Man convicted for cheating his own CPF money
-
Since the law has made it such that the employer's contribution goes into the Singaporean's account lawfully under his name, then it should be his money.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Try this: http://www.sgforums.com/action=thread_display&thread_id=280397&page=4
If not go to the thread on "stop screwing CPF ...."
Whose retirement is that money meant for anyway? For the individual, not the govt's.
When a CPF member dies, the amount is distributed as per nomination or will. None of it goes to the govt. It is the individual's money at the end of the day. -
Your points are valid in-so-far as the ultimate release of fund is concerned. But as long as it is in CPF, that money is in trust - not yours to do as you liked but as approved by the trustees (Board).Originally posted by Rock^Star:Since the law has made it such that the employer's contribution goes into the Singaporean's account lawfully under his name, then it should be his money.
Whose retirement is that money meant for anyway? For the individual, not the govt's.
When a CPF member dies, the amount is distributed as per nomination or will. None of it goes to the govt. It is the individual's money at the end of the day. -
I think the main issue here is not whether the CPF money belongs to the individual or the state. It's whether the individual should be allowed to do what he or she wants with the money. After all, what's the point if you own the money but you can't touch it or do anything with it?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Your points are valid in-so-far as the ultimate release of fund is concerned. But as long as it is in CPF, that money is in trust - not yours to do as you liked but as approved by the trustees (Board).
This "trustee" portrayal of the CPF Board smacks of the paternalistic attitude of the government, which it is still struggling to shed today. It's time the government gives some individual responsibility back to the people and stop telling us how to live our lives. -
Hmm.. this must be one of those
possibilities
THEY were proclaiming about...
-
actually it is quite hard to deal buy and sell to oneself.
1. provide that stocks are almost no trade every day.
2. CPF approve stocks.
3. he use two different agent, or online portals.
anyway, she should realise that, with everything now digitally connected.
law will caught up with him one day.
anyway, it is always good to know, someone brave enough to challenge the LEE regime! -
Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:I think the main issue here is not whether the CPF money belongs to the individual or the state. It's whether the individual should be allowed to do what he or she wants with the money. After all, what's the point if you own the money but you can't touch it or do anything with it?
The point is the 'trust' and 'trustee' issue that many just don't seemed to get.
This "trustee" portrayal of the CPF Board smacks of the paternalistic attitude of the government, which it is still struggling to shed today. It's time the government gives some individual responsibility back to the people and stop telling us how to live our lives.
Once upon a time, I oso don't like my father to tell me what to do. Now, I am a father telling my children what to do. The paternalistic attitude is better than the care-less attitude. Your line of reasoning is very faulty like an earthquake crack. -
The way to help him save money is to help take away his money? (fine him) Rich
-
1. I think the real debate is over whether the government's "trusteeship" over our money is too extensive and encompassing such that we, as the owners of the money, appear to have little or no rights over it at all.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:The point is the 'trust' and 'trustee' issue that many just don't seemed to get.
Once upon a time, I oso don't like my father to tell me what to do. Now, I am a father telling my children what to do. The paternalistic attitude is better than the care-less attitude. Your line of reasoning is very faulty like an earthquake crack.
2. Your analogy is not quite correct. We are not children. We are adult citizens, and I don't believe we adults like to be treated like children, as the government sometimes treats us.
Moreover, you seek to characterise paternalistic government and "care-less" government as two polar opposites, with the former as the obvious choice. This is misleading. The opposite of a paternalistic government is not an apathetic government. A government can be caring and yet not paternalistic. A good, caring government lets people make their own choices and helps them to achieve their aims, provided these do not interfere with the interests, well-being and safety of others. A caring government does not tell people how to live their lives and force them to comply with that rigid paradigm of what life is. -
-
If people love to exist within a rigid discourse, let them.
-
Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:1. I think the real debate is over whether the government's "trusteeship" over our money is too extensive and encompassing such that we, as the owners of the money, appear to have little or no rights over it at all.
Back to the concept of trust. When you set up a trust - say for your family or children, you put in your money or property, then you leave it to the trustees. My point is very simple: if you get the meaning or concept of trust - then the question on whether it is your money or whether you have a say would not arise. But if you don't get the concept, then I supposed you will be back to square and there will be no end.
2. Your analogy is not quite correct. We are not children. We are adult citizens, and I don't believe we adults like to be treated like children, as the government sometimes treats us.
You are wrong. We are always someone's children. Growing up into adult doesn't not mean we know better and therefore need not be treated like children. I've seen 70-year old fools.
Moreover, you seek to characterise paternalistic government and "care-less" government as two polar opposites, with the former as the obvious choice. This is misleading. The opposite of a paternalistic government is not an apathetic government. A government can be caring and yet not paternalistic. A good, caring government lets people make their own choices and helps them to achieve their aims, provided these do not interfere with the interests, well-being and safety of others. A caring government does not tell people how to live their lives and force them to comply with that rigid paradigm of what life is.
A paternalistic parent is very likely to be caring than one who is not. That is the meaning of paternalistic. An apathetic parent need not be less caring but certainly not more caring. Therefore, it is not possible to separate caring from paternalistic, otherwise the term has no meaning!
A caring parent will certainly tell you how to lead your life. I can't see any other way. When you have lived long enough, you will get the meaning better. I have come across senior citizens who have said the same thing as you when they were young but they no longer hold the same view as you. Take your time. -
Alright. I see that you and I have some irreconciliable differences in our world views and values. I respect your opinions, though I still disagree. Please, spare me from any more of your paternalistic preaching.
-
SIAN.....
-
Not a problem. As with all perspectives, the strange thing is that the object we see is the same but our views are different. It is pyschologically tested already. Most important point you must bear in mind is that view keeps changing as you move along. Never be too early to take a position and say that view is the only view. Hope I am not preaching. Actually, few people appreciate preachings, that whys we need lawyers instead of philosophers.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Alright. I see that you and I have some irreconciliable differences in our world views and values. I respect your opinions, though I still disagree. Please, spare me from any more of your paternalistic preaching. -
Don't be sad.Originally posted by ditzy:I guess this just goes to show whose money our cpf really belongs to.
Next time, you will need to donate your CPF money to fund other people's retirement too. -
oh...noooooooooo!!!!!Originally posted by charlize:Don't be sad.
Next time, you will need to donate your CPF money to fund other people's retirement too. -
Haha....good. I see that you are not of the same ilk as OM and gazelle.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Not a problem. As with all perspectives, the strange thing is that the object we see is the same but our views are different. It is pyschologically tested already. Most important point you must bear in mind is that view keeps changing as you move along. Never be too early to take a position and say that view is the only view. Hope I am not preaching. Actually, few people appreciate preachings, that whys we need lawyers instead of philosophers. -
x2Originally posted by CoolMyth:Singapore: City of Possibilities