The problem with Tan Chuan Jin’s whole post is that it’s like every other motherhood reply that comes from the government. It tells you their point of view without apologising where they could have done better and with CPF, there’s plenty of areas they could have done better.
For starters,
- if CPF was for retirement purposes, then why on earth is it being used for property investments?
- Why does CPF not deliver returns that are pegged to inflation?
I agree with CPF’s use for medical insurance.
Singaporeans are by and large not a financially literate lot. It’s not acceptable to force people to save for their retirement but yet not deliver returns that can, at minimum beat inflation and also reap some of the upside when things are performed.
Oh, and the best bit from Tan Chuan Jin’s post?
"As a citizen, I did not really bother too much trying to understand the CPF construct."
Me thinks paper generals earn way too much if they do not have to be bothered about whether they have enough monies in their CPF for retirement.
- http://ryangoh.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/tan-chuan-jin-on-cpf-lucky-tans-critique/
For starters,
- if CPF was for retirement purposes, then why on earth is it being used for property investments?
- Why does CPF not deliver returns that are pegged to inflation?
I agree with CPF’s use for medical insurance.
Singaporeans are by and large not a financially literate lot. It’s not acceptable to force people to save for their retirement but yet not deliver returns that can, at minimum beat inflation and also reap some of the upside when things are performed.
Oh, and the best bit from Tan Chuan Jin’s post?
"As a citizen, I did not really bother too much trying to understand the CPF construct."
Me thinks paper generals earn way too much if they do not have to be bothered about whether they have enough monies in their CPF for retirement.
- http://ryangoh.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/tan-chuan-jin-on-cpf-lucky-tans-critique/