CPF's unreasonable, unfair, unjustifiable logic of a bully

 CPF as a life long saving scheme started well and meant well. Setting aside as high as 40% of a person's monthly income for retirement is a bit too much, but no one is complaining of having too much of a good thing. The intent is good but the execution is turning unreasonable, abusive and abrasive and unreasonble and unacceptable to the people in many ways.

The first annoyance and offensive change was the shifting of the goal post, from being able to withdraw at 55 to 60,  and now 65 and hinting of moving it to 70. The people did not accept this lightly and were furious, but unable to do much against the govt that think it can do anything without the consent of the people, by changing the rules as and when it suka. It is leegal! What can the people do?

The following are the things that are unreasonable, unacceptable to the point of unthinkable.

1. How can a saving scheme for retirement has no consideration on when the people should stop saving after a certain age? The ridiculous nature of this saving scheme is that one is expected to continue to save and contribute new money into the system past the age of 60 to infinity. There is not cut off age and no regards to how much one has in the savings and how much one needs.

2. With no consideration to set a cut off date when a person no longer needs to save, some have more than enough to live a comfortable life after retirement, the scheme gradually turns to look like a trap, to tangkap the people's money at all cost. A good example is the interest on CPF money withdrawn for housing loans. The interest keeps running, interest on the borrower's own money, and this running even after the age when one is entitled to withdraw all his savings! This is made worse when one now cannot withdraw all the savings on withdrawal age. So the running interest could be even more than the loan. 

Why should a 60, 70 or 80 year old person be owing interest to a housing loan he took, the money for the loan is his/hers, when he/she is many years past the age that he/she can withdraw all the savings when he/she could die any moment? What kind of logic or premises is behind the thinking of the people in govt?

What this means is that a person that sold his property at 70 or 80 or 90, must put back the interest accrued from his housing loan, into the CPF and still cannot withdraw all from the CPF. Is this reasonable, meaningful or simply unreasonable and unthinkable?

Any reasonable saving policy must have a cut off point when there is no longer a need or requirement to want to save anymore, and many would even have more than they need to live on.

Should the millionaires in the govt be reminded of the purpose of a saving scheme for retirement and why, after a certain age, it is meaningless to save and save anymore, that it would be better to enjoy the life long savings that to be stressed up to be forced to save when one can die the next very next day?

Please be reasonable, please stop bullying the people by having an iron grip on their life savings, their money, to spend while they are still able to enjoy and conscious of being alive. Please stop being so mean when it is the people's life savings, not public money.

3. Compulsory medical insurance.  Regardless of whether you need it or not, whether you have private insurance, or if overseas, already contributing to insurance of country of residents, still must pay up. still got to pay for children's insurance, by law man, leegal man. Not paying up is a crime man.

4. No money to eat but got money in CPF. Many people are jobless, retired, no income, no savings, no money to eat, but have a lot of money in the CPF. But CPF money cannot touch. The logic, can die first from hunger and sickness, CPF money is for the future to live on, and in case, in case only, when one got sick in the future, got money to pay medical bills.  Brilliant thinking and very compassionate and caring. This is how good the thinking behind the CPF scheme.

With such a scheme, everyone that died, through sickness or hunger, will still have a lot of money in the CPF. Only millionaire policy makers can come up with such a fantastic and caring scheme for the people, to die rich.

PS. Comments from a 76 year old

However, the cunning Minister of Health has compel me to pay for compulsory medical insurance which I do not need.

Not only that. He also compel me to pay for my son's and daughter's medical insurance, which do not need because they are also covered in my pension agreement with the government. Everything is done by force, against my free will.

Even though I have been paying the medical insurance, I still have to keep a minimum sum in my compulsory Medisave account to "cover my medical expenses".

This double whammy upon my financial situation, when I have no more income and unable to find a decent job at my age, is a crooked, cruel and sadistic action deliberately inflicted upin a hapless old man. It is unthinkable, horrendous and inhuman.

With such an experience with the CPF, I will never put in even one single cent into the CPF.

CPF to me stands for Compel People by Force.

CPF - I want to have $2m in my CPF when I am 80

 

'The ST article also advised Singaporeans to refund the money that one might have withdrawn from CPF for home loan. ST wrote, “You should now set targets to give your OA a regular boost by refunding the money that you withdrew for your home loan.”

It advised people to go to myCPF website and “Make a housing refund with cash”. This is so that one “can have a high level of savings in your CPF again, as if you have never used a dollar to pay for your home loan”.

ST said this is the “secret” to how people can achieve about $700,000 in their OA when they are in their early 50s, by “dutifully contributed to their CPF since they were young”.

“If you can achieve this, you will stand a chance to have $1 million or more in your OA when you are in your 60s,” concluded ST.

There are 394,710 CPF members with over $500,000 such as the featured CPF member with 1.6 million in her CPF account. The CPF member’s age group (65-70) has 25,599 other similar members.'

I am so encouraged by the above posted in TOC, that I want to set a target of having $2m in my CPF savings when I am 80. I am going to withdraw whatever cash I have in my bank and repay the interest accrued from my CPF loans for housing.

I think I will become one of the richest 80 year olds in Singapore. I hope that I could live to 100 to enjoy my savings. I also hope that I would not suffer from dementia and forgot what I have in the CPF. 

My greatest consolation is that I would have enough savings to have a maid to push me around the parks every evening to watch the sunset, if my eyes are still able to see.

What a nice advice, and what a nice feeling to have so much money at 80. Maybe I should continue to save until I am 100 years old. Never too late to save.

Please don't call me stupidity has no cure. I like good advice that is well meaning and for my own good.

To be able to achieve this goal, I will now commence on a diet of eating bread and margarine and not to go for holidays. Only then can I smile every time I received my monthly statement from CPF....so much money, so rich. Siok, siok, siao, oops, sorry, siok.

PS.  This is the greatest advice I have ever had in my life. And I could, in an indirect way, contribute to our nation's investment in India that could blossom into billions and billions of profits and help to make many people very rich with big, big pay and big, big bonuses. But please don't ask me what the fxxx I want to do with $2m at 80.

What do you think?

China's claim of no man's island in the South China Sea has no basis?

Martin Abbugao
Tue, 27 July 2021, 7:40 pm


Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said Tuesday that Beijing's expansive claims in the South China Sea have "no basis in international law", taking aim at China's growing assertiveness in the hotly contested waters.

Austin's broadside came at the start of his first trip to Southeast Asia as US defence secretary, as he seeks to rally allies in the region as a bulwark to China.  Yahoo News

 This black African American dared to denounce China's claim of no man's islands in the South China Sea as having no basis in international law.

Alright, what is the basis for the Europeans to claim the whole swath of North America, ie USA and Canada? These are not no man's lands. They belong to the natives of North America.  There were millions of them there. Can this black African American tell the world on what basis are the Europeans claiming these lands as theirs? 

On the basis that they could genocide the native Americans until near extinction and no longer able to occupy the land? Or was it on the basis of the Christian doctrine of Discovery, whereby the natives are not regarded as human beans but sub human beans and did not have any rights of ownership of the land?

Is there any international law that recognised the white Europeans' claim of USA and Canada? Did the UN recognise these claims?

Please tell the world on what basis did the white men claim ownership of USA and Canada,  and also Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Guam, Diego Garcia and many Atlantic and Pacific Islands?

The world, the UN, must question the white European's claims of native lands all over the world,  The UN must conduct an inquiry into the seizure of native lands by the white men and make a ruling on it. 

Yes, since the Americans are questioning the ownership of land claims, it is opportune for the UN to take a position on this subject and settle the score once and for all in the name of justice and fairness and in respecting the rights of natives and international law.

 

 

 

Covid19 - Why is vaccination imperative if it does not prevent infection?

 

As I see it, taking the vaccine is now a national imperative. Once the nation is well-vaccinated, we can get on the road to restoring what the pandemic has taken away from us.

Helping others will always involve personal risks and detriments. But we need to unite our efforts to save our country, our economy, and our future from the destructive effects of the pandemic.

To those who have volunteered to be vaccinated, I say thank you for your sacrifice and the risk you took, for sake of others and for loved ones.

In this pandemic which affects us all, there is a big picture to consider. In the big picture, so long as the nation is insufficiently vaccinated, our borders will never be fully opened, our economy will be hampered, and people’s lives and livelihoods will remain in limbo.

To those eligible for vaccination but are hesitant to take the vaccine, do consider joining the vaccination drive. In my humble opinion, time is not on our side. 

Jeannette Chong Aruldoss

The above is the concluding paragraph of an appeal by Jeannette Chong in a post in TRE.  Does anyone know what she is talking about? What is the real problem? I know, lawyers are very good in words, in arguments, but in science, technology and numbers?

The issue in her argument is that our lives are affected because the economy is affected and we need to get our lives back by reopening the economy. And why is vaccination imperative? It is to open the economy.

Then what does vaccination do? For one, vaccination does not stop one from getting infected. Two, vaccination does not prevent the spread of the virus. The best vaccination does is to lower the risk of the infection getting too serious or leading to death. What do these mean? Getting vaccination is a personal affair, about protecting oneself from being more sick or dying. Getting vaccinated or not does not increase or decrease the spread of  Covid19. 

The spread of the disease can be moderated by isolation, social distancing, wearing masks and not socialising when one is infected. It has little to do with vaccination!

So what is this hype about calling for compulsory vaccination or imperative vaccination if it is not going to have any direct effect on the spread of the disease or opening of the economy?

Go ahead and open the door, open the economy for all you want.  The people that did not get vaccinated would only be responsible to themselves and their actions would not lead to infecting others if they wear masks, maintain social distancing and isolate themselves when infected. Vaccination is only to protect themselves and lower the risk of hospitalisation and death if it did reach that stage. There is no need to cry and panic whether they are vaccinated or not.

In fact getting vaccination is taking a risk, a sacrifice, to allow the opening of the economy.  Can you believe this? Why would anyone want to take a risk for the sake of opening the economy? Is this too much to ask for? Asking people to take risk, make it compulsory some more, so that the economy can be open? OK, the compulsory call was not by Jeannette.  But I must give her credit for admitting that getting vaccinated is taking a risk. 

If getting vaccinated would prevent one from being infected, thus lowering the risk of spreading the disease, it would be more meaningful to make it compulsory, imperative. But it is not. It is now proven beyond any doubt that vaccination does not prevent one from being infected. This is unlike other vaccinations that we have known, eg, measles, polio, etc etc.

PS. From a commenter called Oxygen in TRE.

'The vaccines now in use seems ineffective of their claimed efficacy protection. Just look at the Jurong Port/KTV clusters where 3/4 of the infected are fully vaccinated, right?

This cluster proportion is higher than the population-wide averages (which include children) reveals the futility of vaccination outcome sought.

SO IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT SOME DON’T WANT TO TAKE RISKS of the unknown when the known outcome is so dismally defeating of outcome.'

People's Association Caught Sleeping Again and Again?

 The People's Association must be a very exciting organisation to work in. It seems like there are new discoveries every year by the Auditor General's Office (AGO). Last year, there were several serious discrepancies discovered. This year, the AGO has again discovered several lapses and possible irregularities related to the People's Association's management.

The PA had engaged contractors to carry out minor building works at OTH and a managing agent to manage the facilities and supervise the contractors.

The AGO checked only a sample of payments totalling $1.27 million made between April 2018 and March 2020 and found possible irregularities in the supporting documents for 34 of the 36 payments. What if the AGO had checked ALL the thousands of payments? I think someone will faint on the spot.

The irregularities included possible falsification of quotations, alteration of hard-copy payment supporting documents and the creation and backdating of documents to give the false impression that proper processes had been followed.

"As the lapses relate to serious allegations involving falsification of documents, including in relation to claims by external parties, PA has lodged a police report and investigations are ongoing," the PA said, adding that it had suspended the staff involved pending the outcome of the investigation.

The PA also said it would set up a task force led by senior officers to strengthen processes in procurement, contract and facility management, raise staff capabilities, and improve oversight of contractors and managing agents.

It will also appoint an external consultant to conduct a thorough review of its governance system and oversight functions related to contract management of all development projects, the PA added.

The external consultant will be given a "broad mandate" to review such matters and provide recommendations to strengthen PA's oversight of contract management.

Other issues flagged by the AGO include lapses in the computation of adjustments for price fluctuations for the main construction contract at OTH and weaknesses in the management and oversight of contract variations for the main construction contracts for both OTH and HBB.

This means PA could have overpaid its contractors by an estimated $2 million for building materials for OTH, such as concrete and steel reinforcements.

The AGO also checked 465 contract variations amounting to $26.48 million and found lapses in 252 or 54.2 per cent of them. Contract variations are mutually agreed changes to the terms of contracts that are already in effect.

No evidence of approval was found for 109 contract variations, while approvals for 142 of them were obtained only one month to 5½ years after works had commenced or were already completed. There were also other issues such as the use of incorrect rates, resulting in over- and underpayments.

AGO also found wastage of $5.39m of public funds at HPB over excess fitness trackers.

AGO finds heritage items improperly deleted from NHB records, tender bids not evaluated.

But the PA failed to ensure this requirement was made explicit in the tenancy agreement. This resulted in the tenant charging fees that were 23 per cent higher than the cap specified for the first two years of its operation.

With a budget of $1 billion, or slightly less, per year, the money seems to be easy come easy go?

Every year, the AGO is bound to discover several lapses, irregularities, discrepancies or possible frauds in almost all the Ministries, Statutory Boards or other government agencies. This cannot go on and on for years. The government is urged to fix the root causes of such embarrassing and preventable lapses.

SSO

July 25, 2021