Please consider publicising the online petition to repeal S377A on your site. I know you are no fan of homophobia, and every effort to increase the number of signatures on the petition goes a long way.

Thanks
Jol

You’re welcome to pass me the site when you find it, along with any comments you might have. You can use the contact form on this blog. Just make sure you keep a copy of your text before you hit the send button in case of error. It’s always better to do a backup, just in case.

I agree that a person’s background gives an important clue as to how that person’s arguments are informed. It does not necessarily invalidate his argument, though. If time permits, I’ll write my own perspective on knowledge and argumentation this week.

This is one of the reasons why we should not have compulsory annuity

Who needs the $300 payout at 85 most? The rich or the poor? Assuming the hypothesis is correct (that there will be widening life expectancy between people withe different social economic status), Most poor would have died while the most of the rich and middleclass will be receiving the payout. Why should we do this kind of risk pooling when it doesn’t even help the people whom it was intended for? Even if they pay a lower premium using actuarial calculations they do not stand to benefit because they die before they can receive their payment. If you tell me they are lowering the payout l age that is another story altogether. Not only that, part of their CPF is locked away and so they are receiving lower monthly CPF withdrawals. Instead of helping, it is compounding a problem.

Then again why not use the workfare bonuses to buy the annuity instead. These are the people that might need the annuity and after all they cannot withdrawal the workfare bonus for use now.

If you really want to pool risk why not invest part of the CPF and all would benefit. Why buy bonds when we know that if we keep the a fund for 30year we are sure to gain. Correct me if I am wrong.

Then they want to payout $300 every month? One wonders how did they come out with $300 for subsistence. Would you have suggested $300 payout for an annuity plan 30 years down the road? The only reason I can think of is they worked this figure backwards from how much they need to lock in for GIC finacial commitment.

To me the government has lost their sight. They grab onto the reserve so tightly, they forgot it is meant for the citizen. They have went totally off balance. I agree that preserving the reserve is important and certain strategic companies gives us an edge and information that is very important. To sacrifice all for this power might not be worth it. I think we start looking for other ways to survive.

IF you are just giving us the economic perspective then you are too dissociated from the application of economics to improve our lives as singaporean. Risk pooling is good, so it is a good policy without considering why we need the annuity in the first place is not sound in my opinion.

For anyone wanting to have a go a formulating or creating investment funds, here is an relatively dummy’s guide. http://www.ssga.com/library/esps/Soverign_Wealth_Funds_Andre_Rozanov_4.27.07rev2CCRI1182371372.pdf

Even if you are not, it is a very good primer to learning about principles about (macroeconomic or “helicopter” vision) fund management. I think this will given insight into what CPF “should” have been and is meant by risk. Note: I am using “should” loosely here as it is important not to be carried away that there is indeed a right solution. What you can take away from that is the ability to understand what seemed to be missing when the CPF was devised.

For those who would like to learn about economic principles relating to real world situation, in other words, hear economists speak in normal English, best place to learn is the BBC. One good thing about the BBC is they have a policy of speak Normal English even for complex concepts. Unfortunately for Singapore listeners, it often relates to UK scenarios but the principles apply in many aspect to Singapore too. I’ll try to find the site and pass it on via this blog, if Aaron permits.

Sorry if it comes across as slamming, I just wanted to focus on certain facts about the logic behind his comments. I just want to highlight the differences in opinion between the people on the ground and the ones that plan our economy at the national level.

We are having a lot of helicoptor visions. As you have said, we still need to be more human when planning our national policies.

We are always in the big picture but we are not able to see the big picture. I am focused on seeing the differences. Sometimes, people need to know what angle a person is coming from.

We note the differences.

I don’t think you should slam Bart due to his background. I do think that he has a tendency to be very focused on an economics perspective, that’s all.

“I am a 3rd year Singaporean PhD student and part-time teacher at the London School of Economics (LSE). I am also an occasional research assistant at the Centre of Economic Performance, the research laboratory affiliated to the LSE. Professionally, I am a civil service economist at the Ministry of Trade and Industry in Singapore.

My research interest is in international trade, industrial location, and transitional economies in East Asia. My non-research interest is in industrial organisation.”

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/thia/