Myth 117 Is CPF a saving scheme for retirement? After saving for a life time at between 33-50% of a person's income, many Singaporeans ended up with little money left in the CPF for retirement? How can that be? Where have all the money gone to? In the first place housing eg a 4 room HDB flat, will take away between $200k to $300 for a 20 year instalment plan. A person who contributes $1000 to the CPF a month will find the bulk of his savings going to the flat. How could there be excess savings when flats are priced according to affordability, which means how much the buyer has in his CPF saving. Now we have a better scheme called Medisave. But before anyone can save enough, there are all kinds of great schemes to spend this money. There are insurance schemes for self, for spouse and for children. This is another effort by the govt to plan for the people using their CPF money. Very laudable. But how much money will be left for retirement? Retirement is a time to spend money on self to live a more carefree life, not just about paying expensive medical fees to struggle to be alive. People will die and it is a natural way of saying that the body cannot take it anymore. Nothing to cry about when it is time to go. The artificial extension of life is not necessarily a good thing as it is against nature. What would be better is to make CPF and Medisave a voluntary contribution after 55. Medical insurance can be made compulsory up to 60. After that the people must have a life of their own to decide for themselves what is good for them. How can the govt compel the people with so many compulsory schemes even at their twilight years? Let the people be free to be themselves, to do what is right for themselves with their money when they are old and a little wiser. Can the people be allowed to be free during the last lap of the lives? Let's not treat the people as children for the rest of their life, to be managed, controlled and legislated on how to live their life. What govt control? Never heard of it. The govt is all doing for the good of the people, taking care of the people with the people's own money. Even after providing for their medical insurance, they still have to keep a large chunk of their money in Medisave till they die.

snippets on fts

Snippets of comments on FTs in Starblog appearing in ST. 'The main issue...is jobs. If every Singaporean is guaranteed a good job...do you think we care so much about foreign talent or immigration?' - Dawn. '...Yes they are from other countries and they may seem to be "infringing" on our "territory" but how many of us can trace our lineage back through the years to the local, indigenous people? Very few.' -Nick '...I was completely unaware that Singaporeans criticise foreign talent...' -Jaymee 'Hard as it may seem, we should try our best to be colour blind and learn from what expatriates can contribute to our society and nation...' -Maia '...I've always found the criticism of foreigners in Spore rather hypocritical. We are an island that relies on everyone else's trade to make our living...foreigners have been coming to Singapore and making a difference for a long time.' -Joe 'As far as I can tell, xenophobia doesn't exist here, in that Singaproeans don't really have a fear of things foreign,....' -Ju Len Simply put, Singaporeans are not xenophobic. They welcome foreigners. There are some concern when their jobs are affected. Otherwise everything goes. This is good and well without looking at the long term consequences of the existence of Singaporeans who have sacrificed for this island and called it home. When Singaporeans could not see the difference of being a citizen and a non citizen, cannot appreciate that the island belongs to them and they need to safeguard it for themselves and children, they are likely to give it away. And should the day come when the new citizens decided against their interests and sold this island away in whatever manner, it is only the Singaporeans to be blamed. Those who do not treasure their heritage deserve to lose them. I find this very disturbing, that a people is so careless about what is theirs and so unthinking about it. In politics, once lost, it is lost forever. You cannot hope that the victor or people in power will be generous or magnanimous to you. Neither can Singaporeans expect the power to be to run this place in the interest of the people. The future leaders can squander everything away. We have failed miserably in national education. At the rate it is going, Singapore is up for grabs by whichever group that has the patient, determination and purposefulness to take this island for themselves. Singaporeans could lose their homeland by default, for being too generous, and simply naive to the point of idiocy.

Ooooooh, someone changed my pic!

Ha, someone put his pic in my my blog. Luckily it isn't porno!. Hi your little one looks great. But I will have to replace it soon. Cheers

The Next Great Singaporean Debate

The Next Great Singaporean Debate The intellectual battle between Wei Ling and Philip Yeo was touted as the debate that could have the potential of generating great discussion in the MSM. Chok Tong also encouraged it to go on. But after staring down at each other from their respective corners, the fight fizzled off. No KO in the first round as it was discontinued. Now Stomp is heralding its greatest debate of all time in its forum, 'To fine or not to fine pedestrian using mobile phone.' It claimed that this is a hot issue. Fining is a great obsession in this island, bigger than Opt In/Opt Out. Both are our greatest problem solvers. Just fine the people and the problem will be solved, or simply opt them in. Would pedestrians be fined for using MP3, reading papers while eating as they risked being choked to death. Commuters in MRT could be fined for crossing the yellow lines or using mobile or listening to MP3 too. All acts that could endanger self or others can be fined. What about blogging and posting in cyberspace? A dangerous activity, really. Back to the great debate. Another one is really brewing. This time between people of the same profession. Not between a doctor and an engineer. No mismatch. The combatants are Dr Lee Wei Ling and Drs Patrick Kee Chin Wah and Wong Wee Nam. So no need to take snipe remarks about not being qualified to talk about the issue, Hota and Opt In/Opt Out. Drs Kee/Wong made this a public issue by discussing it in the MSM. For they had hit a wall when they appeared before a Select Committee. Any discussion in such circumstances, like within an organisation, will lead to a decision by the decision maker. Period. Not an issue of bigger right or bigger wrong. The one who calls the shot makes the decision. It is therefore appropriate that an issue where right and wrong are relative and subjective be discussed in an open forum, to be fully aired. After the first letter by the two doctors, Wei Ling replied. According to the last response by Kee/Wong, she made 3 assumptions. 1. 'given a choice, the vast majority of families would object strongly if they thought this could prevent their loved one's organs from being removed.' 2. 'the only incentive at present not to opt out is that those who opt out go to the bottom of the waiting list if they ever need an organ.' 3. there is 'a separate organ donor form where one can specify which or all organs one wishes to pledge....' Kee/Wong pointed out that based on the recent case, the families did not object to the donation of the organs. This proved that Singaporeans have accepted the fait accompli of donating the organs. The second, they believed that many did not opt out more of ignorance and apathy rather than fear of going to the end of the list when they need organs themselves. As for the third point, 'Amendments to Hota have already been made so organs other than kidneys can be taken. What we are seeing is the contest between being practical, pragmatic and functional as against being compassionate, feeling and emotional as human beings. We made rules for the good of the people at large. But should we make rules that are so clinical, mechanical, with no regards to feelings and emotions of the living? We are afterall humans with feelings, emotions and attachments. These are things that make us different. The ability to feel, to love and to care. The complicated thing in this debate is that brain death is still not conclusive and not necessarily accepted as death by the general masses. The medical profession may have its definition of biological death, the law may have its legal definition of death, the people may have their own beliefs of what is death. We are touching on a grey area that no one except God is the wiser. So, should one group of people pronounced their judgement on others? When there is room for doubts, or when there are strong emotions and pain on the living, can the law be more human, more compassionate? This is not a criminal case, or it maybe, if one day it is proven that a brain dead person could be revived and live again. In criminal cases, there is a term called 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Is brain death beyond reasonable doubt?

Opt In Charity for all Singaporeans and PRs.

Opt In Charity for all Singaporeans and PRs. I believe that all Singaporeans and PRs are good and generous people and will be wiling to help the needy and less fortunate. I would like to propose a National Charity Scheme to replace all charities. All Singaporeans and PRs shall be opted into this scheme and 5% of their income shall be deducted every month. It starts all the way from the President to the $500 a month worker. This will make it very convenient for all Singaporeans to do charity and be really seen as a generous people who really have a heart for the less fortunate. And no need for the needies to cry in front the TV for the whole nation to see. How's that? Of course those who think they want to opt out can still opt out. I will not opt out.