9/25/2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
> f 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? <
Well, that IS the problem:
PROPERTY is not clearly defined. If you really OWNED the money (supposedly) in your CPF account, then you could do as you pleased with it. This principle of TOTAL CONTROL of property is fundamental in defining ownership.
But it seems that it is The Government which can do as it pleases with the money. Therefore, they control it; and thus OWN it.
I've been saying this all along: you DON'T own the money in (supposedly) your CPF account; simply because the "account" is a fiction. CPF is a TAX, and once paid it is sunken costs — i.e. the money paid is, for all intents and purposes unrecoverable.
The govt then "dishes out" a few hundred bucks a month... like giving you—when you are a sick, old, useless and spiritually fucked up, a hopeless, luckless, disempowered motherfucker without a leg to stand on or a voice to be heard—an ALLOWANCE
Don't spend it all will ya? ;-)
Annuities and longetivity insurance are good and necessary but the mandatory witholding of cpf funds, to as much as 90% in 5 years time without allowing the choice to opt out seems to run against the principle of democracy to me. And the consequence of this may mean those who insists on getting the cpf back will be forced to consider opting out of the country instead. After a lifetime of toil and loyalty, this is a just reward.
Is there democracy in Singapore? We are more like Communist China before Deng or Russia before Gorbahev or Burma today, total state control over most aspects of our lives, to the extent of making babies. Democracy in name only!
annuities will be excellent if the govt announces that it is paying out from its coffer to take care of the oldies.
and i can bet you, it does not need the billions that the govt is coughing out now as sweeteners. and no need to work so hard to invite the wrath of the people.
The thing is that the money that they cough out must serve a purpose eg to sweeten the ground expecially for election season, not
spent on something that cannot be seen and generate little return. It is therefore not in their interest to help the oldies. They rather splash the money on upgrading the sidewalks, shelters, markets, hawker centres etc which everyone can see and talk about and win votes for them.
Post a Comment