The CPF is a good scheme if….

The CPF was a good scheme and can continue to be a good scheme with many people happily putting their life savings into it. What needs to be done is to modify the terms with more elements of options and choices and the removal of compulsion.
 
Let the original withdrawal age be at 55, or perhaps, this is a big retreat from its original position, to allow two withdrawal age, ie 55 and 60. The minimum sum schemes should be hanged or mothballed. There is no good reason to dictate that a person’s life savings should be retained against his wish even if by legislation. Where is the moral justification to mess around with other people’s money?
 
What the Govt can do is to provide a few options for the people to want to leave their life savings with the CPF after the withdrawal age. A 4% interest rate against a near zero bank interest rate would be very attractive for people who do not need the money urgently. And to make the scheme more attractive, those who left their money in the CPF after the withdrawal age should be allowed to make withdrawals any time if they so choose to. This will give confidence to people to keep their money in the CPF.
 
Not everyone will want to keep all their life savings in the CPF when they could withdraw them. But there will be a substantial number of people who would want to enjoy the higher interest rate or whatever attractive annuity schemes the CPF board could offer on a voluntary basis.
 
The Govt would have a much more happier group of people putting their money with the CPF as a matter of choice. There would be people who, no matter what, would not want to leave any money with the CPF. But when they can withdraw them at will, anytime, it makes sense for many to leave their money with the CPF. And there will be the odd balls that would squander their money away the very next day they took them out. These are social problems that the Govt would have to deal with and cannot be reasons to punish the whole population in a straight jacket policy. What kind of logic is that? Simple Simon?
 
Make the CPF an attractive scheme that the people would chose to keep their money by choice after the withdrawal age and be grateful to the Govt. The present schemes have started to smell and the rotting smell will only get worse and becomes unbearable. It is nearly there.
 
The Govt has a choice to do the right thing.

Kopi Level - Green

An honest dialogue on the CPF

MP Hri Kumar wanted to have a dialogue with his residents in Thomson and Toa Payoh on 14 Jun. The banner for this dialogue reads, ‘CPF – An Honest Conversation: Public Dialogue with Thomson-Toa Payoh Residents’. I wrote about this earlier that Roy Ngerng, KJ Jeyaretnam, Leong Sze Hian and Ariffin Sha had registered to attend this dialogue.
 
The latest, Kri Kumar did not accept their registration as the event was only for his residents. Ariffin posted a couple of responses by Hri Kumar saying that he was pleased that residents from outside his constituency were interested in the dialogue.
 
Netizens are crying foul that Hri Kumar is not accepting residents from other constituencies to attend this dialogue on the CPF which is a national issue. I thought it would be a great opportunity for Hri Kumar to give the govt’s version of the CPF story and clarify whatever doubts raised by the people. And if necessary, Hri could bring in more experts like Indranee Rajah or a minister to assist him in this very important conversation. It would be the first opportunity for the govt to rebut whatever issues that were raised at the Hong Lim Park protest rally.
 
It is all about communication and explaining govt policies to the people and this dialogue could be raised to a national level and would receive greater publicity than intended. It would be good for Hri Kumar and the govt to say what they need to say to the residents and to remove whatever wrong perceptions they have on the CPF issue.
 
Why should an MP not willing to engage in a serious conversation on a serious matter with the residents, or a few residents just because they were from different constituencies? This is a golden opportunity not to be missed for the govt to say its piece. Why not? Why abstain when so many doubts and issues have been raised by the speakers at Hong Lim and needing answers?
 
Should not this be what constructive politics be, engaging the people?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Bankruptcy in the banking and IT industries

Oh I am not referring to the monetary aspect of these two industries. I am referring to the skill sets of the professionals particularly at the senior and top management levels. There seems to be a dearth of local talents in these two industries today. 20 years ago, we were already a major financial centre in the region and our locals were filling up the top management positions in these industries. Particularly in banking and finance, the MAS, under the leadership of Koh Beng Seng, were telling the foreign banks operating here to train the locals to assume top management positions.
 
Today, the top management positions are filled by foreigners and more foreigners are coming in to replace the locals caused they can’t find any locals good enough. What is happening? What were the foreign banks doing in the last twenty years? Why is this financial centre and highly IT connected city facing bankruptcy in its local human resource to fill the needs of these industries?
 
The situation is real bad when it has to recruit its top management staff from a third world country like India. Singapore was so advanced in banking and finance and IT relative to India. Why is Singapore becoming dependent on India for its professional manpower in these industries? Why is a first world city state losing out in developing its manpower skill sets to a third world country that is anything but a financial centre?
 
And the pathetic thing today is the call to train our young recruits in these industries for future leadership positions. What it means is that the current batch of middle and senior management staff are duds or inepts, not good enough, not material for top management. And it would take another 20 or 30 years to groom the young things of today to prepare them for the future. In the meantime, in the next 20 or 30 years, the top financial centre and IT city will have to depend on foreigners to fill up top positions in these two industries. In total at least 50 years have been wasted with a vacuum of top management talents that would put the city state in a very precarious position. It has no talents!
 
Is this a joke? If this is real, then it is a very serious problem caused by bad planning and lack of foresight. It cannot be intentional. It is no laughing matter that we can take our own sweet time to talk cock and sing song.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Roy Ngerng was sacked by TTSH

Roy Ngerng the blogger that is being sued by the PM Hsien Loong was sacked from his job at Tan Tock Seng Hospital yesterday. He should have seen this coming. His sacking was a matter of time. The reasons, using office hours to advance his social cause that were not within the scope of his work, and worse, engaging in anti govt activities. He had breached the civil service code of conduct and his terms of employment. TTSH may be a private govt hospital but if I am not mistaken, is still run administratively like a civil service set up.
 
There is nothing wrong with his sacking. And there is nothing wrong with the PM suing him for defamation. The funny thing is that there is a foul smell in the air. There is unease and eyes are rolling all over like something is not right. Unfortunately everything is right, everything is in accordance with rules and procedures and the law, just like the high ministerial pay and all the political appointments. Everything is done legally and no one can find any fault with them.
 
Like George Yeo said, everything is so perfect, so right and so proper. Roy Ngerng would just have to find another job that allows him to do what he is doing and to wait for his defamation case in court.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Hsien Loong versus Roy Ngerng, a case he cannot lose

After Roy Ngerng’s apology to Hsien Loong and his withdrawal of some posts in his blog, the defamation suit is now in court pending a hearing in July. This is becoming a case where Hsien Loong cannot lose and it would be a matter of how much would the damages be for tarnishing his reputation.
 
The big question in everyone’s mind, and in Hsien Loong’s as well, is whether he wants to pursue and win this case. It is a no brainer to ask when a victory in court is a near certainty for the plaintiff to want to back out and withdraw the charge. Exactly, and it is exactly why everyone is asking. A legal victory in this case could end up as a hollow victory. It is the consequence of a political repercussion that would be troubling Hsien Loong as a politician. He has to seriously consider how this victory would play on his chances and the votes for the PAP in the next GE.
 
The spontaneous,unconditional and unquestioned support of the people in rushing to Roy Ngerng’s aid, to hand money to him to fight this defamation suit must mean something to Hsien Loong and the PAP. The protest rally at Hong Lim and the high turnout out in Singapore’s context must also be telling Hsien Loong something.
 
There is a message. The people are not happy with the defamation suit. The people are not happy with the govt’s handling of the CPF savings. The people are behind Roy Ngerng even if it is only 40%. How many votes will be converted as a result of this defamation suit is still everyone’s guess. It would definitely cost Hsien Loong and the PAP some votes, and the fear is that it would be enough to tip the scale. Many seats were decided by a 10% winning margin or less.
 
Would it make any difference if Hsien Loong shows some magnanimity and generosity to Roy Ngerng and call off the suit? What is the difference if suit is allowed to proceed or to stop it now? It is no longer a legal issue. It is politics, it is constructive versus destructive politics. It is not Hsien Loong versus Roy Ngerng, It is more than that. It is Hsien Loong versus the people. It is PAP versus the people. It is about the nature of politics and whether this will change as the country moves forward, or it is more of the same, the same politics of Sue.

Kopi Level - Green