My position, no change

After hearing the full debate in the internet and Parliament, I am more convinced that there is no need for any drastic change to the present CPF system. The proposed changes are so flawed that the word flaw has taken the status of taboo. No one dares to say that the whole concept is flawed. It is flawed in principle and violated many rights of the people to their money. It starts on the premise that the govt has all the rights to legislate away the peoples money in whatever way it so decides on the ground that it is good for the people. It touches on a very sensitive part of the people's interest. $20k, $30k or $120k, that number may be small to many people, but it is the life long savings, the fortunes of the poor redbeans. There are many redbeans in this little red dot that never see such money in their lives. And they will be furious to think that anyone can just keep distancing them from their little fortunes. The pain, anger and frustration cannot be underestimated, no matter what reasons are being put forth. There are many other reasons and reservations and flawed premises that have been pointed out and became obvious over the last few days and no need to elaborate further here. Here are the few reasons why there is no need to change the current system. Grunt has rightly explained how several billion dollars could be set aside for the old and needy. Mind you, the number that is above 80 is small. And the number of old and needy will be even smaller. If the govt can cough out so many billions to support a flawed scheme, why not use the same money to set up a fund for the needy oldies, a simpler and no farce system? And with the push to extend retirement age to as old as possible, the need for a hefty retirement savings is much lesser. If a person is to work to 70 and die at 70, he does not need any savings. Not a cent! And lets not brush aside and refuse to see the elephant in the classroom. Most Singaporeans are not desperately poor. Many are asset rich and with the HDB lease back scheme, or even without, they can rent out their 3 rm flats to earn an income. And many have alternative support for their old age. The current problem faced by the aged is of a lost generation. It will come to past. The number of helpless cases will not be as bad as today. An old couple, even jobless, cannot die of poverty or live below the poverty line if they have an asset in the form of a 3 rm flat. And many Singaporeans will have more. Unless our flat ownership scheme has failed. Unless our education system has failed. Unless our CPF scheme has failed. I say it loudly here, there is an elephant in the classroom. Please look at the elephant and don't turn your head the other way.

Notable Qoutes - Ng Eng Hen

'I need you to spout poetic lines to convince your constituents that these measures re meant to help them. Spew forth with passion your Hokkien lyrics and poetic metaphors.' Ng Eng Hen Reading these lines really made me worried. When one is selling diamonds, does one need to go to the extend of spouting poeting lines?

Govt cares for the elderly - here's the proof

Govt cares for the elderly - here's the proof This is a sub heading in the Straits Times. And the proof is 1% extra interest for the CPF savings up to $60k. Govt does not care for the elderly - here's the proof If you want to live longer, you must have the money to do so, or else... Your own money! If not, the govt will want you to buy a compulsory annuity insurance to make sure you can afford to live with your own money. How much is this compares to the 1% extra interest? This is on top of the delay withdrawal of your CPF minimum sum to start at 67 and to last how many years? 20 years till 87? or 20 years from 65 to 85? The gist is that you must have your own money to live. Which of the two hypotheses above is right?

Only the healthy live past 85

Would this statement be true? I think generally this should be the case. Those that have a lot of medical problems will highly likely to knock off earlier, in their 60s or 70s. And these people will use up their Medisave faster. There will be a few exceptions of course. For those healthy oldies, could they live on the huge sum of $30 left in their Medisave at 85? By this age, I don't think they would want to waste on expensive medical operations to prolong their lives further. Even those in their 70s may not want to do so. If they have live past 70 healthily, they should be allowed to used their Medisave as a replacement for annuity. What the fuck is the $30k for if they cannot use it while living? To be buried with them? Would any MP bring this suggestion up in Parliament, that the oldies, once past 75, be allowed to dip into their Medisave and not let their hardearned money go to waste? In fact, with a little modifications, the Medisave is a ready alternative waiting to be used as a substitute for annuity. Why the need to build another huge sum of money to be set aside? Putting so much money aside is a luxury that the poor cannot afford. Only people who have millions of dollars can do that and think that the poor also must be coerced to do the same.

Cull the CEOs

Gan Kim Yong is cracking his brains to find out more ways to make organisations employ more older workers. One area to look at is the CEOs. There are still many CEOs that are anti oldies. They will get rid of oldies at the earliest opportunities. You could hear some making remarks that the old farts should not be around or giving instructions to HR to retire them at the first opportunity. Definitely no more hiring of old farts. What the ministry and trade union can do is to open a channel for people to send in their complaints of such violation. Let the whistle blowers blow their whistles. I think that is another way to contain the problem. Cull the CEOs that are the source of this employment problem.