pays some of the bills for a long time.

Redbean, calm down. Money isn't everything you know.

Robert Tan said...

For most who are above average in managing their fund/finances, this seems like a reasonably good move.

For a Buffet, this is definitely the right move....Tsk! Tsk!

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Why should the people be forced to buy insurance from the govt?

See anything wrong with that?

Selling compulsory insurance products to captive unwilling buyers.

Wally Buffet said...

"Why should the people be forced to buy insurance from the govt?"

It's being done for your own good. Not everyone is like you, careful with your finances. The Ah Peks will either splurge their windfall at the casino, the turf club or the China whores.

The Lao auntie will pay top dollars to dubious fly by night slimming and beauty saloons to transform them into a Fann Wong, hopefully.

We ain't known as the nanny state for nothing and that's not a bad thing if you would just take it easy, calm down and think about it rationally. :-)

Hehe.

JeffGoh said...

First its borrowing from CPF.

Now its plundering CPF.

The blood have been sucked - now going for the bones.

The One plus billion collected so far would hardly cover the loss in Styvesant Town if you factor in admin, legal cost and exchange rates and opportunity costs.

Do Singaporeans deserve this from a 1st World Government.

Mmm Zhai See said...

nothing short of Asset confiscation to cover the fact that they cannot return our retirement money because hundreds of billions of our money evaporated overnight by Giants In Conning and Tomfoolery Holdings!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like they are really desperate, since they got only 37,000 signing up. That's only about 5% out of the 750,000 letters of invitation sent out earlier.

They really needed cash to finance their forays eg the Prudential/AIA deal, so not surprising that this is happening, because this is the cheapest source of funds to tap.

Don't be surprised to learn that one of the reasons for the increase in HDB conservancy charges may also be tied to the need for more money, and this is one of the sources of funds that they will tap into.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Mmmm Zhai See, welcome to the blog.

If the product is worthy of what it is and of value, there is no need for compulsion.

Great Eastern and Aviva should also offer alternative insurance schemes and demand to be part of the compulsion syndicate.

Anonymous said...

Someone must tell him "CPF savings your grandfather's money!"

Anonymous said...

Those who purposely left more money in RA instead of withdrawing all at 55, too bad. No escape from their clutches now.

I always believe that if you have money in CPF, never take chances, just take out all at 55, because they have been changing the rules at their whims and fancies.

Thank God I have been able to muster returns just as good as leaving them in RA. No regrets.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

People who prey on other people's hard earned money under whatever excuses is like what the hokien saying, 'chet ark'.

If they take people's money and invest here, there and everywhere, make money and return, nothing to say. If they go and lose all the money, the investment scene is full of sharks and conmen, and cannot return, believe me, your karma is calling.

Investment is not child play, sure make money one. We have seen how many billions have been lost so easily. Wake up and play with your own money, not other people's hard earned money. It is people's blood, sweat and tears.

Any good man with a heart will not dare to fool around with such money. Believe me, if the intention is no good, don't do it, no matter how clever you think you are.

Anonymous said...

In the early days, CPF is looked upon as the people's savings, looked after by the Government until they need it for old age.

Now CPF is as good as belonging to the regime and not the people's money anymore. It is up to them to do as they like and hold back as long as they like, and the people have no say, no choice, no recourse and certainly would qualify as a violation of human rights.

Die lah! Cry also no tears!

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean,

It is not "your money". The moment it was taken from you (by force) it ceased to become "your money".

So stop thinking that it is and basing your arguments on "ownership".

Arguments are only valid if your originating premises are valid. i.e. you can't argue something if it hasn't been argued "into reality" to begin with.

CPF is not "your money" because it fails the ownership test. The ownership test states that if you own something then you have control on how the thing is used. So if it really was your money you could use it anyway you alone choose to do.

CPF is a legal Ponzi Scheme funded by a TAX (compulsory "contribution") i.e. the constant stream of people paying in goes to "fund" the people who "qualify" to receive funds. You "qualify" when you hit a certain age or if your spouse dies.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Matilah, you have repeated this many times and I hate to agree with you. But I think I have to.

Even then, must not let go. Must still kpkb about it. Not registering ownership is to give away by default.

Maybe a new govt will return it to us. You may call it day dreaming.

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean:

> Even then, must not let go. Must still kpkb about it <

I agree. But on my point about argument: you can't argue into reality what doesn't exist.

Therefore the argument should proceed in the direction which makes the state the manager of CPF where the ownership of funds is not in dispute.

Actually the PAP's argument against a welfare state can be used against them. As it stands, CPF is a technique used by centrally planned welfare states. If the PAP was really serious about avoiding the creation of a welfare state, the the only alternative is private ownership.

Therefore if you pay money to CPF for them to manage for you, you call the shots. All the time -- until the contract is voided by either party -- you OWN YOUR MONEY.

How to change? I can see 2 ways: the govt doing it voluntarily (which I doubt), or the politcal will of the people (also doubtful without a huge surge by the public -- especially the young ones who don't seem to give a shit)

Ghost of 1984 said...

The PAP would do well to remember 1984.

From the Wikipedia entry on Howe Yoon Chong - "

Howe relinquished his defence post to become the Minister for Health from 1982 to 1984. There, Howe became best remembered by Singaporeans for his controversial proposal in 1984 to raise the age for the withdrawal of Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings from 55 to 60 years. At a news conference on 26 March 1984, Howe reasoned that Singaporeans could not depend only on their children in their old age. That suggestion, part of the 54-page report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged[13] which he chaired, was eventually dropped. However, the report that took 20 months to finalise remains an important document with its forward-looking strategies to support Singapore's greying population.[2][5][14][15][16] Taking up the suggestions in the report, the Singapore Government subsequently introduced the Minimum Sum scheme. This allows workers to withdraw some of their CPF funds at age 55, setting aside a certain minimum sum which can only be withdrawn at retirement age, currently at 62 years.[12][17] To encourage the employment of aged workers, the CPF contribution rates for both employer and the aged employee were cut in July 1988.[3] In 1993, the government raised the retirement age to 60.[16]

Howe did not contest the general election in 1984. As a result of Howe's controversial report, the PAP lost 12% of the overall votes in that election, and conceded the Potong Pasir ward to Chiam.[3][16] Howe retired from politics that year.[12] "

I think this time round the PAP is doing this whole CPF thing by stealth, measures which slowly erode your ability to access your CPF coming in drips and draps :

(a) Overflow of medisave into special account instead of ordinary account
(b) Cap on amount you can use for housing
(c) Raising the minimum sum etc

If somebody puts all their dirty measures together and shows it to the public, I think there would be public outrage.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

We will see how the next GE works out.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Really? Do you think there'll be a difference?

Let's say one of so-called "opposition" parties gets in. It'll be even worse. These guys are socialist to the core -- they think it is the govt's "duty" to help those who (apparently) need some form of "help". These are collectivists who are no less power hungry than the incumbents.

At least the PAP is capable of some sort of objectivity now and then -- for e.g. they know experientially that if the "tekan" people too hard, any of them (approx 200,000 now) will just up and leave -- emigrate, fuck off, disappear to other countries.

The PAP at least understand that S'poreans like their money and the "good life". The oposition parties seem to want to offer "free money" and "free help" and those of us who DON'T understand economics still understand that there is no such thing as "free" anything the govt offers. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

Elections are a farce lah. Singapore is a one party authoritarian state. Lee Kuan Yew stated it clearly even recently: "I make no apologies in saying that the govt is the PAP and the PAP is the govt" There, straight from the horse's mouth.

I'll give credit where credit is due: I am no "fan" of the PAP or of LKY, but when it comes to "talking straight", Emperor Lee doesn't bullshit. He says what he likes, you don't agree or like it-- too bad. I can respect that.

Anonymous said...

Taking up a point further from Ghost of 1984's comments, on hindsight, I think it would have been better if we had agreed to their proposal of just raising the withdrawal age.

This is because there is still a ghost (no pun intended) of a chance of having a lump sum of money withdrawn, without the introduction of the minimum sum. Of course that is assuming they left everything else unchanged, except the withdrawal age.

Now, sorry folks, too late to regret. They may fail to catch you at 55, but they will still do so at 65. And, I suspect, later even at 75, if they needed to.

Scary, real scary!

Matilah_Singapura said...

The question of "ownership" is a strange one. Like many other govt-edicted arbitrary constructs, the question of whether the money you contribute to CPF is "yours" in the objective sense actually changes.

As long as you remain a Singapore citizen, that money supposedly in your name (in name only) is never yours as the govt decides how to use it and whether or not to throw you a bone just to shut you up.

However if you DIE, your spouse gets it. Big deal. You still don't own it.

However if you emigrate and give up your Singapore citizenship like magic... the money now becomes YOURS.

The Singapore govt is capable of bending the laws of reality and performs MAGIC.

How cool it that?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

You cannot hide the truth for too long. Neither can one deceive everyone for too long.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Are you sure about that?

Then how would you explain religious beliefs? These are beliefs based on medieval superstitions -- models of the world and reality, and the explanatios of "causality" -- god or the devil or ghosts did it. None of the claims for the basis of these beliefs -- i.e. belief in the supernatural -- has yet bee proven or is likely to be proven.

Yet these beliefs, along with the supernatural basis still persist today despite overwhelming and growing scientific evidence to the contrary.

You may not be able to fool people forever but you can con them for a long, long time. The human brain is built in a way which makes it easy to fool, and its propensity for pattern seeking and recognition makes "gullibility" a sort of "default state".

Add to that the emotionality of human conciousness: we are an emotional species, and for survival purposes our "knee jerk" negatives emotions like fear -- especially of dying or injury -- cause us to act before objective investigation

So redbean, it is actuallly very easy to bluff people and to hold them in-thrall for a long, long time. Of course some people are more resistant to lies than others. But looking at pop culture, political beliefs and new age nonsense... there are ALOT of people who are extremely deluded, and "controlled" through their delusion(s) by some "manipulator".

Anonymous said...

Whoever is not fearful of SIN can remain. Those who fear, me says it again, cash out and leaves SIN.
If one gets foreign citizenship, he/she gets to get his/her CPF in full to spend.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The kings and emperors used to con the people with the concept of sons of heaven or mandate of heaven. Then the Europeans dashed this myth with democracy, that everyone is equal and no one has blue blood.

This is one great contribution from the west. Of course the rulers will keep insisting that they deserved the right to rule over their mindless subjects.

And if they can't rule by conning, they will use power to rule.