SM: Why Govt stepped in to boost retirement nest-egg
-
SM: Why Govt stepped in to boost retirement nest-egg
By Keith Lin
THE Government will continue to take a paternal approach in safeguarding Singaporeans' retirement needs, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.
Social safety nets such as the Central Provident Fund system are necessary as there remains a sizeable number of people who cannot be trusted to handle their finances, he added.
'We come across friends and relatives who cannot keep money. The moment they have some, they want to spend the money...on a restaurant or gambling den or whatever there is,' Mr Goh said.
Speaking to about 200 grassroots leaders at the Braddell Heights Community Club yesterday, he acknowledged that some of the recent changes to the CPF system may not sit well with some Singaporeans.
Would a more hands-off approach to securing people's retirement nest-eggs work, he asked, citing Hong Kong: 'If you don't have the funds, can't be helped. We'll just make sure you have enough to get by and put you in a poor folks' home.'
Rather than watch many elderly suffer in poverty, Singapore's approach is to do more to help those in need so that 'no one will be left behind', Mr Goh said in his opening remarks.
The almost two-hour-long session on announcements made during the National Day Rally earlier this month was held behind closed doors.
Later, Mr Seah Kian Peng, MP for the Braddell Heights ward in the Marine Parade GRC, told reporters about some of the main issues raised. The CPF changes were one of them.
Why was there the need for a compulsory annuities scheme for those aged under 50, asked one of the 20 participants who spoke up.
SM Goh's response was that many would opt out if the scheme was not mandatory and those who remained behind would have to grapple with a higher premium.
Another participant felt that the Government had allowed too much of Singaporeans' CPF savings to be used to buy property, leading to many now being caught in an asset-rich, cash-poor scenario.
The various schemes introduced recently, such as the buy-back scheme, will allow Singaporeans to unlock the value of their properties, Mr Seah quoted SM Goh as saying. -
'We come across friends and relatives who cannot keep money. The moment they have some, they want to spend the money...on a restaurant or gambling den or whatever there is,' Mr Goh said.
Is Mr.Goh refering to a certain CEO? .... who keep spending money like nobody business.... then when lost money.... go home tell hubby i need more money.... hubby then find papa we need more money.... papa said no problem son, take it from our bank then.
Which account papa? DBS? Swiss Bank?
Papa: you stupid or what? Those are our PERSONAL money cannot touch, take from our PEOPLE bank lah. Need help? Just go find your uncle Goh lah. He good in making promises but can get away easily without fulfilling his promises lah or simply he usually don't remember making promises in the first place at all.
-
so they are sterotyping all sporeans to be like that?
-
Originally posted by Young@heart:
Yes, the PEOPLE's BANK - which is the POSB.
Is Mr.Goh refering to a certain CEO? .... who keep spending money like nobody business.... then when lost money.... go home tell hubby i need more money.... hubby then find papa we need more money.... papa said no problem son, take it from our bank then.
Which account papa? DBS? Swiss Bank?
Papa: you stupid or what? Those are our PERSONAL money cannot touch, take from our PEOPLE bank lah. Need help? Just go find your uncle Goh lah. He good in making promises but can get away easily without fulfilling his promises lah or simply he usually don't remember making promises in the first place at all.
Another news article in Wednesday, Straits Times Edition 29 August 2007, showed that DBS had belatedly awaken to realise that POSB is a strong brandname that pulls in the loyalty of many Singaporeans with its 150 year history.
DBS is planning to nurture this brand name which they have neglected since they took over this brand, and intend to spend several millions to upgrade and expand the various POSB branches for the comfort of its customers.
In other words, they still need more Singaporean money to plug the hole that they have created in the brilliant failures from overseas adventures made by Temasek Holdings and DBS Bank - besides the other sub-units of Temasek. -
Can we trust them to look after the Billions held in our CPF account, when they gamble the hardearned money that were supposed to go into our National Reserves, but instead were lost in deals such as Shin Corp ?Originally posted by qlqq9:SM: Why Govt stepped in to boost retirement nest-egg
By Keith Lin
THE Government will continue to take a paternal approach in safeguarding Singaporeans' retirement needs, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.
Social safety nets such as the Central Provident Fund system are necessary as there remains a sizeable number of people who cannot be trusted to handle their finances, he added.
'We come across friends and relatives who cannot keep money. The moment they have some, they want to spend the money...on a restaurant or gambling den or whatever there is,' Mr Goh said.
$3 Billion evaporated and all we have left is a $3 Billion shell of a useless Shin Corp that the Thias have sworn to boycott all the services provided by its subsidiary companies ?
How much more has been spent to settle the fines and bad debts that Shin Corp has incurred after the takeover by Temasek Holdings ?
Incidentally, CPF was started by the British Colonial Government before any local Singapore Political Parties even existed.
Surely, the British Colonial Government did not doubt the Singaporean ability to look after our own money, but had planned the CPF scheme to tap into a pool of money that they can use for their long term infrastrutural plans.
Has this not been the case in Singapore - since the Ruling Party stepped into power in 1957 until now ?
Speaking to about 200 grassroots leaders at the Braddell Heights Community Club yesterday, he acknowledged that some of the recent changes to the CPF system may not sit well with some Singaporeans.
Would a more hands-off approach to securing people's retirement nest-eggs work, he asked, citing Hong Kong: 'If you don't have the funds, can't be helped. We'll just make sure you have enough to get by and put you in a poor folks' home.'
Rather than watch many elderly suffer in poverty, Singapore's approach is to do more to help those in need so that 'no one will be left behind', Mr Goh said in his opening remarks.
When has the Ruling Party that formed this Government helped Singaporeans to look after our Aged ?
Has this Government not always stated that it is the responsibility of the Family to look after our own Aged ?
Has the Government assisted even by way of off-budget financial aid - by giving reasonable tax reliefs that cover the full expenses to support the aged in every Singaporean Family ?
Even employing a foreign maid to help a family to look after our aged is subject to foreign workers levy that amount to as much as the maid's wages - causing unnecessary strain to the family budget.
With the government encouraging Singaporeans to return to the Workforce, to procreate with more babies, and to look after the Aged - what has the Government done to help ease the financial burden to the Singaporean Family - in any direct or indirect ways ?
Since the 2006 General Elections - instead of lowering the costs of living, a slew of price and tax increases have been approved by the Government, and even more revenue collection mechanisms are soon to be implemented with newer ERP gantries being placed all over the island, and with some ERP gantries having its hours of operation extended into the evening.
Already in this month of August 2007, we are informed that the cost of living is the highest in 12 years.
Is it now lamentably ironic that after taking the bulk of the CPF savings from the sale of HDB flats to Singaporeans, the Government is now claiming to be paternalistic in looking after the Aged ?
Is this the whole truth that is finally had to be said ?
The almost two-hour-long session on announcements made during the National Day Rally earlier this month was held behind closed doors.
Later, Mr Seah Kian Peng, MP for the Braddell Heights ward in the Marine Parade GRC, told reporters about some of the main issues raised. The CPF changes were one of them.
Why was there the need for a compulsory annuities scheme for those aged under 50, asked one of the 20 participants who spoke up.
SM Goh's response was that many would opt out if the scheme was not mandatory and those who remained behind would have to grapple with a higher premium.
If those who remained behind have to grapple with a higher premium, is this not the same as the few remaining - in a shrinking populaton contributing to a CPF pool - will have to grapple with the larger amounts that are being drawn out by the Baby-Boomers born after WW2, and also the late-baby boomers that continued into the 1960s ?
Is there sufficient funds for the CPF to be paid out - if the scheme remained in its original form that allowed it to be drawn, when everyone reached 55 years ?
Another disingenious remark concerning the entire buy-back scheme that simply refuse to address it as eating into one's over-valued asset.
Another participant felt that the Government had allowed too much of Singaporeans' CPF savings to be used to buy property, leading to many now being caught in an asset-rich, cash-poor scenario.
The various schemes introduced recently, such as the buy-back scheme, will allow Singaporeans to unlock the value of their properties, Mr Seah quoted SM Goh as saying.
What happens to the remaining portion of the value in the property that remains unspent ?
Will it not be a fact that either the entire property be sold to return in cash the remaining portion to the surviving members of the family, or that the family will have to top up the portion that has been consumed by the Aged person who is now deceased ?
If the Government intend to be paternalistic by using our CPF money to start an annuity scheme that hold back the lump sum payment to us - and continue to postpone the date for this lump sum release till pass the average age of survival for Singaporeans - then we should say "NO THANK YOU''.
If the Government intend to be paternalistic towards Singaporean Aged, should it not be generous with their own money - by contributing 1% of the NETT PROFIT After Tax from GIC and Temasek Holdings, and use it as premium - to be paid annually - for a NATIONAL Annuity Program for the benefit to all Singaporeans ?
This will still allow Singaporean to draw on the lump sum at the age of 55 years.
Why will SM Goh play a paternalistic role with our CPF Money ?
Surely, we know how to be paternalistically generous to ourselves with our OWN CPF Money ? -
is it? I din know singaporeans all think alike one. same brain one?Originally posted by alwaysdisturbed:so they are sterotyping all sporeans to be like that?
like robots hor? -
don't know. i also don't know how we became a developed country.Originally posted by LimSianTong:is it? I din know singaporeans all think alike one. same brain one?
like robots hor?
the blind lead the blinds. -
