Interesting ST Forum Letter
-
Dear All;
Found a interesting letter from ST Forum..
Content is definately better than certain APs Press Release :-)
LaMei
Sep 29, 2007
Compulsory annuity scheme unfair to the poor, sick and those without longevity genes
AS SINGAPOREANS begin to live longer and as our society begins to age, there is this fear that this would put a great strain on the taxpayers and other resources.
To alleviate this problem, the conventional thinking is that the aged should have enough money to take care of themselves. Hence, the idea of a compulsory annuity scheme has been mooted where a pooled contribution would allow any survivor beyond 85 years of age to draw out a monthly sum of income.
Though the Government does not believe in giving out handouts because this would mean having to tax the people more, a compulsory annuity or compulsory longevity insurance would actually be doing just that. Once we strip off the veneer of fanciful names, we will see that as long as it is compulsory and non-refundable, such a scheme would, in fact, be a kind of taxation to finance a handout that will be given to those who have managed to live beyond 85 years old.
A scheme like this would have been laudable if it is not so inequitable. Statistics have shown that the poor, the people with chronic illnesses and those in the lower social class and without a family tend to die earlier than those in the higher social class.
This means that such a compulsory annuity scheme, which pays out only to those after the age of 85, would be depending on the poor, the sick and those without longevity genes to support the healthier and better off.
Furthermore, many of those who live beyond 85 are likely to be those who really do not need the 'handouts'.
The problem of a bulging population of dependents is not something new. After World War II, a baby boom did give governments such a headache. The pressure on governments then was even greater, given the depleted resources of a post-war economy. There were no reserves to fall back on.
In Singapore then, the rate of unemployment was high. Half the population was illiterate and there were not enough schools for the young. Living conditions were appalling. In other words, the majority of the population lived in poverty and filth and always under threat of disease and crime.
The government then had to build standpipes for people to have free water to bathe, wash their clothes and cook their food. It had to provide free health care, free mass vaccinations, free mobile X-rays and free hospitalisation for the poor. Money was not only spent on building schools, it was also spent on free milk to nourish the children who were suffering from poor nutrition and free textbooks for those who could not afford them. Cheap housing had to be built to provide decent living quarters for a growing population and recreation facilities for youths to keep them off the streets.
The problem then, if not more, was no less severe than what we will be facing in future. Statistics projected to 2030 showing only four people who are able to support one aged person are often quoted to show the gravity of the future problem. Is this figure any worse than the number of dependents that had to be supported by one provider in the period after the war?
These same baby boomers who had given governments problems when they were growing up are now part of the elderly boomers who are growing old.
What are the issues facing the governments then and now? Is the problem going to be greater in future than then?
In the past, the need for employment, housing, education, health care, utilities, transport and social facilities was urgent. They were all major items. Now the only big-ticket item is health care. There is no reason why with sensible health-care policies, the high cost of health care could not be overcome. In the past, the Maternal and Child Health Clinics and the School Health Clinics provided very good health care to both the growing baby boomers and their mothers. There is no reason why a similar basic health-care system could not be developed to care for the elderly. Good health care does not necessarily mean executive-class health care.
One of the reasons why many elderly boomers do not have enough money for their retirement is that a lot of their savings was eaten away by expensive health care, some of which may merely be adding a bit of quantity to life without giving it any quality.
Thus, the approach that was used to tackle the problems of the baby boomers should be transposed to tackle the problems of the elderly boomers. We cannot expect a paltry monthly annuity payout to do this. There is no way to avoid government interventions, the involvement of the state agencies and society to deal with the problem.
We need to rationalise health care, especially for chronic diseases and end-of-life care, so as not to make health care a burden to the patient, the family or the state. We have to develop greater social support for the elderly. As with child care, we now need government-subsidised day-care centres, nursing homes and community hospitals. We need to introduce parent-care leave and no-pay leave for people who want to take time off to look after an ailing parent. Instead of the Baby Bonus scheme, we can have elderly-parent bonus scheme and exemption of maid levy for the totally-dependent elderly. A similar scheme like health education and home visits that nurses used to do for rural Singapore could be used for home-bound elderly.
A compulsory annuity scheme that is non-refundable is not only inequitable. By implicitly telling the very old that they have to take care of themselves, we are giving out the signal that the old aged no longer need the family and the society to take care of them. What kind of society would we be if families and society try to wash their hands off the old elderly?
There is no reason why we cannot overcome that problem of the elderly boomers if families, society and the Government put their shoulders together against the wheel. Even if some money is spent, it is worth every cent if what we get in the end is a more compassionate and enlightened society.
After all, with all the prosperity generated by the elderly boomers during their prime, whatever programme would merely be a gesture of gratitude from a country to the people who have served it well.
Dr Wong Wee Nam -
If the Majority are FOR the Annuity, there is nothing you can do.
If the Majority are AGAINST the Annuity, does it mean the scheme will not be implemented?
Singaporeans should hold RESPONSIBILITY for things that happen given they are part of the voting system. Just my humble opinion. What say you ? -
Let Singaporeans be better informed of the total implication of the Annuity Scheme - from all sides of the divide.
Let the opinions of all civil, social, economic, and political persons be heard loudly and such opinions be published and to be accessible to all levels of Singapore society.
At the end of the day, let a TRANSPARENT Referendum be conducted on this important issue that affects each of our individual person and hard earned money.
This hard earned money is the 'Life Blood' to Singaporeans in the lower strata of Singapore Society.
If the MIW Government has the interest of the lower strata of Singapore Society, then all the Billion Dollars - which the MIW has recently claimed that they have spent on poor Singaporeans over the last five years - should be correctly spent to directly benefit these Singaporeans, and not to use this money in a self-serving way to purchase political mileage for the MIW.
Straits Times had recently published Minister Tharman claim that the MIW Government has spent $2.5 Billion each year - for the last 5 years to help Singaporeans directly, yet this has not produced any concrete results; as the amount has been uselessly dissipated in the small portions handed out to individual Singaporeans.
Had this $2.5 Billion per year {x 5 years} been allocated into the Annuity Plan it would have already kicked start this scheme instead of demanding Singapoerans to surrender a portion of their CPF monies to start this fund.
Is there something that this MIW Government fear about having a Transparent Referendum ?
If Singapore is truly a First World Country - hoping to achieve the Swiss Standards - we should at least emulate the Swiss way of allowing their Swiss Citizens to exercise their political responsibility to decide issues that directly affect themselves at a Referendum. -
Hahhaa....... found u here!
Beware everyone!..... the forces behind splitting and creating dissension among opposition supporters in Sammyboyforum..... have found their way here! -
So is there any problem for TS to post such interesting letter in this forum? YOu just send the above message to sow discord is it? If your intention of posting the above is ill, I suggest you search your own soul. Anyone can post any constructive article here that benefit the forumers and you find this threatening.Originally posted by hawkeye1819:Hahhaa....... found u here!
Beware everyone!..... the forces behind splitting and creating dissension among opposition supporters in Sammyboyforum..... have found their way here! -
Did I say I have a problem wih the letter?? Did u see me attack the letter? 'Content is definately better than certain APs Press Release.' What this suppose to mean? Wait till u see what will come next f they allowed to have their way -- 'WP is silent over this, over that' but they will vanish b4 parliament sitting. 'NSP is silent' when SDP makes noise. 'APs are silent' when NSP makes noise (they wont name SDP because they r using their name to sully other APs.)Originally posted by qlqq9:So is there any problem for TS to post such interesting letter in this forum? YOu just send the above message to sow discord is it? If your intention of posting the above is ill, I suggest you search your own soul. Anyone can pyost any constructive article here that benefit the forumers and you find this threatening.
All of these will take up 90% of the threads. Wait n see. Good luck 2 u guys. -
Dr Wong has written a very well-thought out and comprehensive letter.
Not only has the letter debunked the government's myth that compulsory annuity is a fair policy, but it also offers genuine solutions to tackle the challenges of an aging population.
The solutions that Dr Wong proposed in his letter are far better than merely trying to tweak an annuity scheme that is flawed, biased, insufficient and inadequate to begin with.
There can be no compromise between food and poison.
That is why we should reject the poisonous scheme of compulsory annuity and instead demand that the government provide real food in terms of better healthcare solutions of the aged and better provisions for those taking care of the aged.
E-Jay -
You worry too much about the oppositions. Oppositions don't pose any threat to the people but PAP does. Get it?Originally posted by hawkeye1819:Did I say I have a problem wih the letter?? Did u see me attack the letter? 'Content is definately better than certain APs Press Release.' What this suppose to mean? Wait till u see what will come next f they allowed to have their way -- 'WP is silent over this, over that' but they will vanish b4 parliament sitting. 'NSP is silent' when SDP makes noise. 'APs are silent' when NSP makes noise (they wont name SDP because they r using their name to sully other APs.)
All of these will take up 90% of the threads. Wait n see. Good luck 2 u guys. -
Steal my idea and never credit me? My article came out on the 23rd and this article came out on the 29th!Originally posted by Empress LaMei:Dear All;
Found a interesting letter from ST Forum..
Content is definately better than certain APs Press Release :-)
LaMei
Sep 29, 2007
Once we strip off the veneer of fanciful names, we will see that as long as it is compulsory and non-refundable, such a scheme would, in fact, be a kind of taxation to finance a handout that will be given to those who have managed to live beyond 85 years old.
Dr Wong Wee Nam
CPF Annuity - another hidden tax -
this is a indeed a well written article by Dr Wong Wee Nam.
Dr Wong wrote as a Singapore Citizen capacity, with no hidden political agenda..and we have people who can't do better questioning his good intentions!
that is the sad mentality of some S'poreans now..when u voice out..u must either be partisan involved or planning to..
please bear in mind..every policies that pappies implementing will be affecting every citizen of S'pore..and every citizens of S'pore have the right to speak up, either through writing or voting..
we should applaud and respect those who in their own capacity..able to come up with a hard hitting letter against pappies policies and not pour cold water on them for they themselves are unable to do it.. -
If nothing, this shows when it comes to Singapore politics, internet opinions are faster than the propaganda press...
-
Dr Wong Wee Nam's Letter is certainly one of the very best i have ever read.
It is certainly an impressive piece that will leave the PAPpies scrambling for an answer. The propaganda machine has begun to roll. Today's newspapers had a full page on the proposed CPF changes and longevity insurance.
They claim that the increased interest rates will more than cover the longevity insurance premiums. One counter-argument is to challenge them to issue a guarantee that the longevity insurance (if made compulsory) premium can be fully paid by the increased interest (which is not guaranteed by the way - i wonder how are they going to answer this).
-
find dr wee's letter a wee bit long-winded and am surprised that st published it.
oops sorry, it should be dr wong. -
Dear Lotus999
ST did not publish it in the papers. They put it up on their online forum which has less readership than the hard copy news papers. But thats a plus still. -
U got a reading problem thats all I can say.Originally posted by qlqq9:You worry too much about the oppositions. Oppositions don't pose any threat to the people but PAP does. Get it? -
Just an excuse to rip us of our money.
Who would live pass 85? if you die before your 85th birthday, your money all gone... WTF!!!!
SCAM!!!!! -
i applaud the initiative and content
but i dun think this will change anything -
Hmm, wait a min, when we die, don't our remaining money goes to our relative or family members?Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
Just an excuse to rip us of our money.
Who would live pass 85? if you die before your 85th birthday, your money all gone... WTF!!!!
SCAM!!!!! -
Just a point to note, the letter mainly points out several general facts and expresses his opinions.
Mayhaps more solutions could be suggested in response to the letter might be a better way of replying rather than aimless arguements off track.