Oct 1st, 2007
Consolidation of thoughts on CPF changes
Email This Post
Print This Post
I’ve been so extremely busy that it’s getting really hard for me to find the time to write. I think I only have the energy to write weekly until the end of the university semester, so I apologise for the lack of updates.
Anyway, I’ve more or less consolidated my thoughts on the CPF changes and I concur with the government on most counts. Indeed, with rising life expectancies, we need to change our mindsets on retirement. The only exception to this is if you are able to amass enough money before age 65 to live for the next 20-30 years and beyond. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask Singaporeans to work longer.
What I think is unreasonable is compulsory annuities (or the spin version of the term, longevity insurance) to be borne by all CPF members. It doesn’t matter how big or small the amount is. The crux of the issue is that the government is forcing those who do not live beyond 85 (which is probably the majority) to pay for those who eventually do. I am of the opinion that this is a grossly irresponsible act of conduct by our government.
I am willing to support everything else but this issue. It is NOT as if people have a choice to their life expectancy. I can accept that I should plan for retirement up till the average life expectancy (or maybe 3-4 years beyond that as a buffer) and in fact, I think everyone should do just that. However, should I be lucky enough (or should I say unlucky enough) to live beyond my calculations, it is not my choice. Should the government not be compassionate enough to do something about my predicament?
I think the government has the ability to provide for those who have exceptionally long life expectancies without resorting to forcing people to subsidise each other through annuities. All the government needs to do is to spell out the criteria. Sure, the average life expectancy is 85, and if people are lucky, they’ll live a few years more. So, tell people to make sure their CPF can last until they are 88, 89 or even 90 years old. If a person followed the prescription but lives beyond the buffer he/she has set, I think the government should support this person. He has been responsible to help himself for most part during his twilight years. Is it too much to ask the government to support this person until he passes on? Should the government wash their hands so cleanly off a responsible citizen?
If the government is truly the caring and responsible government it claims to be, I think they should reconsider their position on annuities. I do not think the government should be giving handouts to lazy and irresponsible folks, but I do think that the government should help those who help themselves instead of forcing the rest of the citizenry to do the job for them. I don’t see why the government should not adopt the welfare state model for those who live way beyond expectation. All it takes is for the planning to start now (see Leong Sze Hian’s estimates in his article on The Online Citizen).
From another perspective, the PAP-dominated government should do itself a favour and scrap the annuities idea. It’s one thing to increase GST, but it’s another completely different thing to force people to use their money for something that is unlikely to benefit them. The latter is a much more explosive political fodder for other political parties than the former. Certain issues might make people complain, but some touchy issues are going to make people more than complain.
Loading ...
Aaron,
“The crux of the issue is that the government is forcing those who do not live beyond 85 (which is probably the majority) to pay for those who eventually do.”
Look at car insurance, only a small number get into car accidents. But all drivers are forced to buy car insurance nonetheless. Is this “irresponsible act of conduct” by our government too? Surely public or national interest must be properly considered to judge if the government is right to compel people to do something.
If you live beyond your calculations, the government should be compassionate enough to step in because it is not “your choice”? What kind of argument is that? Can’t you save a little more when you were younger? Can you not buy a car when you are 30 in order to make it damn sure you can live till 99? Think about what you are saying . . “Hey, it is not my choice that I run out of money, so the compasstionate government must save me” . . I am gasping for air here . .
Object to government’s plans, by all means. But do object knowing what you are objecting against, and why.
Aaron,
“The crux of the issue is that the government is forcing those who do not live beyond 85 (which is probably the majority) to pay for those who eventually do.”
Look at car insurance, only a small number get into car accidents. But all drivers are forced to buy car insurance nonetheless. Is this “irresponsible act of conduct” by our government too? Surely public or national interest must be properly considered to judge if the government is right to compel people to do something.
If you live beyond your calculations, the government should be compassionate enough to step in because it is not “your choice”? What kind of argument is that? Can’t you save a little more when you were younger? Can you not buy a car when you are 30 in order to make it damn sure you can afford to live till 99? Think about what you are saying . . “Hey, it is not my choice that I run out of money, so the compasstionate government must save me” . . I am gasping for air here . .
Object to government’s plans, by all means. But do object knowing what you are objecting against, and why.
Bart,
There you go again trying to explain annuities. People understand what annuities are, they understand what auto insurance is.
.
They are against the compulsory nature …once it is there it is like the GST, they can increase it “to help the old” anytime. It is unpopular and will lose votes….people understand but they cannot accept. Your continuous explanation to the blogsphere about risk pooling is a waste of breath.
.
My own problem with this annuities thing is …why is the govt so bloody stingy when it comes to 85 yr olds and so generous with their own remuneration. The cost to the govt is actually quite low and they can easily fund it….if they see it fair for those who die early to fund those who die later in a risk pooling arrangement then those who live longer can also live on benefits funded by govt surplus - nobody will ever disagree with that. Why give topup to everyone including those who don’t need it during elections - they can save the money and give it to those over 85 get rid of the annuities thing and that is also a vote winner.
.
For a govt that try to secure its election victory with pre-election handouts, there are no principles to preserve here. I think the PAP is making a political mistake here.
Aaron, you agree to the govt unilaterally shifting the withdrawal age to 65 to 67? Read this - it is a true story from my brother.
http://feedmetothefish.blogspot.com/
Imagine you are now 55, and the government feels that due to the aging population, they now shift the withdrawal age to 95. Do you agree that to protect you against your “little fling here, little fling there”, the goverenment has every right to move the withdrawal age, increase the min sum scheme to $300,000 etc etc? Think again.
Bart,
You can’t compare car insurance with longevity insurance.
1) No one is protesting against buying car insurance in a way that they are against longevity insurance.
2) The evidence that many will live beyond 85 is extremely unconvincing.
And how do we even know if the govt is acting in public interest?
I guess why singaporeans are against the CAS is because till now, no one has seen any convincing evidence that compels us to paid sweat blood money for that scheme.
Our government must remember that the CPF monies are ours. Josephine Teo (?) the MP / NTUC HR Manager should apologise for her statement on why she was elected - to intervene (in our CPF funds) as she sees fit.
It was a supremely stupid comment to make given the already unhappy sentiments spreading across Singapore. Stupid woman!
And the government should stop spinning the longetivity insurance name - you can call shit in any other name but it still stinks!
I get frustrated that goal posts change and change and to disagree with the government and hope to withdraw my CPF , I need to
1) Migrate
2) Die early
3) Dismantle the GRC system so that the opposition have a better chance of entering parliament and make a difference.
I agree that more incentives should be given to people at age 55 to keep their CPF in the CPF board, instead of delaying their drawdown age unilaterally. Eg co-pay scheme like our edusave where if you keep you monies with CPF voluntarily after 55 years, they will top up one for one up to a limit of $60,000, or give out higher interest etc. (those mill$ minister should work out something) That would be more amenable than compulsory goal shifting. And for people who can’t think and save for themselves, - these people will always be around but you cannot hijack everybody’s money just to protect these people against themselves… Aaron, you know what I mean?
Bart,
Yes, it is ok to be pro-PAP and defending its policy. But on the other hand, you should learn that comparing chalk with cheese does not strengthen your argument.
Here is a 101 on CPF in case you don’t understand.
First, CPF as you have already eluded to in your recent blog is, to use your technical term, define contribution or simply put a saving scheme. This means, a subscriber to it, and in this case, you have no choice, is expected to get what one put in. Regardless of whether it will be adequate at the end of the subscription period, it is still the subscriber’s money. Just like when you buy a bond, at the end of the bond term, you get what is promised when you first sign up.
However, it would be unbecoming of, in this case, the government to renege not to pay up at the end of the term. How would you feel if you bought a US Treasury bond and at the end of it the US government won’t pay up?
This is the crux of the issue.
Now I now you will probably throw up the “for the National Good” mentra. But consider this, the same PAP government, that you are such a synchophant for, believes in honouring contractual agreement, hence the constant spat with Malaysia. Yet, it is preparing to play its own citizen by not signing up to its own contract.
Second, if the PAP felt the current CPF saving scheme was unsustainable for the “National Good”, it could have easily closed the existing scheme to new subscribers and still continue to honour its existing subscriber. It could replace the existing CPF scheme to new subscriber, which could be in the form of annuities type pension scheme that you now find in UK, which is known as defined contribution pension. Same scheme as what your PAP masters want to do but it now starts for new subscriber. Simply solution isn’t it?
Tan Ah Kow
Bart,
To compare the proposed annuity plan against car insurance is akin to comparing apples and oranges. By making such a comparison, it seems to me that you are equating human life as a choice, just like buying a car. If I do not want to pay car insurance, I just voluntarily give up ownership of the car. However, if I do not want to pay compulsory annuity, what do I do? Going by your logic, I should voluntarily undergo euthanasia? Please correct me if I have misapprehended your logic but right now, it seems to me this is what you seem to be implying.
And, you seem to have not grasped my main point. I don’t care about people who don’t save. If you read my entry carefully, that was never my area of concern. Those people who do not plan deserve no sympathy. What I do not like is that the government is washing its hands clean of people who were responsible enough to plan for 20-25 years of retirement after age 65 but lived beyond their expectations.
I concur that people who spend merrily now without considering the consequences tomorrow should face the music. However, I do not like what you are trying to insinuate, which I am interpreting to be that we can accurately predict how long we can live. Well, I can plan for retiring until age 90 and I found myself still going strong at age 100 but having no money. Then you come along and tell me that I should have bought one less car when I was age 30 and that would have lasted me beyond age 100. If I knew I was going to live so long, I would have planned for it. In the absence of this knowledge, all I can do is to plan for the norm plus a buffer, but if I exceed the buffer, what should I do? Is it my fault for living so long? Maybe I should just kill myself when it comes to that, right?
Family Man,
I am not for shifting the retirement age to 95. That is absurd. I don’t think 65 or 67 is an unreasonable age considering our average life expectancy is more than 80. It’s not a matter of what is the definitive age to retire but whether how much money do you have to last you until you die. If by age 30 you have accumulated $30 million dollars and you have half a million to spend every year until age 90, by all means, please retire at 30. Most of us, myself included, don’t have the luxury. So, I am prepared to work until 65 and beyond. I don’t think we should be fixated on the numerical value of the retirement age but rather, we should be looking at whether we have the financial resources to support ourselves if we choose not to work.
wanna be quitter,
I do agree that we should not hijack other people’s money. If it is a national pool like the reserves or a pension fund, I am not going to object because people cannot lay individual claims to a common pool. In the case of the CPF, because everyone has an account to which he or she is entitled to, we should think twice. Forcing people to contribute to annuities for contributing to CPF is probably close to taxing people’s savings. That would be a world’s first.
[...] CPR & Annuities - Hear ye! Hear ye!: Consolidation of thoughts on CPF changes [...]
Aaron,
You agree with all other aspects of CPF except annuities.
Why would a young man like yourself just earning income
what to have a minimum sum locked up at a low return for 40 yrs? Why do you agree with this?…Do you also agree that our CPF is “loan” to GIC which makes higher return that the govt keeps and uses where it sees fit….why is this okay to you?
So you are FOR the government shifting the CPF withdrawal age unilaterally from 55 to 62 to 67? Regardless of the social compact the government made with her citizens 30+ years ago to release the funds at age 55? If that is the case, what is the difference between 67 and 70? Then 70 to 75? Who is being absurd? This is the start to a slippery slope to absurdity - started from Howe Yoon Chong report, and successfully camouflaged by the minimum sum scheme. How did we allow the Govt of the day to renegade on her promise to release funds at 55 years old??
Car insurance is not compulsory in all countries. Even in Singapore, you can opt for third-party cover instead of the more expensive all comprehensive cover. My house was insured against fire, theft, flood, etc only during the duration of the bank loan, thereafter, it is not compulsory. But this Annuity or Longevity Insurance is forced down our throats, using money which was supposed to be available for drawn down at 55 when we made our first CPF contribution. Trouble is, the MIW fail to understand that life at 85 for someone drawing $1,000,000 a year is very different from one at 85 and still manage to draw $15,000 a year.
Dear Lucky Tan,
It is a hundred times easier to think that Ho Ching and Gang will do what is necessary to perpetually protect my monies in GIC / Temasek / CPF and PAP will be benevolent FOREVER. No need to change anything! We are so happy and lucky.
Lucky,
I think I should explain how I view CPF. It’s not exactly a source of retirement fund for me. Rather, it’s a cheap way of getting housing loan. The interest rate charged by HDB is definitely lower than the market so I’ll take advantage of that to get myself comfortable housing at a lesser penalty. As for retirement, I’ll just save as much as I can and wisely invest my cash in long term instruments. Sure, the government might not be giving us the kinds of returns they are making, but I’m personally fine with that. I’ll just play by their rules, make use of the much cheaper interest rate to pay for a nice, big home which would otherwise have cost alot more if I had gone to the bank for a home loan.
Family man,
I realised I actually did not completely answer your question. I think it is reasonable for the government to increase retirement age but you have a good point on whether it should be a retrospective application of rules. I personally won’t renegade on an earlier promise even if it’s detrimental to me and from that standpoint, I will agree with you that the yardstick for future generations can be shifted but it will be unfair to shift the yardstick for earlier generations.
Ah Aaron, so you are those who has no regards for us Singles who so diligently “invest” in CPF so you can have cheap housing loan. How come you are not thinking about the “National Interest” and save for your retirement?
If only you don’t squander on all these “luxury” like owning your own house and live with your parents, we won’t have to stretch the government coffer. And we can all happily retire at 55?
You Bad Bad boy!
Aaron,
Thanks for clarifying that you view the policies from your own perspective. I myself have enough in the bank to retire on without a single cent from the CPF but almost half the Singaporeans cannot even meet the minimum sum. It is unconscionable that the GIC took(via issuance of bonds) this money to invest and does not want to give the returns back to CPF account holders.
Anyway the cheaper interest rate for HDB flat? Remember Singapore has the most expensive public housing in the world, it a soaker for CPF funds. …in the end more CPF goes towards buying the public housing than retirement.
You’re smart to play by the rules and take full advantage….
You are right, with a higher CPF rate, the HDB loan will also go up. Smart move. Just make sure you resist the urge to upgrade later on and lose that subsidy. Many Singaporeans fell into the upgrading con job and decided to upgrade with the Govt’s call and encouragement! Also as many singaporeans made money by selling off their first flat, Sg govt decided to get into the act by jacking up HDB prices, so as to enrich the reserves and lower the profits of her citizens in the resale market.
you have got no sympathy for those who don’t save for their old age huh?
there are many incidental expenses( eg.emergency medical costs, for a love one or yourself, wiping out one’s saving) in life plus, many other costs imposed on us sometimes, against one’s will, which makes it difficult for the average income joes and janes to save for retirement. now should these be blamed for being ‘irresponsible’ and thus penalized by our system who may need the money most at a critical stage in their lives but withheld for ‘expedient reasons’? i think not or should not.
the garmen latest antics are but desperate measures to mitigate economic injustices we have been reaping over the years. no amount of legislation or ‘benevolent aids’ will suffice. someone must eventually be judged for all the economic injustices one day and the guilty ones are not the ‘captives’!
“My own problem with this annuities thing is …why is the govt so bloody stingy when it comes to 85 yr olds and so generous with their own remuneration. The cost to the govt is actually quite low and they can easily fund it….”
If the cost to the govt is actually “quite low”, then the cost of the annuity scheme would also be “quite low” - (it is the same cost after all) - and even lower if the scheme is compulsory.
If the govt funds the cost, it simply means that the burden is shifted from the collective pool of older folks, to the collective pool of income-tax paying younger folks at that time.
However, the latter pool is projected to be small (because we have an aging population) so effectively you would be shifting the burden from a bigger pool of people (where it is more easily shared) to a smaller pool of people …
…. who get nothing out of it. At least if the cost is placed on the former pool, the members of the pool gain a potential benefit, that is, those who live past X years will get money for as long as they live.
Ah Kow,
I got save lar. The cash savings that my wife and I put aside every month is around 1/3 of our disposable income, if not more. And we have every wish to increase our savings level and put the money into index funds. Unfortunately, with wedding and renovation costs coming due, we cannot invest yet but we can probably start in less than 5 years, which gives us 35 years until retirement (assuming we retire at 65). I think 35 years of compound interest on our high savings level should be enough to see us through retirement without the need to tap on CPF.
As for the single issue, maybe you want to try lovebyte.org.sg.
Lucky,
I agree that alot of Singaporeans cannot meet the minimum sum, and that’s primary because alot of the money is locked up in housing. I see only 2 solutions to this: one is to upgrade educational level and earn more, the other is to be really frugal. I know it’s sad to have to live counting pennies your entire life but this is life in Singapore.
And yes, public housing is ridiculous. A 4rm HDB flat in Singapore can buy you a landed property in California (and California is considered expensive by US standards). If you go to states like Florida, you can buy 2 landed properties or even more. I want to complain about the cost in Singapore but that does nothing practical (other than letting out steam). The only practical thing I can do is to look at the rules and minimise my loss as much as possible.
passerby,
The examples you raised are valid concerns. I am willing to sympathise with the cases you mentioned. However, my experience is that there are many young people who spend like no tomorrow and honestly, I have no sympathy for these people. They are changing cars every few years (and taking loans to finance this), spending a bomb on drinking themselves silly etc. You mean you sympathise with these people? If you do, you are very benevolent.
Mr Wang,
I am not sure if you are the real dude but I agree that you have a point. However, I think it’s simplistic to say that the cost of providing for those who live exceptionally long lives will place a burden on young people in future, i.e. result in increased taxation etc. I think we have to take into account how our Budget is allocated in the first place and honestly, I think the Budget can support the small pool of people who live exceptionally long lives if we stop doing things like buying rocket artillery that can hit targets 60km away.
I am all for what Mr Low TK advocate.
Not all Singapore need the paltry sum to live on in 85.
The govt can set up a longevity fund to subsidies only those who need it.
This will bring down the cost of the scheme and will only benefit the intended grp of ppl.
Mr Wang,
::::If the govt funds the cost, it simply means that the burden is shifted from the collective pool of older folks, to the collective pool of income-tax paying younger folks at that time. :::::
No. I was not talking about taxes. I was talking about funding it from the returns the GIC gotten out of freezing our money on a “as good as it gets” rate of 2.5%. Delinked or not…the money is there.
We are not talking about a poor govt that just gets by here and we are not talking about generous handouts to bums in our society. We are talking about a govt with the highest reserves per capita & 85 yr old citizens who through not fault of their own lived for so long.
I can’t see a better use for our reserves. …is investing in Shin Corp a better use? They seem more willing to do that than setting it for annuities.
To Everyone,
Whatever you conclude from these debates, the PAP will proceed and do what it wants to do. However, I don’t see this as a long lasting reform because it is just a patch to stretch the existing scheme. At the rate prices are rising, we will come around again to talk about later withdrawal age, higher annuities and work longer/harder…in a few years.
.
Remember the PAP embraced a policy that open the floodgates for foreign labor….(yesterday’s New Paper reported that the aging cleaning aunties at Food Republic have all been replaced by young China girls in beautiful black chongsams) causing what was once euphemistically called “structural unemployment”. The so-called solution the PAP put in place to delay the withdrawal age will prove to be a heavy burden on the older citizens given the structural unemployment we see today, what is left for many are menial jobs with long hours and low pay.
.
Are things improving? Is this progress?
Freezing our money at 2.5/3.5% returns and lending it to GIC for overseas investment is not something normal or something done anywhere else in the world. The HK govt allows its citizen a higher return of 7%, Chile 11% even our neighbor’s EPF according to NMP Siew has far higher returns after adjusting for inflation. Locking the CPF minimum sum at a return just above inflation as measured by the CPI guarantees insufficiency and is not a solution that accredited financial planners will ever recommend. Why is the GIC allowed to take risk on citizens’ money that we cannot take ourselves for a good chance of a better retirement?
.
The PAP insists the returns of GIC is delinked from citizens’ CPF…..yes it is delinked, so is the interest of this govt from the interest of the ordinary citizens. They spend much energy to argue for more compensation for their painful sacrifice and even more energy arguing why citizens don’t deserve a better deal. What kind of a govt is this? A world class one?
Aaron,
I have never said that people who do not want annuity should undergo euthanasia? Perhaps you should have some sense of proportion, no?
Contrary to government washing its hands clean, the annuity scheme is the right step forward to remove some element of risk to financing advance ageing. We have to assess its merits and feasibility rationally and objectively - something that I don’t think your post has done.
I fully agree with your sentiments that we should have compassion to help those in need, especially the old. However, your argument is premised on the fact that by forcing people to buy annuity, the government is not being compassionate to the advanced old.
Two policy thrusts need not mutually exclusive. We can have the annuity, and also have more social spending to help the advanced old. The annuity scheme can become a part of, but not the only, solution to the ageing population. Why not build in another layer of longevity insurance on top of other social spending for old people?
Facing with a rapidly ageing population, it would be prudent to have all options on the table, including longevity insurance as one line of defence. Because of the problems of asymmetric information, there is also a very good case why insurance of such nature should be made mandatory. All these should be analysed objectively and rationally. A linear argument that compulsory annuity equals lack of compassion is not very useful I feel.
Bart,
I never said you said that. I’m just pointing out that your analogy isn’t comparing like for like. As I pointed out, buying a car is voluntary but living in Singapore isn’t. Sure, the option that’s of “some sense of proportion” would be to migrate but in reality, how many Singaporeans can afford do that? By the line of reasoning in your analogy, the only other voluntary way of not living in Singapore, quite simply, is euthanasia. Of course, I could be wrong and I would gladly accept any alternative option you have.
Sure, we can have multiple policy thrusts to arrest the problem. I don’t disagree with that. However, I think that’s not my issue. My issue is the extent the state should interfere with an individual’s retirement savings. Perhaps, at an even more fundamental level, what is CPF? Is it my money or the state’s money? If it’s not my money, I have no right to question the introduction of annuities. If money in the CPF is money that belongs exclusively to me and only me, then why the hell is the state forcing me to use the money in a way I disagree with?
I can appreciate the positive consequences of annuities but that still doesn’t address the fundamental issue I outlined above. I believe we are arguing two completely different things here. I know full well what I am objecting to. I am objecting to the level of state intervention in my personal business. You can tell me taking multi-vitamins is good for my health and I should take it everyday but it’s another matter to strap me to a chair everyday and force me to swallow the multi-vitamins. Everyone has a certain threshold of the level of state intervention they can accept and I think that’s completely fair.
As for the compassion argument, I think you should read my entry and replies more carefully. You have not addressed my point on whether we can accurately predict our lifespan. If I can predict, of course I will plan for it to the very last day. The problem is that I can’t so the best I can do is to plan for the norm plus a buffer. Is it irresponsible of me to do that? Have I not been fair to the state to provide for my own retirement beyond reasonable expectations? If it so happens I live beyond reasonable expectations and my money ran out because of that reason, is it unreasonable to ask for aid? I would like to hear your views on this.
You have to be intellectually consistent here. I am sympathetic to your views that the state should not butt into people’s business. How I dispose of my savings is my own business. I believe in the free-market (mostly) and that people’s decision should be respected. I share similar sentiments with you too, believe me.
However, if this is indeed your belief, then I hope you realise then that you cannot make an intellectucal coherent case for state help for those who realise they didn’t save enough in their working days. You cannot say, hey get the butt out of my saving plans and then go on to say, hey, the government have the responsibility to help me. If you think that the advance old is the state’s problems, then you must accept that there is going to be state intervention. For example, the state could seize more of your income (ie, increase taxes, and tax is compulsory!) to solve the problem. In this specific case, the government has chosen to take a portion of your CPF savings to solve the problem. There is no difference between the two at a fundamental level. Think about it.
No one has the perfect policy to deal with the issue, policy plans often involve tradeoffs, but one has to be consistent. I don’t fault you because I disagree with you. I respect a diversity of opinions and views. What I am pertubed about is your lack of consistency.
Bart,
I’m glad that we are on much more similar ground than it seemed!
I do not think I am inconsistent, though. It appears to me your definition of consistency is either 0% or 100%. It’s either black or white. I do think your arguments can be applied 99% of the time. Unfortunately, there will always be outliers and these people are the ones I’m concerned about.
I don’t think it is inconsistent to argue for a deviation from the norm for outliers. In reality, can we really make a case that 100% of the time the government has to interfere and vice-versa? I don’t know about you but I don’t think so. If there are exceptions to the norm, I can accept an exception to the rule.
Applied in the context of what I am arguing, if a person was told since age 25 he should have sufficient funds for retirement and when he/she actually retires at 65 but has insufficient funds to last till 90 due to poor planning (85 years 5 years of buffer), the rule of non-interference should apply. The person has full knowledge of his expected lifespan and didn’t plan for it. For someone who goes on to live beyond 90, I believe the state can intervene. In fact, you said in your earlier comment that you believe in free markets, but you don’t believe in it all the time. So why can’t I make a case that I believe in non-interference most of the time but not all the time?
Also, going by your argument, why do we have schemes like Public Assistance Scheme? Should the government not be consistent and not give any handouts at all? We are not a state that hands out free money, right? But the government still does it because there are always outliers.
Rounding up my response, I am perturbed at your lack of a sense of reality. If only reality is 100% all the time, things would be so much easier. Unfortunately, most of the time reality isn’t, so what we can only do is to be consistent most of the time and make an exception for outliers. This is an argument that you may or may not agree with but I hope it clarifies where I stand. I don’t think we are that far apart 99% of the time but where you and I differ is that remaining 1%.
[...] course, this is not the main basis on my objection to the annuities issue (see earlier entry) but it is interesting food for thought that the rich (million dollar ministers, wealthy bankers, [...]
You sound like LKY. Are you a spy or employed by PAP to support the govt?
Wake up man! Were you born yesterday?
Don’t be so manipulated by the PAP.
You are either related to the PAP or a naive idiot.
You should be supporting the public and be really listening to their opinions not slamming their opinions in their face. Shame on you.
Shame of you to share your view with the public. Yes, you still a little baby as i can see. I was born there and work there and i paid my taxes and i cant see why CPF have to be extended to age 85. Who can live to 85? CPF fund has been invested in overseas by the PAP. Most probably making a loss in their books.
Govt might be covering up their mistakes but using this as a escape good to make Singaporean to fix this problems. Yeh! i cant see you have any knowledge about the fund. Govt. investing projects etc. Having you have any knowledge that Govtn loss money investing in China. Temask handled by PM’s wife also making a loss too. Update your knowledge.
I felt very disappointed about the Singapore govt. the way they handle this new changes in CPF. It sweat money from all Singaporean. Well, i beg if the govt. keeps on continue to do what they want and not listening to the public, it is the matter of time, the intelligent singaporean will find the way to migrate to overseas. Singaporean who listen enough what PAP have said for the past 40 years. Yes, LKY did a good job in managing the country, building a strong nation whereby Singaporean are well respected when travelling overseas. But this changes has gone beyond the hurts and sucking blood out of the ordinary citizen.
If my grandfather or father is still around to know about this. They will also against this proposal or changes of the CPF. They will said It is becoming like PAP is a blood sucking govt.
Pls refer your supporting of the changes to your grand parents. Only the idiot like you will support the Govt.
I feel sorry for my brothers and relatives who are in Singapore have to face this problems. Yes, angry about the changes even i am not affected at all. Because i have migrated overseas for the past 20 years and i see the pains that cause them a great deal. I will be watching carefully how PAP is going to suck Singaporean CPF and the world will be watching too.
I am proud to be Singaporean but right now i felt disappointed the way PAP determined to make changes. where is the royalty from the PAP the Govtn so far? They have forgotten so far. Yes, all Singaporean behave very quiet and obedient. That is not the case. Well, pray that justice can be done.
Looking at the message as the govt. mentioning about S$250 -S$300 a month for the old age to live under such a small income. It is better to die than to live. Old people working in the fast food counter for small sum of money to survive , i felt sorry and angry about the govt. paying such a small wages to elderly. NO value to elderly and no royalty to their contribution for the country and betrayed by PAP all the long.
All Singaporean are angry and feel betray by the Govt.
You better wake up and think hard. As far as i read your messages, i think you just born yesterday. You need to eat more rice in order to wake up. Unless you are member of PAP. or a spy agent of PAP. Shame on you.
Doreen,
As far as I can see, you offer no constructive arguments and evidence to back your arguments beyond a bunch of rants. Hardly makes a convincing case. I normally do not respond to stupid comments but I think you might be too stupid to even know your own stupidity so I’m kindly pointing it out for you. And, if this is all you are intellectually capable of, I’m glad you are out of Singapore. We have enough idiots here as it is.