Lim Boon Heng's Retirement Age Irony
-
On 20 June 2007:
Mr Lim said: "I think it is quite reasonable to raise it to 65, if our objective is to raise the employment rate of this group of people, but I think we should do so cautiously.
Source: CNA
On 28 June 2007:
"But Mr Lim said raising the retirement age was not the answer. Figures showed that the employement rate for men in the 55 to 64 age group is the same now as it was in 1981. This showed that legislation to up the retirement age did not help much. The retirement age was raised to 62 in 1999."
Source: Straits Times
What exactly does he want? I cannot see any other reason except to hoard more Singaporeans' money. -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Hmm.......Maybe wat he is trying to tell us is to raise the retirement age from 62 to 65 has not much of an impact, The best conclusion i gathered from what he is saying " is just do away with the retirement age and work yourself to death.... Just look around, we have top people in their eighties and still working!"
[b]On 20 June 2007:
Mr Lim said: "I think it is quite reasonable to raise it to 65, if our objective is to raise the employment rate of this group of people, but I think we should do so cautiously.
Source: CNA
On 28 June 2007:
"But Mr Lim said raising the retirement age was not the answer. Figures showed that the employement rate for men in the 55 to 64 age group is the same now as it was in 1981. This showed that legislation to up the retirement age did not help much. The retirement age was raised to 62 in 1999."
Source: Straits Times
What exactly does he want? I cannot see any other reason except to hoard more Singaporeans' money.[/b]
-
I salute Rock^star for pointing out this fact "raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 in the first place since 1981 did not raise employment rate of the workers in this bracket (55-64)
So if he cannot even understand such simple cause-effect relationship, what talent has he to take charge of retirement needs of workers? -
Based on past negative effects on POSTPONEMENTS of Retirement Age, it is OBVIOUS that they are delaying peoples money and hoarding it for their own use...Originally posted by robertteh:I salute you for pointing out this fact "raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 in the first place did not raise employment rate of the workers in this bracket.
So with such obvious lack of understanding and facts what other talent has he to take charge of retirement needs of workers? -
What is the next best step? I think it is better not to implement these rules.Originally posted by robertteh:I salute Rock^star for pointing out this fact "raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 in the first place since 1981 did not raise employment rate of the workers in this bracket (55-64)
So if he cannot even understand such simple cause-effect relationship, what talent has he to take charge of retirement needs of workers? -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
That means he is admitting that the claimed objective of raising retirement age to increase employment rate for senior workers is all bull.
[b]On 20 June 2007:
Mr Lim said: "I think it is quite reasonable to raise it to 65, if our objective is to raise the employment rate of this group of people, but I think we should do so cautiously.
Source: CNA
On 28 June 2007:
"But Mr Lim said raising the retirement age was not the answer. Figures showed that the employement rate for men in the 55 to 64 age group is the same now as it was in 1981. This showed that legislation to up the retirement age did not help much. The retirement age was raised to 62 in 1999."
Source: Straits Times
What exactly does he want? I cannot see any other reason except to hoard more Singaporeans' money.[/b]
One reason could be to keep senior workers employed for as long as possible so as to postpone the need for the state to look after them. -
If senior workers can work till 62 they would not need the government to look after them. I had wanted to see this Lim Boon Heng fought to get NTUC and all government services to keep all senior staff until the age of 62, but he never even attempt. Now he is talking rubbishOriginally posted by pearlie27:That means he is admitting that the claimed objective of raising retirement age to increase employment rate for senior workers is all bull.
One reason could be to keep senior workers employed for as long as possible so as to postpone the need for the state to look after them.
-
it is true he is talking rubbish, I once applied a job and the emplyer asked me how old, I say 44, and the reply is sorry we want those below 40, imagine how difficult to get a job after 40 not to mention 62 or 65, the minister has got nothing to do so he has to come up new things to justify his pay, if not he will perform nothing, just like new appointed education minister, he has to come out new things, policy to show that he is working, who suffer, the students become the guines pigs, change this change that, they got nothing better to do, all the MPs do not represent the people, because the laws already passed by parliament, they can not do anything, just like Teo Ser Luck, what can he do, he can talk about sports only, MPs can write letters only if u approach them, other than they cant helpOriginally posted by sgdiehard:If senior workers can work till 62 they would not need the government to look after them. I had wanted to see this Lim Boon Heng fought to get NTUC and all government services to keep all senior staff until the age of 62, but he never even attempt. Now he is talking rubbish -
What position u applied?Originally posted by t_a_s:it is true he is talking rubbish, I once applied a job and the emplyer asked me how old, I say 44, and the reply is sorry we want those below 40, imagine how difficult to get a job after 40 not to mention 62 or 65, the minister has got nothing to do so he has to come up new things to justify his pay, if not he will perform nothing, just like new appointed education minister, he has to come out new things, policy to show that he is working, who suffer, the students become the guines pigs, change this change that, they got nothing better to do, all the MPs do not represent the people, because the laws already passed by parliament, they can not do anything, just like Teo Ser Luck, what can he do, he can talk about sports only, MPs can write letters only if u approach them, other than they cant help -
I was just on the phone with a friend....he's a teacher, honours grad and all. Bright future ahead.
He was telling me how he doesn't feel appreciated and how this govt thinks only of themselves. Well, long story. There's some fundamental problem with the civil service.
We were also talking about how we feel so ashamed of our alumni who are currently in the cabinet, formulating rubbish policies.
He also mentioned that a couple of his friends in civil service think the same way. However, when it came to elections, their votes go to the PAP. Can't be helped, they have to protect their ricebowls.
Now, when you take all the civil service and uniformed organisations into account, talk about a mandate of 66.6%.
He also mentioned that the social studies taught in school is mostly propaganda. Funny thing is, he tells me that he would selectively teach and ask his students to go against the PAP. Haha.
The decay has begun, let's keep the momentum going. -
I remember reading an article about a WO posted to a unit n he got into trouble with other superior over an incident in which a soldier failed in his SOCOriginally posted by Rock^Star:I was just on the phone with a friend....he's a teacher, honours grad and all. Bright future ahead.
He was telling me how he doesn't feel appreciated and how this govt thinks only of themselves. Well, long story. There's some fundamental problem with the civil service.
We were also talking about how we feel so ashamed of our alumni who are currently in the cabinet, formulating rubbish policies.
He also mentioned that a couple of his friends in civil service think the same way. However, when it came to elections, their votes go to the PAP. Can't be helped, they have to protect their ricebowls.
Now, when you take all the civil service and uniformed organisations into account, talk about a mandate of 66.6%.
He also mentioned that the social studies taught in school is mostly propaganda. Funny thing is, he tells me that he would selectively teach and ask his students to go against the PAP. Haha.
The decay has begun, let's keep the momentum going.
resulting in disqualification of the unit being able to achieve the best unit.
This WO fought for the soldier not to get charged. -
i don't like the talk of 'keeping the rot going'
but hey.. it is when the powers seem to want us to keep working until we die..
still, what is the alternative in a world where people are put below the economy?
where the scientists say we need to lower the human population and keep the numbers in check while the politicians keep telling the people to increase their numbers.. for the economy..
something is wrong.. not just in Singapore, but globally...
as we go at Warp Speed into the abyss, the powers seem to tell us to damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
here in Singapore, we're caught up in this too...
maybe it is time for the people to stop and think about things... be the quitter without leaving the country..
perhaps that is the salvation for us all.. because going somewhere else, we will face the same problems.. so why not try to solve it here?
we can... if we have the courage to -
i'm surprised PAP is still coming out with all these rubbish after the minister pay rise saga & GST increase which pissed the public off big time.Originally posted by Rock^Star:What exactly does he want? I cannot see any other reason except to hoard more Singaporeans' money.
They seriously think they're invincible in elections even after the rather poor showing at the last GE?
Singaporeans, pls wake up and show them who's boss! -
The Government will not want to provide ''Welfare'' but will pay out only a pittance from ''Workfare''.
While expecting the aged to continue working, they will encourage the Aged to accept lower wages and lower CPF amounts paid by the Employers.
At the same time, they will not pay out the ''CPF Minimum Sum'' until one reaches 65 years.
Meanwhile, the Cabinet Ministers and Civil Servants - on pension schemes - will be paid FULL Million Dollar Salary when they continue working ''after retirement age'' , AND at the same time will be paid their FULL MONTHLY Pension even when they continue working.
This is Singapore Style ''justice and fair play'' in a First World created by the Ruling Party that is only for themselves.
Is LHL's concept of Staying Together and Moving Ahead for Singaporeans, or only for his Team of MIW ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Very obvious, Honorable Atobe, it is for themselves that the are "Staying Together and Moving Ahead" of the people...
The Government will not want to provide ''Welfare'' but will pay out only a pittance from ''Workfare''.
While expecting the aged to continue working, they will encourage the Aged to accept lower wages and lower CPF amounts paid by the Employers.
At the same time, they will not pay out the ''CPF Minimum Sum'' until one reaches 65 years.
Meanwhile, the Cabinet Ministers and Civil Servants - on pension schemes - will be paid [b]FULL Million Dollar Salary when they continue working ''after retirement age'' , AND at the same time will be paid their FULL MONTHLY Pension even when they continue working.
This is Singapore Style ''justice and fair play'' in a First World created by the Ruling Party that is only for themselves.
Is LHL's concept of Staying Together and Moving Ahead for Singaporeans, or only for his Team of MIW ?
[/b]
-
The way i see it, it can go both ways.
Assume there is no CPF. Assume the gahmen couldn't care less and would rather let Singaporeans handle their own savings.
The following may happen:
1. Too many people squander their monies and are left penniless during their twilight years, relying solely on charity to survive.
2. Many people do manage their finances and comfortably retire.
Senario #1 will happen regardless; it's just a question of how many per total population. The end result is that the gahmen will have to spend more tax money on welfare benefits in the form of 'homes' for the 'homeless' and 'helpless'. Then the so-called 'dirty word' of welfare becomes reality as more and more people 'expect' such free lunches.
Senario #2 will also happen, abeit to a smaller proportion of the population. Most of these people will fall under the 'highly educated' bracket, who have enough knowledge of financial investments to grow their savings with better returns. They need not depend on the gahmen and are fully self-sufficient.
Bottomline: CPF is a great thing, but the inconsistent increase of withdrawal age is making the gahmen look unnecessarily silly. Changing the age, and then again, simply shows that the 'future planning' that MM Lee boasts of his current crop of hot-shots, has evidently not succeeded, else it has failed to account for forseeable factors that have inflated the cost of living in SG. This effectively renders the existing plan sadly insufficient.
It would seem the 'trial and error' approach is fast losing people's confidence. -
Manipulation is at work!Originally posted by ShutterBug:Based on past negative effects on POSTPONEMENTS of Retirement Age, it is OBVIOUS that they are delaying peoples money and hoarding it for their own use... -
In today's Straits Times (Insight Pg 33), Chua Mui Hoong suggested that Lim Boon Heng could have "slayed the sacred cow of withdrawal at age 55".
What she meant was that the option to withdraw CPF money up to a limited amount could have been removed by Lim but instead, he chose to only up the retirement age.
She also went on to say those who complained about the age increase are mostly those from the "low to median income" group. These people are very keen to use the money accumulated over the years but ironically, these are also the very people who need the money over the long term.
That is what the CPF's system is for:
1) Partial and limited withdrawal at age 55 and
2) Monthly withdrawal at age 62
Withdrawal at age 55 ensures that Singaporeans may enjoy the fruits of their labour but at the same time, leaving an amount for retirement.
The withdrawal at age 62 ensures that Singaporeans may live beyond their money.
She also mentioned that it's a "fact of the world" that people are living longer, thereby justifying the age increase.
According to a survery by the UN (Human Development Report 2006), Singaporeans' life expectancy at birth in 2004 is 78.9. Those retiring within the next 20 years shall still, on average, continue to die in their 70s.
Why the need to raise the retirement age? By doing so will only mean that these Singaporeans shall die before they can fully enjoy their CPF savings.
Party propaganda once again. She, as a reporter is supposed to write objectively but now she is writing to further the party's cause and justify Lim's "good decision". The age increase looks inevitable. -
Wat do you expect? She's a senior writer for the ST. of cos muz write good things. Frankly speaking im sick of reading all these political commentaries. They criticize the policies 5% but 95% say good things about it. Like wayang like dat only.
-
I'm sick of it too. Some time it makes you think it is not worth the money and time for such controlled newspapers.Originally posted by forumer84:Wat do you expect? She's a senior writer for the ST. of cos muz write good things. Frankly speaking im sick of reading all these political commentaries. They criticize the policies 5% but 95% say good things about it. Like wayang like dat only. -
All you 16 year old kids out there.
Don't expect to see any of your CPF monies (I am presuming you will have a job in the future
) next time until you are 99 years old. -
that is why i dont read straits times, all are control by them, even the reporters are partial because they get paid by SPH holdings which is goverment controlOriginally posted by (human):I'm sick of it too. Some time it makes you think it is not worth the money and time for such controlled newspapers. -
Well don't you all ever realize that talking is free ? Of cos they can say anything when their job is just to talk and talk . They will never be the one who are old and in need of work . Last time the govt also keep trying to push pple to learn chinese untill alot of youngsters were turned off completely untill one of their sons complained that chinese is too difficult to learn then they willing to simplify it . Pple can say anything they like because they are not the one involved , only when they are really involved in doing then they will take back their words . My engineers also used to pass me the companys 15 yr old van , load it with wooden shelf and lots of tools then expect me to drive it like ferrari expecting me to reach loyang rd in less then 1 hr time from tuas .
-
doesnt mean he's a minister what he says must have logic..
just like tharman talking about chinese education reforms.
high class rubbish. -
But we pay them millions to run the countryOriginally posted by sir_peanuts:doesnt mean he's a minister what he says must have logic..
just like tharman talking about chinese education reforms.
high class rubbish.