Is the Government Listening ?
-
From Al Fresco Coffee Shop Talk -
To DPM Lee: Please show us 100,000 jobs
From: BART (CFKM) 29-Jun 20:49
To: TEH_SI 9 of 189
I believe the government is determined to continue displacing singaporeans as the economy weakens further so as not to back down on this foreign talent policy.
This will reinforce their views that Singaporeans are "not innovative" and choosy being the main cause of our economic problems rather than bad government policies.
Did the government care that foreign talents running DBS have made so many mistakes and weaken the company tremendously?
In other words the blame will be pushed onto singaporeans and local talents.
We will be hitting an unemployment rate of 5.5% this year that took Japan 15 years to reach.
Like the Japanese, I think most Singaporeans will suffer in silence. They rather jump down from their flats than to protest against the incompetence of the government.
Those who have their jobs and are doing well will hardly bother about the plight of the jobless.
In the last election, the PAP promised to address Singaporean's concern and the election was held early because the PAP government said it was eager to form a government to tackle the unemployment problem.
However, not only did the government take ages just to have a parliamentary sitting, it took more than a year to do anything by way of committee that took ages to make some common sense recommendations.
In the meantime, the economy worsen and little was done to help the unemployed. Since there is no opposition and the government has full control of the Press, it is not even necessary for the government to solve the unemployment problem....it is easier to hush it up.
People don't give a damn if you're unemployed, they have their own lives.
Since Singaporeans gave up all their rights by not supporting their opposition and not proactively organising themselves to safeguard interests, I think in the end when it all falls apart, they only have themselves to blame.
Edited 29/06/2003 23:51:37 ET by BART (CFKM)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=30900.9 -
From: WeeSoon@s...
Date: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:28 am
Subject: RE: LET US HAVE OUR CPF MONEY BACK!!!!
Goh Wee Soon
30 June 2003
This is not the first time the government has been called to return our CPF money back to us.
This is fact, the money flows one way mostly, into the CPF Board. Try taking out what is yours in the first place and it is a nightmare.
They say the CPF was suppossed to be our nest-egg to look support us when we are old. Well I have hit 55 years old 9 years ago.
Theoretically I should have access to all my CPF monies. BUT I DON'T. In fact, because i am still working at least 5% of my monthly wage is still channeled into CPF!!!
I am above the mandatory retirement age now, so when will I get to take out the rest of my CPF money? After I am 6 feet under?
Ministers with million dollar salaries can afford to flippantly say there are jobs available and to refuse to release the CPF monies. But they only need to take a lok at the papers.
Look at how thin the classifieds are. 2 years ago the Saturday job section is several hundred pages.
Today it is so thin by comparison.
If that is not sufficient indication, then take a look also at the Sunday issue of the Sunday Times (29 June 2003 issue "Down But not out" ) .
White collared professionals form the largest percentage of the unamployed (43%). This is very worrying because jobs are created from top-down. If you cannot create an environment to create jobs at senior levels, then it means that further down the employment level, fewer jobs will also be available for everyone.
You think we are too choosy? Well you try giving up your million dollar iron rice bowls and come look for a job yourselves. Share the experience first hand with the rest of us before you make that comment!
But the bottom line is this, by refusing to allow me to have my CPF money, you are effectively taking my destiny into your hands.
WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DO THAT???
You may be a million dollar minister BUT YOU DO NOT OWN OUR SOUL AND YOU CANNOT DICTATE OUR DESTINIES.
So stop playing God and start being more human. Perhaps you need to adjust your million dollar salary downwards by 99% to come to our level before you can appreciate a working man's plight.
Below are more feedback from other singaporeans in the political forums.
Disgustedly yours.
Goh Wee Soon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/354
This message from Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop on DelphiForums.com was forwarded to you by Weesoon@s...
You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=30900.9 -
Labour Watch
CPF: Let Singaporeans have their money back
(Singapore Review)
01 July 2003 by Mellanie Hewlitt
More people are becoming unemployed, with mounting financial defficulties, the Singapore Government has deemed it fit to deprive them of funds that were in fact the worker's hard-earned income.
In most civilised countries, the act of forcefully removing personal wealth/income from a citizen is defined as "conversion" or "robbery".
In Singapore, this act is state sanctioned when applied in the
contect of CPF.
As more and more people become unemployed, with mounting financial defficulties, the Singapore Government has deemed it fit to deprive them of funds that were in fact the worker's hard-earned income.
Even after retirement, many workers are not allowed access to their CPF funds. Many have given up trying to understand the complex bureucratic rules that govern operation of these funds.
The original justification for the CPF was that it was meant to look after retired workers in their old age.
This looked good on paper but seldome materailised in reality as workers found that they were denied access to their hard-earned money even when they were unemployed or ill!!!
This was a double whammy as Singapore is not a welfare state and the Singapore Government has effectivelym passed the buck onto the private individual to fend for themselves, whilst at the same time depriving them of 20% of their montly take-home salaries!!!
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?
Not only do CPF holders suffer low returns on their contributions, they are also left in the dark about how their savings are invested.
By law, CPF monies that aren't withdrawn by members must be invested in government bonds and deposits with the central bank.
In turn, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) invests the funds thus raised, but does not publicly disclose its portfolio or investment performance.
People have criticized the government for using the CPF to raise cheap funds for investment projects at the citizens' expense.
The government defends itself by claiming the investment gains are used to fund infrastructure development and provide other public amenities, which benefit all Singaporeans.
Still, the average Singaporean may prefer at least having the option of receiving those gains directly.
And funding of state/public projects should come from other sources of public revenue (like Income and Corporate Tax).
By its very origin (from a workers' personal income), CPF cannot be categorised as a source of public revenue.
Therein lies the logical inconsistency.
23 June 2003
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2111
Sources and Links
23 Jun 2003, Sg_Review CPF: Let Singaporeans have their money back
25 Jun 2003, Sg_Review Let jobless tap CPF in bad times
27 Jun 2003, Sg_Review RE: LET US HAVE OUR CPF MONEY BACK
Alfresco Coffee Shop Forum Please show us 100,000 jobs -
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030630a4.htm
Govt says no to proposed liberalisation
of pension fund scheme
Agence France Presse
June 30, 2003
SINGAPORE
THE government on Monday, June 30, rejected suggestions Singaporeans should tap into their pension funds to finance university education overseas for their children or to fund small businesses.
Acting Minister for Manpower Ng Eng Hen warned that allowing Singaporeans to dip into the Central Provident Fund (CPF) would "introduce opportunities for over consumption" and leave them with no money when they retire.
"The primary objective of the CPF is to help members save for their retirement, healthcare and housing needs," Ng told parliament.
"We should resist strenuously attempts to adulterate the original aims and intents of the CPF system.
"In other words, we should make sure that the majority of the population has enough to cover these basic needs and we should neither under- or over-provide."
In a country which has one of the highest savings rates in the world, Singaporean employees contribute 20 percent of their monthly salaries to the CPF, while employers match this amount with a 16 percent contribution.
Before retirement, the fund can be used to finance loans to pay for government-built housing flats, giving most Singaporeans a chance to own their homes. It can also be used to pay for medical needs.
MP Ho Geok Choo had asked in parliament if the government would consider liberalising the use of the CPF for other purposes.
Ho asked if parents could dip into their contributions to finance the overseas tertiary education of their children who are not admitted to local universities, or to use it to start a small business. -
And the rigid, brain dead No U-Turn mentality that seems to have a deathgrip on the mindset of our ministers rears its head again.
Its perfectly all right to dip into our CPF accounts to pay the government's coffers (HDB flats, reduce what the government spends on our healthcare) yet its not all right when we want to use a smaller amount of what is essentially our own money to give us a little headstart in life.
Where was the concerns of "over-consumption" when the government allowed us to use the CPF to pay them for our pigeon holes in the sky? Where were the concerns when you let us use our CPF to reduce our burden on you when we fell sick. -
Remaking Singapore: PAP's Propaganda
Editorial(Think Centre)
21 June 2003
Eschatological tracts from religious texts give people more hope than the recommendations of the politically conservative Remaking Singapore committee.
Detractors of the PAP had initially thought that the recommendations would be slightly better than the S21 report but the recommendations except for equal pay and medical benefits for women, have shown that they are abysmally short of even the non-believers expectations.
The truth is that the recommendations highlight that the whole exercise was a waste of time and taxpayers' money primarily because the issues raised were always debated in the public domain in one form or another.
However, the disappointing aspect has been that the recommendations are reflections of the political conservatism of the old PAP.
Like S21, the Remaking Singapore committee is trying to sell to the Singapore electorate the idea that the PAP is a dynamic party that listens to the people and that they and only they can exact changes without any major disruptions.
It is part of a clever propaganda exercise to show that the PAP really cares and they are trying their best to find clever solutions to new problems. But some of these problems have been debated since the 1980 elections and yet no solutions were found.
The recommendations are as hollow as the words of the former Iraqi information minister. The PAP is pouring old wine into new bottles to market themselves as a party that listens to feedback and a party that can be radical.
This is not true.
The PAP does not listen to feedback and nearing its fiftieth anniversary the party has successfully transformed itself as the bastion of Confucianist Conservatism.
These recommendations serve only two purposes. One, to provide some boost in self- image for PAP activists and the believers that they serve a party that has some compassion for the common man. Two, to provide the necessary mirage to gain the apathetic Singaporean vote on the pretext that they care and listen and act upon feedback.
What does this all mean? It means that the so-called liberal wing of the PAP is dead and buried. It also means that Singaporeans can continue their constipated frustrations with the government as political apathy and an uneven electoral field continues.
An old man is taking ownership of Singapore in his own way by selling his books despite being made a bankrupt because he wanted to take ownership of Singapore.
PAP ministers and MPs who have entered parliament through the back door should be more humble when they ask Singaporeans to take ownership of this country.
Our fathers and mothers made this country prosper because they wanted a stake in it. It is the PAP who has alienated themselves from the people and not the other way round.
Your illiberal democratic practices are the main obstacles to taking ownership of this country. By the way taking ownership of this country is the peoples' right not one you the PAP recommend.
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2106 -
When i become PM, I will make sure yall have job one, dun worry! And iw ill k ick out those angmor f***en talents.
-
when you become PM, singapore is doomed... for sure...
anyway, is the gahmen listening?
again 3 words:
THEY DON'T CAREOriginally posted by chaar123:When i become PM, I will make sure yall have job one, dun worry! And iw ill k ick out those angmor f***en talents. -
Yeah, the money is to be save for u to use when u retire, pay for ur medical bills, etc. Unfortunately, what happens if u now already no money??? Borrow? From?? Friends and relatives who are equally poor and also out of job? The banks which prob won't lend u cos u got nothing in the first place and even if u can mortgage something, they'll charge u some high rate u can't afford.
I think the purpose of CPF has been phrased very nicely. 'when u retire...', basically, if u are dead broke and starving, but haven't reached retirement, too bad.
And dun criticise the ministers for having high salaries, its supposed to stop them going corrupt. . . -
regarding how the CPF works, so what, when you reach 65 you can just go to the CPF board and withdraw it all as though you were emptying your bank account?
or are there tons of red tape?
or is it some kinda trust fund like thing where you only get small amounts each month? -
hehheh, one example of how a singaporean has no idea how the cpf withdrawal work. . . i got no idea too. . . i think u can withdraw at 55. there will never be a case where u can withdraw all i think. .. not sure lah, so many processes and different regulations all over the place to stop people finding out how to go abt it. . .Originally posted by nismoS132:regarding how the CPF works, so what, when you reach 65 you can just go to the CPF board and withdraw it all as though you were emptying your bank account?
or are there tons of red tape?
or is it some kinda trust fund like thing where you only get small amounts each month? -
55 is 3 decades away man.
and i'll be spending a good half of that in the far east. -
I haven't even started working yet. no cpf.Originally posted by nismoS132:55 is 3 decades away man.
and i'll be spending a good half of that in the far east.
and 55 is exactly 4 decades away for me. . . . -
with the cost of living going higher and higher,Originally posted by laser51088:Yeah, the money is to be save for u to use when u retire, pay for ur medical bills, etc. Unfortunately, what happens if u now already no money??? Borrow? From?? Friends and relatives who are equally poor and also out of job? The banks which prob won't lend u cos u got nothing in the first place and even if u can mortgage something, they'll charge u some high rate u can't afford.
I think the purpose of CPF has been phrased very nicely. 'when u retire...', basically, if u are dead broke and starving, but haven't reached retirement, too bad.
And dun criticise the ministers for having high salaries, its supposed to stop them going corrupt. . .
it really makes me wonder if the cpf that we have will be truely enuff? -
Originally posted by laser51088:
isn't it another form of corrupt? just that it's legal
Yeah, the money is to be save for u to use when u retire, pay for ur medical bills, etc. Unfortunately, what happens if u now already no money??? Borrow? From?? Friends and relatives who are equally poor and also out of job? The banks which prob won't lend u cos u got nothing in the first place and even if u can mortgage something, they'll charge u some high rate u can't afford.
I think the purpose of CPF has been phrased very nicely. 'when u retire...', basically, if u are dead broke and starving, but haven't reached retirement, too bad.
And dun criticise the ministers for having high salaries, its supposed to stop them going "[b]corrupt". . . [/b] -
surely you intend to have children in future?Originally posted by leilan84:with the cost of living going higher and higher,
it really makes me wonder if the cpf that we have will be truely enuff? -
to have children because you want someone to look after you when you are old is, to me, selfish....Originally posted by nismoS132:surely you intend to have children in future?
-
Just a few lines... I agree with u guys for most context though...
Don't be too harsh on Gov for making life difficult for us during this time. Why ? Because we r a sinking ship. The boat used to be big, who can carry lots of load and all the people on it can afford to have TV, lots of food and entertainment thingy inside the boat. HOWever bad times will come eventually. NOW, we r in the middle of a terrible storm, and to survive, we have to clear up some load... So if u r captain, wat will u throw overboard ? The engines of the boat along with the heavy life boats or all the entertainment thingy like TV, some food and the pool table aka The fun stuff.
So wat is engine and wat is entertainment ? Engine is lousy undesirable policies like retrenchment, lower taxes and foreign workers. Entertainment r the other policies tat make people life happy. I guess u all can recommend a few.
Tis is sort of a crisis now. We better try to find ways to attract investsment. The other we will talk later when we r getting better -
i never said to have children purely to have someone to look after you in old age.Originally posted by the Bear:to have children because you want someone to look after you when you are old is, to me, selfish....
but as a child, it is still your duty to support your parents. and most people have children. even if they can't give you the luxuries, they should still provide you with the basics to live with at the very least.
and yet the govt and seemingly many others keep thinking that the CPF is the only thing they have left when they're old. not everyone has children, but the majority do.
the emphasis on CPF is too much. every study made about CPF not being able to support anyone in their old age fails to take in the point that they probably have children to care for them.