Lim Boon Heng's Retirement Age Irony
-
No, we must continue to read them. So that we can be familiar with all their tricks. Reading is one thing, understanding is the other.Originally 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.
We dont always accept what we read. Instead we analyse them and try to understand the hidden agenda behind them. -
No,we don't pay them millions. THEY pay themselves.Originally posted by miserable:But we pay them millions to run the country
-
Oh please, things are definitely going to get worse before anything gets better.Originally posted by the Bear: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
It's the fundamental rule and has repeated itself in history.
Optimism is for fools. -
I think you miss out an "i" with one of the words in your statement.Originally posted by miserable:But we pay them millions to run the country 
-
Correct, they pay themselves millions, wrongfully like in the NKF self-rewards by Durai and Richard Yong with their benchmarking logics and rationale fully and robustly debunked as totally without any substance.Originally posted by forumer84:No,we don't pay them millions. THEY pay themselves.
So much for PM Lee's constant dare to engage critics in robust arguments to debunk their rubbish. Look at the posts by their countering agents like Gazelle or Oxford Mushroom and see how robust have been their debunking on such issues. -
I have just read via "theonlinecitizen.com" that Ng Eng Hen mentioned the partial CPF withdrawal option at age 55 will be removed by 2009.
Hahaha.......
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/06/25/cpf-uniquely-singapore-f1-or-f9/#more-362
The writer Leong Sze Hian is a veteran sales manager in the insurance industry. He is by no means the "low income" Singaporean who whines for whining's sake (as judged by many here). -
Hehe .....Maybe i shall rephrase the sentence as They pay themselves millions to run the country using "Our" money ???Originally posted by maurizio13:I think you miss out an "i" with one of the words in your statement. -
run should be ruin
Hehehe..... -
Originally posted by maurizio13:run should be ruin
Hehehe.....
-
Scenario #1 will happen as the majority of Singaporeans are less sophisticated in their knowledge of financial planning - as you have correctly identified.Originally posted by BillyBong: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.
To make matters worst, Public Housing that was targetted for the lower-income are over-priced, and whatever meagre income have to be split between daily needs - (consisting of food and transportation), utility charges, children's education and ECA activities, personal upgrading - is there anything left from a low-income for any kind of savings for the longer term plan ?
Scenario #2 as you have correctly stated is a reality with a shrinking Middle-Income Group - especially those in their 40s and mid-50s - who were retrenched during the last economic downturn in 2002, and have not been able to regain their former financial positions since then.
The government could have done more for ALL Singaporeans with the small tid-bit handouts that have been uselessly dissipated into individual accounts, simply to garner political favors from Singaporeans.
A more viable - and longer term - solution would have been to consolidate all the small handouts across the years that had amounted to over ''S$7.8 Billion in total for a variety of assistance measures not counting this Progress Package. This includes the New Singapore Shares in 2001, the ERS from 2002 to 2004, the CPF Top-Ups from 2004 to 2006, U-Save, Service and Conservancy Charges and Rental Rebates, etc - {which} a typical low-income household would have received more than $11,000 in total from all these schemes'' - as stated by PM LHL in the Budget Debate 2006.
If Welfarism is such a dirty word - we can call it ''The Singapore Foundation'' that can be similar in the form to some local Private Foundations - such as the Shaw Foundation, and the Lee Kong Chian Foundation.
The funds going into ''The Singapore Foundation'' can be drawn as a percentage taken out of the Annual Gross Profits from the various Government Linked Companies.
Such a scheme will need not burden the Singapore Budget nor placed any cumbersome demands on Singaporeans with additional taxes. This Singapore Foundation will provide ALL Singaporeans with a long term safety net that will be comparable to that provided to the Citizens of the Scandinavian Countries.
Unfortunately, it seems that this Government has lost its sense of responsibility to lighten the burden placed on Singaporeans, and will continuously demand more from Singaporeans without realising that even the strongest metal will break beyond its natural tensile strength.