The CPF issue took down a minister in 1984

In 1984, Howe Yoon Choong, then Minister of Health, produced a paper, Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged, with the main objective of delaying withdrawal of CPF savings from age 55 to 60. This created an up roar with the workers telling the trade unions they were strongly against it. The feedback was so negative that it led to his stepping down from politics.

Though the report was stating a demographic problem that was waiting to happen, it was wrong news at the wrong time. It is always never pleasant to be a messenger of bad news. Often the messenger got fried. Howe’s recommendation was a simple delay from age 55 to 60, but it was bad enough to bring down a serving minister for suggesting it.

Since then, several changes had taken place in the CPF scheme. Withdrawal age was pushed back to 60, 62, now 65 and may go higher. The withdrawal sum is no longer a lump sum but in the forms of drips and drapes, an annuity payable monthly. Then there are now two minimum sum schemes that are holding back a huge sum of the people’s savings, at current rate, about $198k with the Medisave included. In addition, the CPF members are compulsorily required to purchase CPF Life annuity insurance and an akan datang Medishield Life medical insurance.

Compare these changes to what Howe Yoon Choong had proposed the delay from 55 to 60 was nothing. How did the Govt managed to get so far without an uprising or an up roar like the time of Howe? Maybe the people did not protest. Maybe the trade unions did not protest. Maybe the protests were not fed back to the Govt. Maybe the Govt simply ignored the protests. Whatever, things seemed to have gone down well superficiality, or quietly. No protest meant the people agreed to the changes.

7 Jun told a different story. It was like all the problems and anger were bottled up and just exploded. The can of worms was ripped apart and no one can close it anymore. The issues and unhappiness are in the open. No complaints, no protest, no demonstration? What is real?

Is the anger is real? If the misgivings and unhappiness are real, would this CPF thing bring down another minister? Or would it bring down instead a Prime Minister? I think not. I think it could be worse. Everything that is wrong with the CPF has come together as one big problem and is blowing up at one go.

Please feel free to disagree. I know, many would think this assessment is an over exaggeration of a small problem or no problem. Don’t make a molehill out of a mountain. Oops, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. It will fizzle off and nothing more would be heard of it. Life will return to normal. And the minimum sums will just keep piling up as planned.

Kopi Level - Green

When no one is protesting outside Parliament

I could not remember which minister said this. When no one is protesting outside the Parliament House, it means the people are happy or have accepted the new policy. Or if no one is complaining, then the people are supporting the govt policy. Did anyone complain when the minimum sum schemes were introduced? I think no one did. So the Govt must have read the ground saying it was ok, the people supported the policy change.
 
Now some noises were made against the minimum sum schemes and no one can blame Chuan Jin for saying that this was implemented many years ago and what is happening to day, to raise the minimum sum to $155k, is just a continuation of a policy decision made many years back. And the minimum sums would continue to rise as part of the plan to keep up with inflation to ensure that the people’s savings in their CPF will stay at the value of $120k when it was first decided. Sounds very logical and very correct and very right.
 
7 Jun in Hong Lim Park has changed something. About 5000 people turned up to support the protest against the minimum sum schemes and several other conditions tied to the CPF scheme. Would this make any difference? Would the Govt accept this as a protest by the people and their unhappiness with the CPF scheme? Oh, the protestors did not march to Parliament House. So got count or no count? Or would 5000 be seen as a drop in the ocean, nothing to worry about? Or would it be a case of too little too late. The decision was made many years back, cannot change anymore.
 
How would the Govt make of the Return My CPF protest? If it is seen as a small incident, a small anomaly, and all systems go, what would it take to make sure the Govt get the message that the people are unhappy and disagree with the govt policy on the CPF? Would more people turning up at Hong Lim make any difference?
 
There will be another protest on the same subject on 12 Jul. Could this be the opportune time to reconfirm, double confirm the message so that the Govt understood and do some changes to the CPF scheme? Should the protestors march to Parliament House after the rally in Hong Lim? How many people would be needed to make a difference, 12,000 or 20,000? The Govt will be reading the attendance to decide if the people are with or against the policy.
 
Or would it need to take a GE to change?
 
By the look of things, the schemes within the CPF are as good as cast in stone. The minimum sums would be there and would keep on increasing. The withdrawal age will keep on increasing, the premiums for Medishield Life will likely to increase after the initial years, and so would be the premiums for CPF Life to keep up with inflation. And the interest rates of 2.5% and 4% will be the norm with the occasional extra 1%.

Kopi Level - Green

Is this the Singapore for Singaporeans

Read the case of a 43 year old Singaporean with a BA from NUS and a MBA from a UK university. He was forced to leave his job and had 19 years of corporate experience. He has a family to feed. He sent out many resumes but still unable to get a job. He had an A for Economics at A level and at MBA level. He even tried to be a tuition teacher to teach A level Economics but no one wants him. He is desperate and suffering from depression.

Another 42 year old with a B of Commerce degree also could not find a decent job in the banking industry. This is a man who tried to upgrade himself, a lot of fight, and got a degree at 39. This is not a man who gives up. But nobody wants him. Recruitment agencies recommended him to work as an operator in a call centre. Is this what a Singaporean with a degree is fit for? His may not be the normal degree but he worked hard for it.

How many Singaporeans in their 40s and 50s are caught in such dire situations? The sickening thing is that this country is providing PME jobs to at least half a million foreigners. This is becoming like a country that has no place for its own citizens.

Would MOM and Tan Chuan Jin start to do something seriously to see that young Singaporeans in their 40s and 50s who are willing to work get a decent job? They have heavy family responsibilities, children and mortgages. This is very serious matters and may drive them to suicide. They have no dignity, losing their confidence and self respect, and unable to put food on the table or money in their children’s pockets.

What kind of country is Singapore becoming when its own citizens cannot find decent jobs and foreigners keep flooding in with jobs ready for them? Can someone tell the jobless Singaporeans what is happening? I am puzzled that things are still so peaceful in the streets.

I hope Singaporeans do not talk nonsense to rubbish these Singaporeans in trouble over getting a job. Please have a heart, no nasty silly remarks. The problem in Singaporean getting a decent job is a very serious matter. Please don’t ask them to go and eat shit. They deserve some respect for trying very hard and desperately wanting to get a job.

But the millionaires would probably have more important things to do, like where is the best place to take their families for a holiday. You can see them everywhere with their smiles of contentment written all over their rich faces and not a worry to care. Even if you tell them that Singaporeans are desperately seeking for jobs, they would just smile as if they were non events.

Gilbert Goh’s Transitioning.org has many such cases pleading for help. This is not politics but survival. The cost of living here is one of the highest in the world and not having a decent income is frightening and a death threatening thing. These Singaporeans need help urgently. MOM must set up a team or unit to help them quickly. Stop wasting time and resources on the good to have things like kindness movements, save the dogs and cats, more parks and bicycle lanes. These people need a job urgently. They are not asking for charity or subsidies. What is the point of bragging about full employment when our citizens are going to starve while foreigners are having a party here?

Kopi Level - Green

Huffington Post: Is Singapore the perfect country of our time?

‘You land at Changi Airport after flying for what seems a lifetime, and you're naturally disoriented, even before you hit the customs booths that feature bowls of mints, dire warnings about the death penalty for those bringing in drugs, and digital comment cards asking if the service was to your liking. Duck into a public restroom and you'll be exhorted to aim carefully and to "flush with oomph" for the sake of cleanliness. Outside, it's tropical sticky but impeccably clean, in a city inhabited by Chinese, Malays, Indians, and a multiplicity of guest workers from around the world -- all speaking English.’
 
My simple answer to this poser is yes, Singapore is the perfect country for the English speaking rich. You can live here, feel very at home, and flaunt your wealth in perfect safety and do as you please minus the small irritation of no gum chewing, and no drugs. If you can live with these two minor misgivings, Singapore is the perfect city to live in.
 
And the best part, it is going to be better and better, provided you can afford the convenience and luxury of peace, safety and stability at a price. Not many can afford it, not even the millionaire citizens. Many would be here for the last time, downgrade, have a good fling with life until their last dollar is spent and off to another paradise. Their children would have to find their own way except for the scions of the very rich.
 
Everything is superbly fine in Singapore. The only thing rotting is the core. The Singaporean core, the original people that built this wonderful city, will shrivel and eventually cough out like the stone of a plum. The new core, assuming that they are just as good, will take their place so that this unbelieveable city of prosperity and opulence will go on and on.
 
Even the CPF scheme is designed that way though not spoken. The average citizens can only enjoy their wealth by trading their citizenships that allowed them to withdraw their lifesavings. This would allow them to be rich in a cheaper country of their choosing. If they stay put, many would not be able to afford the high cost of living when a cheap small car would cost $100k, and a cheap 3 bedroom public flat would cost nearly half a million Sing$. A private apartment of the same size would cost a million easily and treatment for a major illness will cost more than the price of a 3 bedroom flat. This is small change for the super rich but would bankrupt the average citizens.
 
Yes, Singapore is the perfect place to be in, for those who can afford it when a few hundred thousand dollars are small change, when paying $10 daily for ERP is small change.

Kopi Level - Green

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