Don't eat now, have more to eat in 30 years

What I would want to add on to the CPF debate is this. When you want to help the people to live better in the future, you either teach them to fish or you plant more seeds to reap more fruits later. You can also offer them a few loaves of bread. The last thing you want to do is to take whatever little the poor buggers have now and keep them in the storehouse and say they can come and collect in 30 years time. In the meantime they can tighten the belt. And if they die halfway before the 30 years is up, just too bad. The delay in withdrawal age and taking money from the CPF members to buy annuities come from the same principles.

CPF - Interference, violation, encroachment? Say it in whatever ways, the CPF savings is fair game. The rules governing the use and return of the money to the members have been changing over the years from the day it was created. The older members who joined the scheme earlier went in with a different set of terms and conditions. Now they have to accept a totally different set of terms and conditions which they have no say about them. The govt changes them for the good of the CPF members. And for this reason alone, it is justified and claimed the high moral ground. All those in favour of the changes, in the govt, agrees and support the changes and the principles behind it. Legally and legislatively, they have all the power to do so. But how right are they to do it and what about the rights of the members to say no and to protect their own money? Do the members have any rights at all to their own money, to insist that the CPF sticks to the agreement when they first start contributing to the scheme? Lim Wee Kiat did not considered all the changes as 'interference on personal freedom.' This view is echoed by SMU law lecturer Eurgene Tan who said that the changes was not 'encroaching' on one's rights. And Josephine Teo has this to say, 'Singaporeans will have to judge whether the intervention has created better results.' What she simply means is that the ends justify the means. The rights of the members is not an issue. Such facist ideas have been creeping into our mentality over the years without any challenge, and people have gradually grown accustom with them and accepting them as normal. If such values are not arrested, the future is unimaginable. NMP Siew Kum Hong has warned, 'Beware the slippery slope of "encroachment" into CPF members' rights.' Where will it end? There is another aspect which is indirect but equally dangerous. We do not pass laws to be effective retrospectively to affect people adversely. Our neighbours have done that and have undermined their own credibility, reliability and predictability as a govt. The constant changing of the rules governing the use of CPF money, the shifting of the goal posts to affect members who joined the scheme under different terms and conditions are as good as passing restrospective laws in a way. It is important that such encroachments and violations to the rights of CPF members be aired in Parliament. Would there be a motion on this? Unless we all accept that the rights of the people is secondary or non existence and the ends justify the means, that it is a non issue. What is the future Singapore?

What it could be

I am not going to make any proposal to this annuity drama. It was an unnecessary drama, wasting too much time and effort of everyone, kicking up emotions and touching on raw nerves for nothing. The present CPF system actually is more than adequate to serve the needs of the ageing population, with a little modification. Yeah, no need to sweat the small thing. At 55, the people should be allowed to withdraw whatever there is as provided under the present system. This should give them a pep high for the next few years till 62. After all they have been waiting for this day for their whole life. From 62-72, they should start to draw down on their minimum sum. A monthly sum of $500-$600 should be adequate as this is not going to be their only means of income except for some who are unemployable or in dire straits. With the new employment law, family support, their own savings and assets, a $500-$600 kopi money would be a welcome luxury. Therefore, the minimum sum need not be so huge, $50k should be more than adequate to do the job. From 72-82, people should be dying and should be preparing to die instead of building on more dreams of living to 100 and painting the town red. For those who are affected by serious sicknesses, many would have died by now. Those alive and relatively healthy should be allowed to draw down their $30k in the Medisave in the same way as an annuity. By the time they die, they should not leave very much behind. At least they live to spend their own money. From 82 onwards, there will still be survivors. Not many, and not many of these survivors would need charity. Some will. Maybe 10,000 or 20,000. At $300 pm, it will cost the govt $3 to $6 million or $36 -$72 million annually. Be generous, round it up to $100 million a year. Or put the survivor numbers of the needy and desperate to 100k, it needs only $1 billion. There is no need for the govt to cough out $1.2 bil or $2.4 bil to support this group annually. What is the problem? Must be my numbers. This is a very broadbrush look at the numbers that can be used to look at the problem. It is free. No need to pay a million so don't expect any details. Oh, in between, at 55 or 62, the govt may offer annuity or whatever schemes to encourage the people to keep more money with the CPF with incentives like $1 for $1 or higher interest rates. Those who are happy can opt to join the schemes.

A gingerly step forward towards more openess

Parliament has never been like this before. Blades were sharpened, sparkes flew. The debate on the compulsory annuity proposal was given a full grilling it deserved. The MPs came prepared, and were allowed to speak their minds. The end result, all stones were not left unturned, actually this little bit is not true, but most of the stones were turned to show how difficult it is to push through the proposal. The issues highlighted were genuine and disarming. Only a strong headed leader would dare to say 'It's water under the bridge. Let's move on.' Eng Hen was gracious enough to read the emotions and whole jigzaw puzzle being put together. It was not the same picture that was before, the picture he saw was unreal. Kudos to all the MPs who spoke passionately and argued sensibly on the issue. It would by hypocrisy at its supreme best if they dare to go back to their constituents to speak favourably of the proposal with sugar laced words and poetry. This is a small step towards more open discussion, at least in the confines of Parliament.

Singaporeans should say, 'No, Thank you very much.'

Published September 20, 2007 YESTERDAY IN PARLIAMENT We need CPF changes to stay viable: Eng Hen Govt not leaving citizens to fend for themselves, he says... Dr Ng emphasised that the government is not leaving Singaporeans to fend for themselves. 'We will spend at least $1.1 billion each year to build up their CPF savings through Workfare and higher CPF. We will provide up to $1.2 billion in deferment bonuses. These changes are real. They will see their CPF accounts grow faster after these changes.' Singaporean should say no to the billions that the govt is going to put into their CPF. The govt should use the billions for the annuity schemes and not to change the withdrawal age of the CPF. Thank you. Please don't meddle with the CPF scheme. We are very happy with the way it is.