A simple illustration of Thinkall's article

What Thinkall said is very simple. If money has to be paid out but delay to a later date, there is a huge carrying cost. The CPF was supposed to pay a depositor all his savings at 55. Now it is 62/63 or 67. There is a delay of 7 years or more. An another portion is delay to 85. A much longer delay. Example. if there are 20,000 people hitting 55 annually, and each expecting $100k withdrawal, that is $2 billion. Now with the minimum sum, only a small sum will be withdrawn. The rest will be kept with compound interest at 4%. Seven years delay means at least 30% more to pay out. In the mean time the money is reinvested. Hopely the return is higher than the 4% when the delayed withdrawal is due. Otherwise it will be trouble. At the moment there is hope that the super talents and fund managers will do their jobs. If they do, fine. If they don't, not only we don't make the 4%, there is a high carrying cost to pay these super fund managers. And they don't come cheap. The Americans are in some way doing the same thing. Delay payment to the future generations. And they do it by issuing bonds year after year. Still someone must pay some time in the future. We are delaying our CPF payout to be paid in a much larger sum some time in the future. So life can go on. Who is going to inherit the problem in the future if our investments turn sour? Of course the investments can turn into a golden goose. But before the goose turns golden, all the fund managers are going to get their bite first. And there are sharks and all kinds of events trying to turn those investments to ashes. While time has been bought to pay later, the time must be used urgently to generate more funds for the payout. Could this be the reason why all the fees are pushed up, selling assets, privatisation to raise fund? If we are so rich, there should not be such a pressing need to up everything and incur the ire of the people and more hardship for the lower income group.

Yellow ribbon on the big oak tree

There was a big campaign to educate people on the need to help those that went astray to return to the main stream of life. Many have spent time behind bars for all sorts of reasons. Some petty crimes, some drugs, and some fairly serious. Everyone deserves a second chance. Chance must be given to those who are willing and want to return to normal life. It is not an easy path, and must be approached with caution as not all will want to or are able to return to live normally. Then there is this one that forged his degree to get a job here and was found out. He had proven that he was a good worker and had won the confidence and trust of his employer. His case deserves some special attention from his track records. His employer paid his legal fees and fines and wanted to fight for him to be given a second chance. this is a heart warming fight by Ivy. On an individual case, people may be warmed to the worker and may want to help him as best they could. But how would this affect the bigger picture? Would every potential offender find our laws so compassionate that it is ok to repeat the same offence? We can afford to deal with a handful of cases. But where should it stop? It is bad to think that just because Hsien Loong mentioned of a case that could deserve a different treatment, probably tongue in cheek, it should not be used as a justification that committing an offence here is pardonable. No sweat. As long as one can contribute in some way to the economy, we can close one eye and be compassionate and human to such offenders. These are social problems of the poor. When people are poor, they resort to petty theft and crime to get by. Some of the crimes committed are so petty and pathetic. It is not easy to past judgement on such cases. To make an exception or to apply the law will have its advocators and detractors.

How to help Singapore Nation

I have copied an article written by Thinkall, which he posted in sammyboy, in redbeanforum in the tread 'How to help Singapore Nation.' I strongly recommend that all of you read it as the article is very well written, well argued and will give you a clear picture of the problems facing CPF now and in the future. The article deserves to be printed in the local media to enlighten the masses.

When are they going to stop?

Before they stop and you stop, you have lost by default. And all Singaporeans have been losing all these years by default to the extent that the govt thinks that it is its right to plan the people's life using the people's hard earned money. This is the most serious implication of all this compulsory annuity schemes and using legislation to keep the people from their life time savings. The people must say no to this kind of mentality. The govt can self help itself with the public coffer but not the pockets of the people. Singaporeans have given up this right to their own money. And if they don't do something, this right will be forever enshrined in all the legislations that they no longer have any say to their money. If this is not ridiculous, what else can be, in the city of possibilities? My message is simply, don't mess around with my money. I want my money back. I decide what and how I want to do with my money. And don't give me that crap that I will come crawling to the govt for charity. I am prepared to sign an undertaking if needed be that I will not ask for public assistance, not even for $290. Would that be enough? There is an online petition on this and Singaporeans should say no by signing on it.

HDB lease buy back scheme

This is perhaps the best option that the govt has proposed recently. With this scheme, oldies can at least live their last years with some financial certainty and a roof over their heads. They will be independent even if their children abandon them. And with this scheme, there is no need for annuity. The people need to be suspicious if any joker still insists on an annuity on top of such a scheme. And for anyone who can provide proof of his assets that are better than those 3 roomers who opted for this scheme definitely do not need annuity. They have much much more to provide for themselves and are capable of providing for themselves.