PAP: Stop Screwing Around with Peoples' CPF - Think Harder..
-
Bitter pill?? kekeke more like bitter pill for us common folks and sweet pill for themselves/ Take the increase in pay for Mindef officers as an example. They want to retain and attract quality people. Hahaha, more like making up for the losses in staff and attracting 'quality' people....have worked with them before and I don't see any quality....Career soldiers certainly have it easy, not as demanding as us in the corporate and business world.Originally posted by HyperFocal:Every opportunity they get, whether under good economic climates or bad ones, they play with our CPF.
Since WHEN, have they (our so called 'Leaders' or 'Government') EVER made any sacrifice themselves instead of ALWAY ordering us to tighten our belts, bite some bullets. How many bullets have they bitten??? How many bitter pills have they themselves swallowed???
What the fark are they good for, apart from playing with our money and increasing living costs???
.....NOTHING.
Sigh, but this is the system here, so I guess its live and let live...best solution as always is going off to a much better country which many of us have already done
-
It's obvious isn't it? This is the type of policies only they can come out with. Ultimate point is you'll never get your $$.
They are good at painting pictures. Giving a 1% increase in interest and tell you "let them use your $$". Na... not something new la.. -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
Statistics don't lie. But it can be manipulated.
[b]LONG LIFE? I won't last that long, leh
Our poll shows more than half don't believe they'll live till 85
By Ng Tze Yong and Elysa Chan
September 19, 2007
Statistics don't lie.
[/b]
By the way, why even decide for people if they wanna live up to 85?
And so what even if one can live up to 85...?? You sure they can be 'enjoying' their 'fruits' then...? I think it'll likely be rotten fruits for them by then....? -
Might as well wait until 200 years old then draw CPF $.....?? Like that also call 'solution'...
By the year 3000... Many people can live up to 200 years old liao... -
Singapore residents by Age Group:
0-4 yr 196 K
5-9 yr 239.3 K
10-14 yr 263.6 K
15-19 yr 238.1 K
20-24 yr 222.4 K
25-29 yr 253.7 K
30-34 yr 303.6 K
35-39 yr 310.1 K
40-44 yr 331.2 K
45-49 yr 314.5 K
50-54 yr 260.5 K
55-59 yr 202.8 K
60-64 yr 120.8 K
65-69 yr 104.3 K
70-74 yr 79.7 K
75-79 yr 56.2 K
80-84 yr 30.9 K
85 & abv 25.8 K
let's assume that $4,000.00 will be collected from each member for age 50 to 64 only
= 584100x$4000.00 = $2,336,400,000 will be collected at year 1
lets say 25.8K pple at 85 years live to 100 years old at $300 pm
= S1,393,200,000 will be paid out only at year 15
= surplus of $156,800,000
so are we going to pay another million dollar talent to look after this money? and share the $156,800,000 surplus?
with $300 per month, what can the old folks do? will it be enough to pay for their medical cost?
what i think they should spend time on, si to see how to scrap all the useless medi...insurance scheme and come up with one that the pay for their medical cost fully be it a class C ward. -
The problem lies in the mindset of the PAP, who think "subsidy and welfare" are sacrilegious.
People who live till 85 years old should be rewarded by the government, with monthly cash grant.
The present system of draw down with the retirement fund will serve almost all Singaporeans, as most will not outlast their cash. Only the present old folks may not have enough savings, but the young now are building up their savings, and will have more than sufficient when they get are old. The percentage point increase in interest rate is of much help. Majority of them too will not outlast their retirement fund.
Therefore it would make sense to "reward" those who lived past 85 years old, and have run out of cash/assets/family support. Also of those few who reached 85 years, all of them could terminate at any moment. Just a matter of tomorrow, next week, or very soon. Therefore the payout would not be catastropic. Our nation can afford it. Our people would agree to it.
In the present system, housewives are left out of the equation. They are deemed as unemployed, without a CPF account, therefore no savings and no retirement fund. Their best bet is to outlive their husband and inherit his CPF money.
Housewifes infact serve the most important of social functions, that of homemaker and mother to the future generation.
Each and everyone must work and save, and welfare is a dirty word, that mindset must change. -
Just imagine, or picture this; a man at 82 or more, very likely with some medical condition/s, & a monthly pay out to him of $300.
Tell me, by then with inflation factored in, what can the old sick man do with a measely $300 per month??
Don't come and tell me, it's better than nothing!!
It's a farking RIP OFF I'll say!!! -
I read the report that CPF change has become a heated topic in the coffeeshop talk but how do the govt knew the talk about the CPF changesOriginally posted by HyperFocal:Just imagine, or picture this; a man at 82 or more, very likely with some medical condition/s, & a monthly pay out to him of $300.
Tell me, by then with inflation factored in, what can the old sick man do with a measely $300 per month??
Don't come and tell me, it's better than nothing!!
It's a farking RIP OFF I'll say!!!
is not friendly? -
They are asking for and pathing their way to a VERY shaky GE in 3 years time...Originally posted by will4:I read the report that CPF change has become a heated topic in the coffeeshop talk but how do the govt knew the talk about the CPF changes
is not friendly? -
I wonder if the govt by giving 1% more in the people's CPF account, will this make people a happy for the time being but still need to withdraw theirOriginally posted by HyperFocal:They are asking for and pathing their way to a VERY shaky GE in 3 years time...
money later? -
There are at least 3 strong and valid Objections to Minister's Ng Eng Hen's proposal to further postpone withdrawal of citizens' CPF from their original retirement age of 55 and to convert their own retirement monies into annuities which did not benefit many and those who do not live past 80. These objections are:-
(1) CPF monies are people's own monies - no one has the divine right to take away their own monies or properties.
(2) Lack of proof by the government citizens at reaching 55 are ignorant and do not know how to use their retirement nest egg wisely and likely to squander their own monies within a few years.
If people do squander their own monies by gambling in the government IR who in fact is the party at fault, Was the people's joblessness and dropping of wages caused by their own laziness or driving of costs of living or failed economic restructuring ? Let us be honest and not blame people for their loss or insufficiency of CPF.
(3) Lack of proof that people have over the years squandered away their monies on shares, some other unwise investments.
If so it is not people's fault because the government has changed the nature of CPF by liberalizing them for housing and share investment with the double whammy delivered on the people though over-charging them on public low cost housing by more than 15 times as compared with the price formula originally adopted under the HDB Act - based on construction costs lands being owned by the people through their taxes.
If after so many years of tinkering with CPF citizens no longer could afford to retire at 55 with deflated CPF balances is it due to their fault or is it due to government liberalizing CPF for purchase of HDB flat prices taking advantage of this to up the flat prices despite lands being all the time owned by people.
Minister Mah has so far failed to reply to forum writer who has conclusively proven HDB has profited on their HDB flat prices.
It is also lately well proven that government has been underpaying their CPF interests for years at a paltry 2-4% pa as compared with the returns of Temasek/GIC of 8% pa on people's CPF and surpluses. -
Screwing around with people money?
I dunno leh.
I know for sure, People Majorly ok leh. There is a group that constantly kpkb everyday for 40 years and they continue support...So, only a small Minority not think ok. Majorly ok. People owe it to them. They are the ones who determine what had been determined. My heartfelt congratulations. How can singapreans thank you enough?
The Majority are ok with it ultimately. I got proof what I say.
They just seem kpkb only. Deep down inside, they are ok wan.
Otherwise, where got what is happening?
So good what.
More to come.
And come.
And come.
no need to Pray and Pray lah. It will come. -
Precisely Robert, they have already made the mistake with high HDB prices and now they make citizens pay for their folly.Originally posted by robertteh:If so it is not people's fault because the government has changed the nature of CPF by liberalizing them for housing and share investment with the double whammy delivered on the people though over-charging them on public low cost housing by more than 15 times as compared with the price formula originally adopted under the HDB Act - based on construction costs lands being owned by the people through their taxes.
If after so many years of tinkering with CPF citizens no longer could afford to retire at 55 with deflated CPF balances is it due to their fault or is it due to government liberalizing CPF for purchase of HDB flat prices taking advantage of this to up the flat prices despite lands being all the time owned by people.
Why has no MP mentioned that the chief cause of low retirement funds in CPF is due to high HDB prices? And it is so ironic that those who champion CPF reforms are those very ones who do not need it? So in that case, what makes them think that such CPF reforms ie the Longevity Insurance as the best scheme for retirement?
Ng Eng Hen also mentioned in parliament yesterday that "he could have left it to the next generation of leaders (to reform the CPF)" but chose to take it on now.
How well put, devising policies to cover one's mistake, then sounding so industrious yet humble at the same time. He's got my salute and definitely a 9 upon 10 for craftiness, or delusion, whichever way you see it. -
nmp siew kum hong wrote a fantastic piece on the cpf changes in his blog:
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2007/09/speech-on-ministerial-statement-on-cpf.html
Speech on the Minister Statement on CPF Reforms and Other Measures for a Secure Retirement
1. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.
2. At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister had announced some far-reaching changes to the CPF scheme. The Minister provided some important details to this House yesterday.
3. Any Government measure that enhances and increases Singaporeans' savings can only be a good thing. Based on the figures and projections released by the Government yesterday, Singaporeans would be better off and better prepared for the hard realities of a longer life. The Minister's assurance that under the new system, all CPF members would receive higher interest payments, is comforting.
4. But to me, the real question is whether we can do more. Can we do more, in a manner that is balanced and sensible, and does not involve unwarranted or unjustifiable risks, costs or trade-offs? I think we can.
Poor rate of returns on CPF balances
5. Sir, the poor rate of returns on CPF balances is one of the main reasons why the existing CPF scheme, without reform, will be inadequate to meet Singaporeans' retirement needs. As a long-term retirement savings plan, the CPF's rate of return is crucial. Unfortunately, the rate of return enjoyed by CPF members has been poor.
6. In a 2006 paper[1], two NUS economists argued that "CPF members have not benefited from the power of compound interest". They estimated that from 1987 to 2004, the real rate of return credited to CPF members was only 1.2% per annum. This was contrasted with an equivalent rate of 3.39% for EPF members in Malaysia. This shows just how poor CPF returns have been, when compared with other countries' provident fund systems.
7. Now, the Minister has announced an improved rate of 3.5% for up to $20,000 in the Ordinary Account. Let's put that into perspective.
8. Since last December, insurance company Aviva has advertised a product called BIG e. This insurance product targets CPF members, providing a guaranteed return of 3.5% per annum for CPF funds parked with it, subject to a minimum investment of $5000. Aviva fixes this rate every month in advance, but it has stayed at 3.5% since the product was introduced in December 2006. Funds invested with Aviva can be withdrawn at any time without penalty.
9. How is Aviva able to offer such a product and still make profits? Why can't the CPF Board match Aviva's rate for all CPF balances in the Ordinary Account? My layman's perspective cannot comprehend this, and I hope that the Minister would explain.
10. More fundamentally, I remain unconvinced that the CPF Board cannot obtain better returns on members' balances. The Minister took pains to explain why the full investment route, as he called it, was unsuitable, and I thank him for the explanation.
11. This presumably means that the previously proposed low-cost pension fund will now be shelved. The key obstacle seems to be the need to ensure that CPF returns are risk-free.
12. Sir, in the first place, I think some Singaporeans would ague that the CPF is not risk-free, but is instead subject to different risks, specifically, the risk of government intervention. It can take the form of deferred withdrawals, higher Minimum Sum requirements, and now even a compulsory annuity, but the net effect is the same: interference with members' entitlement to their funds.
13. I will put that aside for now. I would like to discuss the Minister's reasoning, about the impracticability of delivering higher returns while shielding members from volatility. The Minister said that this would have meant subsidising losses using other members' or taxpayers' money.
14. But CPF savings are meant for the very long term. Let's just take the SMRA funds for example. The Minister himself acknowledged that the ideal peg for the SMRA rate would actually have been a 30-year Singapore Government Security, which the Minister estimated would return 4% per annum if it did exist.
15. Over a 30-year time frame, market volatility would even itself out. The Minister referred to recent financial market turmoil as a timely reminder of the risks of the full investment route. But Sir, even with the recent turmoil, even with the ST Index briefly dipping below 3000 points a few weeks back, the STI still closed at 3,476 points yesterday, up 14.4% year-to-date.
16. Yes, short-term fluctuations may be difficult to stomach. But over the very long run, they will smoothen out. Surely, over a 30-year time frame, the average returns would exceed 4% per annum. Surely, even if the short-term risk is borne by the Government, it will be able to even out that risk over the long term.
17. The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation provides a great example. Last July, at the GIC's 25th anniversary dinner, the Minister Mentor disclosed that the GIC had earned returns of 8.2% in Singapore dollar terms over its 25 years of existence. I understand that the GIC has indicated that over the next 25 years, a more realistic expectation would be 6 to 8% per year.
18. The GIC manages our reserves. I would expect the Government to be no less careful with our hard-earned reserves, than the CPF Board is with members' balances. I am confident that the Government will agree, that the chances of the GIC earning less than the CPF rates are very, very low at the very most. Shouldn't we structure CPF policy around the likelihood of long-term gains, and not the improbability of sub-par gains, especially bearing in mind the substantial opportunity costs to CPF members of the latter option? If the Government is able and willing to adopt a long-term view with our reserves, then why cannot the CPF Board take a similar approach with at least the SMRA balances, or even a portion of Ordinary Account balances?
19. Indeed, it seems that the GIC may already be managing CPF balances. It is just that CPF members are not benefiting from it. The CPF Board invests the bulk of CPF balances in Government bonds. These bonds pay a rate equal to the rate that the CPF Board has to pay members. But what does the Government do with the funds it raises?
20. According to a 2002 paper published by the Asian Development Bank Institute[2], the Government invests those funds with the GIC. If the returns are as high as 8.2% per year in Singapore dollar terms between 1981 and 2006, or 6 to 8% for the next 25 years, then why are CPF members being deprived of the benefit of the GIC's fund management expertise?
21. What does all this mean for members? The 2002 paper said, and I quote:
"This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest. To the extent the Government earns a higher rate of return on the CPF funds than what it pays to members; there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth. This tax is likely to be fairly large and regressive, as low-income members are likely to have most of their non-housing wealth in the form of CPF balances."
22. That paper went on to state:
"To the extent that the [GIC's] return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, large implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members."
23. Sir, how much has this contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves, with an aging population with insufficient retirement savings? And if we do not rectify this, are we not perpetuating this undesirable state of affairs?
24. Going back to the proposed low-cost pension fund, its purpose was to give all Singaporeans, especially lower-income Singaporeans, better returns on their CPF balances. Such investment opportunities are typically unavailable to lower-income Singaporeans.
25. Even as Fullerton Fund Management, a Temasek Holdings unit, seeks to manage funds from institutional investors and high-net worth individuals, the Government declines to set up a low-cost fund for lower-income Singaporeans. That seems inequitable to me. Worse, it condemns Singaporeans to an unjustifiably low rate of return, one that contributes greatly to Singaporeans needing to continue working longer.
Nature of members' rights over CPF funds
26. Sir, the Minister has also announced that a committee will be formed to study the proposed compulsory annuity scheme. I trust that this House will be given the chance to debate the committee's findings at the appropriate time.
27. But for present purposes, it is worth discussing what a compulsory annuity would mean for CPF members. It represents an unprecedented inroad into members' ownership rights over their CPF funds. Prior to this, members have been restricted in what they can do with their funds, but they are not forced to spend on anything. Schemes like MediShield, ElderShield, the Dependent Protection Scheme and the Home Protection Scheme are all optional, although some are opt-out.
28. The compulsory annuity, even if limited to some but not all members, would be a very different animal. Members will be compelled to purchase an annuity, from which they may get nothing.
29. In insurance terms, it is risk pooling. But viewed in a different way, it is equivalent to the Government expropriating CPF balances to fund an annuity for the group of Singaporeans living beyond 85. From yet another perspective, it is tantamount to a tax for the same purpose.
30. All this represents a sea-change in the nature of CPF members' rights over their CPF balances. It means that CPF members do not really own their CPF funds, because the Government is able and willing to impose policies to compel members to use their funds in a certain way, even against their strongly-expressed wishes.
31. This week, it is a compulsory annuity. But if we take that first step, will it prove to be a slippery slope of encroachment onto CPF members' rights? What will it be next week, next year, next decade? An increase in the annuity amount? Some other compulsory scheme?
32. We really do need to have a thorough debate on what it means to be a CPF member. Do CPF funds belong to CPF members individually, and what rights do they have in determining how it is spent?
33. I hope that the Government, the committee to be set up, and my fellow Members will think about and debate this fundamental question. The potential consequences are much more far-reaching than simply insuring against longevity risk.
Adequacy of proposed changes
34. Sir, the final part of my speech touches on the adequacy of the proposed changes, in facing the challenges posed by an aging population.
35. CPF is a fully-funded, defined-contribution scheme. It is premised on members getting what they pay in. But what about those who do not pay much, or anything, in?
36. In 2005, two World Bank economists published a paper setting out the World Bank's thinking on how countries should structure their pension systems[3]. They recommended a five-pillar approach to retirement funding. One of their key recommendations was for the state to provide a mandatory basic pillar of minimal pension payments, to provide for the poor.
37. We do not have such a basic pillar in Singapore. But we do have the lifetime poor, those who are born poor, who will die poor, and in between make too little to contribute much, if anything, to CPF. We have the informal workers, who by definition do not contribute to CPF. We have full-time homemakers and other groups, all of whom pay little or nothing in, and so will have little or nothing to take out.
38. The proposed measures will do little for all of these groups. They fail to address the fundamental issue of Singaporeans without any meaningful level of CPF balances in the first place.
39. Some may argue that we have Public Assistance, which is available to those aged 60 years and above who have no means of support. But few people are on PA. Earlier this year, this House was told that less than 3000 households are on PA. And that figure includes all recipients of PA, not just those who are too old to work.
40. I am sure we have a lot more than 3000 elderly persons with little or no CPF or other retirement savings. Yet, they are not on PA, for whatever reason. Obviously, PA does not fulfill the function of the basic pillar recommended by the World Bank.
41. What do we do about them? We encourage them to work, and to work longer. What if they do not, or cannot? Does that mean that they do not deserve to be supported in their old age? I hope not. But the proposed changes do nothing to help them.
42. So from this perspective, the proposed changes are inadequate. Indeed, focusing our approach to an aging population so heavily, arguably even exclusively, on the CPF scheme will inevitably result in such a gap.
43. The proposed changes are inadequate from another perspective. The proposed compulsory annuity as described would result in a payout of $250 to $300 per month to those aged 85 as of 2042. Assuming 1.5% inflation every year, that amount in 2042 would be worth only $149 to $178 in today's dollars.
44. The compulsory annuity is supposed to provide a subsistence payout in case people live longer than they thought they would. But is $149, or even $178, enough even for a subsistence existence?
45. Remember, the fundamental premise for the compulsory annuity is that people are myopic and unable to save enough to support themselves, so they need a lifeline if they happen to live past 85. So there must also necessarily be the assumption that those relying on the annuity would have no other sources of income. What would they then do?
46. Sir, the Minister did acknowledge these gaps in his statement. It is therefore a little bit of a pity that the Minister did not also announce help measures that would be made available to those who need assistance. Unless and until that is done, the proposed changes do not, in my view, provide a comprehensive or adequate response to the issue of an aging population.
Conclusion
47. Sir, I do agree with the Minister on the need for a strong and fully-funded CPF system, based on defined contributions and not defined benefits. That has to be the foundation. That is a given. Any other system would be difficult to sustain.
48. But at the same time, I think we need to do better. And we can. We are able to extract higher returns from CPF balances, thanks to the GIC's expertise. So why are we not passing these higher returns to CPF members?
49. Until we do so, why are we considering implementing a compulsory annuity, which will fundamentally change the nature and dynamics of CPF members' relationship with their CPF balances? Why are we so ready to encroach on their ownership rights over their CPF funds?
50. We explicitly acknowledge that problems will remain, despite the proposed changes. So why were there no policies announced on how to address the residual problems? This is a significant omission.
51. We all agree that the aging population is an important and pressing issue facing Singapore. I only differ from the Minister on what can be done.
52. The Government is already doing a lot: the re-employment legislation to kick in by 2012; the higher Workfare payments for those aged 55 and above; the proposal for the HDB to "buy-back" the tail-end of certain HDB leases. These are all excellent initiatives. I hope, for the sake of the future of all Singaporeans, that the Government will do more. Because it can, and it must.
[1] Social Security Policy in an Era of Globalization and Competition: Challenges for Southeast Asia, Mukul G. Asher and Amarendu Nandy, 2006
[2] The Role of the Global Economy in Financing Old Age: The Case of Singapore, Mukul G. Asher, 2002
[3] Old-Age Income Support in the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform, Robert Holzman and Richard Hinz, 2005
Posted by Siew Kum Hong at 23:50 -
85? Cmon, i'll be dead by then. If not, why would i want the money since i can't enjoy it much at that frail old age? Go touring with my bunch of 85 year old friends to Paris & shop for old man clothes? Or buy the latest plasma TV when my eyesight gonna be like half-blind?
-
if i am still alive i bet it will take me 30 mins to finish a small bowl of porridge.Originally posted by Boy Stratus:85? Cmon, i'll be dead by then. If not, why would i want the money since i can't enjoy it much at that frail old age? Go touring with my bunch of 85 year old friends to Paris & shop for old man clothes? Or buy the latest plasma TV when my eyesight gonna be like half-blind?
and i cant even do the 4 main tasks properly.
cantonese says sek tark, farn tark, orr tark, tiu tark.
-
Very simple reason why MPs are not speaking up on the real cause of loss or insufficiency of CPF to meet retirement needs of citizens.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Precisely Robert, they have already made the mistake with high HDB prices and now they make citizens pay for their folly.
Why has no MP mentioned that the chief cause of low retirement funds in CPF is due to high HDB prices? And it is so ironic that those who champion CPF reforms are those very ones who do not need it? So in that case, what makes them think that such CPF reforms ie the Longevity Insurance as the best scheme for retirement?
Ng Eng Hen also mentioned in parliament yesterday that "he could have left it to the next generation of leaders (to reform the CPF)" but chose to take it on now.
How well put, devising policies to cover one's mistake, then sounding so industrious yet humble at the same time. He's got my salute and definitely a 9 upon 10 for craftiness, or delusion, whichever way you see it.
They would only speak in such a way as not to expose their masters who invited them to tea and gave them ticket to successful careers ahead.
So some would pretend to speak while others would be speaking only enough be seen as speaking up for the citizens.
The one or two who ever speak up will be those who do not need to be an MP and who do not bother to climb the career ladder. I shall not name names of such MPs but we should be able to judge for ourselves but these are too few and they are powerless to make the difference. -
Be thankfulOriginally posted by dragg:if i am still alive i bet it will take me 30 mins to finish a small bowl of porridge.
and i cant even do the 4 main tasks properly.
cantonese says sek tark, farn tark, orr tark, tiu tark. -
WTF!!! They had stop us from investing our money... Tryants!
-
were I paid millions of $$, I wouldnt bother about my pethetic cpf savings and one easy way to gurantee my big fat pay checks obviously is to make sure that no one will get back their cpf savingsOriginally posted by dragg:i bet those people who came up with such great ideas are those who doesnt need their cpf.
-
Check out the video of the speech by NMP Siew Kum Hong on the CPF Reforms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu9LZv3ws3E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YKtoFT3vnI
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2007/09/speech-on-ministerial-statement-on-cpf.html
His points are well researched and his speech asked many critical questions. It makes me wonder why we have such useless opposition parties in the parliament. Is it really so hard for a opposition political party to do some sound research, and present them like Siew Kum Hong or Leong Sze Hian? -
Although i think Low's retort to Sin Boon Ann was unnecessary, i still think the tampines MP ought to be reprimanded more directly for his criticism of Sylvia's challenge( reported in yesterday's ST)
It was tantamount to saying Singaporeans don't know how to manage their own savings, so the 'garbarment' must step in.
bollocks -
gotOriginally posted by dragg:i think the statistic is crap.
i seriously dont see many people in their 80s around anywhere.
MM Lee above 80s
still earning big bucks -
From The New Papers:
========================================
CPF DEBATE
I enjoy when it's time to enjoy
Why can't we leave it up to individuals to decide how to use their CPF money?
In Parliament yesterday, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said it's because it's human nature to spend. Splurge or save? It's an internal battle starring...
September 21, 2007
I'VE been waiting for this day for a long, long time.
Today is my 62nd birthday. Today is the day I finally get my hands on my CPF.
What will I do? Save it? Crazy.
I've been saving for an entire lifetime already and you want me to save some more?
Tonight, I want to buy my kopitiam kakis (coffee shop buddies) as many rounds of beer as they want, maybe upgrade to pub, and enjoy air-con. I have a little kindness to repay.
I also want to buy some baby clothes. I'm becoming a granddad for the first time soon.
NO FLINGS
No Batam mistress for me, unlike some 'chee ko peks' (dirty old men) I know.
I've promised my wife to take her out for a nice, romantic dinner. Maybe even a short trip.
No rice and gravy for lunch, or working two jobs any more. My kids are now grown up. To quote a cliche, there was a time, I thought we wouldn't make it...
I'm going to retire. Take care of my songbirds. Do some taiji. Enjoy, finally.
Am I silly? Am I being short-sighted?
This is my motto: When it's time to work, work. When it's time to enjoy, enjoy.
As people like to say, 'hua hee tio ho' - as long as you're happy.
Yes, yes - we all have to save for rainy days.
But I've eaten more salt in my lifetime than you have eaten rice. I think I know how to get through a rainy day better than you do.
DYING YOUNG
Plus, if healthy young people running in marathons are dying suddenly, I figure I don't stand much of a chance at longevity.
I can't remember the last time I exercised. So I'll probably die of a heart attack at 70 - just nice, if you ask me.
I want to finish this life on a high note. Not be remembered as a miser.
One MP said in Parliament that 'got money no life' is better than 'got life no money'.
How can? Yes, money is important. But more important than life?
Is this the world my grandchildren will grow up in?
I've always told my children when they were little: Money isn't everything. Family and friends are more important.
That's why I want to leave my CPF money to them when I go, not in some annuity, even though I'm told it makes sense.
That's why I don't worry about outliving my CPF. I know my children will be there for me.
All my life, I've never depended on the Government, never on charity. Always on my own two hands.
Will I go begging for help when I'm old and helpless? Over my dead body.
I don't know why people can't think the same way. All we do nowadays is plan, plan, plan - for others, for emergencies, for a tomorrow we can't see.
Plan so much today, 'langgar' (get in an accident) and die tomorrow - how? Who 'rugi' (loses out)?
People talk about the 5Cs. Everyone talks about something called 'on-block' (en bloc).
I don't even have a credit card after all these years. For me, the only 'C' I was waiting for was the CPF.
It's the day when, after a lifetime of buying 4-D, I know I can sure-sure 'tiok beh pioh' (strike lottery).
That was my Singapore Dream.
The Government means well, I know. But I'm a 62-year-old soon-to-be-granddad.
I figure I know how to take care of myself.
MPs' concerns over the three days of debate were weaved in to this article. -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
My thought exactly !! .. all the best to you .... The MP's, Ministers should read this .. They think they are the thinker and what they do is always the best for us .. I cannot imagine I can live beyond 70.. so the annuity contribution is to contribute to their pocket .. that all I can think of ...
From The New Papers:
========================================
[b]CPF DEBATE
I enjoy when it's time to enjoy
Why can't we leave it up to individuals to decide how to use their CPF money?
In Parliament yesterday, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said it's because it's human nature to spend. Splurge or save? It's an internal battle starring...
September 21, 2007
I'VE been waiting for this day for a long, long time.
Today is my 62nd birthday. Today is the day I finally get my hands on my CPF.
What will I do? Save it? Crazy.
I've been saving for an entire lifetime already and you want me to save some more?
Tonight, I want to buy my kopitiam kakis (coffee shop buddies) as many rounds of beer as they want, maybe upgrade to pub, and enjoy air-con. I have a little kindness to repay.
I also want to buy some baby clothes. I'm becoming a granddad for the first time soon.
NO FLINGS
No Batam mistress for me, unlike some 'chee ko peks' (dirty old men) I know.
I've promised my wife to take her out for a nice, romantic dinner. Maybe even a short trip.
No rice and gravy for lunch, or working two jobs any more. My kids are now grown up. To quote a cliche, there was a time, I thought we wouldn't make it...
I'm going to retire. Take care of my songbirds. Do some taiji. Enjoy, finally.
Am I silly? Am I being short-sighted?
This is my motto: When it's time to work, work. When it's time to enjoy, enjoy.
As people like to say, 'hua hee tio ho' - as long as you're happy.
Yes, yes - we all have to save for rainy days.
But I've eaten more salt in my lifetime than you have eaten rice. I think I know how to get through a rainy day better than you do.
DYING YOUNG
Plus, if healthy young people running in marathons are dying suddenly, I figure I don't stand much of a chance at longevity.
I can't remember the last time I exercised. So I'll probably die of a heart attack at 70 - just nice, if you ask me.
I want to finish this life on a high note. Not be remembered as a miser.
One MP said in Parliament that 'got money no life' is better than 'got life no money'.
How can? Yes, money is important. But more important than life?
Is this the world my grandchildren will grow up in?
I've always told my children when they were little: Money isn't everything. Family and friends are more important.
That's why I want to leave my CPF money to them when I go, not in some annuity, even though I'm told it makes sense.
That's why I don't worry about outliving my CPF. I know my children will be there for me.
All my life, I've never depended on the Government, never on charity. Always on my own two hands.
Will I go begging for help when I'm old and helpless? Over my dead body.
I don't know why people can't think the same way. All we do nowadays is plan, plan, plan - for others, for emergencies, for a tomorrow we can't see.
Plan so much today, 'langgar' (get in an accident) and die tomorrow - how? Who 'rugi' (loses out)?
People talk about the 5Cs. Everyone talks about something called 'on-block' (en bloc).
I don't even have a credit card after all these years. For me, the only 'C' I was waiting for was the CPF.
It's the day when, after a lifetime of buying 4-D, I know I can sure-sure 'tiok beh pioh' (strike lottery).
That was my Singapore Dream.
The Government means well, I know. But I'm a 62-year-old soon-to-be-granddad.
I figure I know how to take care of myself.
MPs' concerns over the three days of debate were weaved in to this article.
[/b]