I am fully convinced

Thanks to the great debate in Parliament on the inadequacy of the CPF system as a retirement plan. I am now fully convinced that Singaporeans will have serious problems when they get old. And I have been having sleepless night thinking about this problem and how to help them. This morning I worked up with a solution. Singaporeans must save more. Singaporeans must save another 20% of their income to maintain the lifestyle that they are used to when they retire. We should have another compulsory saving scheme. All Singaporeans must open a savings account in the big four local banks and contribute 20% of their monthly income to this saving scheme. This contribution is by law. Now, so simple. All retirement problems solved. No need all the complicated formula and funding by the govt. Self funding, and this is congruent to our self reliance policy. I am going to be the saviour of the pathetic unthinking sheeples who cannot plan and look after themselves. They must thank me for the sleepless night and all the hard squeesing of my brain juice. I have been thinking real hard.

Singapore-Burma

A Burmese Aung Soe appeals to Singapore to remain invested, but keep the moral high ground not just short-term interests. Sept 25, 2007 Well, the sad fact is that Singapore nowadays is being seen by average Burmese as a country which only cares for short term benefits. Winning the hearts of 55m Burmese will pay off in long run than tarnishing its reputation being identified as a mere materialistic nation. Singapore can stay neutral, keeping high moral ground while making wise investments. It should refrain itself from being seen as accomplice of junta.... Friends in need are friends indeed. Posted by: Aung Soe I copied the above from littlespeck.com The Burmese are looking at us as a materialistic country devoid of feelings. Just money and profits, no morals. The Indonesians and the Malaysians are also saying the same. Coming from the Burmese means that much more pertinent. They have no quarrels with us and their views are more objectives. What about we Singaporeans looking at our country or govt? The similarities are ironic and shocking. Despite all the so called caring politicies that are claimed to be good for the people, they are but unfeeling, cold and calculative policies to achieve the interest of an entity called country or nation but compromising or sacrificing the interest of the warm and feeling people. Good for the people are not necessarily good for the people. More for the state. The phrase 'good for the people' and similar phrases have taken on a meaning that is anything but good for the people. Only the converts would publicly agree to them but may not in private. No one is going to say that there is an elephant in the classroom. We have lost that connection with the people, uncaring for the people without knowing it, intentionally or otherwise. But everyone in power still claims and thinks so, that they care for the people. Only the people affected knows the tooth.

Thank you Chok Tong

I will like to thank Chok Tong for his thought to help the self employed. Its the thought that counts. But just concentrate on helping the self employed in his constituencies. I know how to take care of myself. And I think many self employed too know how to take care of themselves. Please don't bother. We appreciate your concern. Thank you, thank you very much. May God bless you for your good thoughts and good deeds. Just leave us alone.

Self employed - Be prepared

When the govt is showing concern for them, they better start to prepare themselves for all eventualities. Now what's up next? Chilling!

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.