• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

SDP - Dec 2014 - PAP starting to wobble on Minimum Sum, SDP will keep up pressure

Cosmos10

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PAP starting to wobble on Minimum Sum, SDP will keep up pressure


The Government has called for a review of the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme and says that it is willing to be more flexible on the matter including allowing a different Minimum Sum for different groups of people.

This is the clearest sign yet that the PAP is worried about the backlash that has developed to its move to withhold the people's hard-earned savings.

To be absolutely clear, however, such a measure will only confuse and complicate the CPF issue. In the end, the Government will still withhold the much-needed savings and leave retirees insufficient income to live on.

The SDP stands firm and unambiguous on this matter as we have for the last 20 years: Abolish, not amend, the Minimum Sum Scheme and return to retirees all their money.

The Government is under pressure to keep its promise and return Singaporeans their CPF savings. It is now trying to bargain with the people how much it can retain with this latest announcement to make the Minimum Sum more “flexible”.

The PAP says that the Minimum Sum Scheme is needed to prevent retirees from squandering their savings. Such an argument is dubious at best. There will always be the few who do not know how to spend their money wisely. The vast majority are, however, financially prudent, and they should not be penalised by having their retirement savings withheld.

Such a policy is not only unfair and unintelligent but also immoral. Retirees need their retirement savings for various purposes like investing in a business, helping to pay for their children's education or simply to survive on in expensive Singapore.

Singaporeans have taken to the Internet to clearly and loudly indicate their rejection of the Minimum Sum Scheme and the PAP, with one eye on the next general elections, is beginning to wobble. Hence, its recent announcement to introduce “flexibility” into the scheme.

The SDP reiterates our stand on this issue: The Government must return the CPF money to the people in full after retirement.

We will keep up the pressure on the PAP to honour it's obligation and we will not stop until the Government heeds the people's voice.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PAP starting to wobble on Minimum Sum, SDP will keep up pressure


The Government has called for a review of the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme and says that it is willing to be more flexible on the matter including allowing a different Minimum Sum for different groups of people.

This is the clearest sign yet that the PAP is worried about the backlash that has developed to its move to withhold the people's hard-earned savings.

To be absolutely clear, however, such a measure will only confuse and complicate the CPF issue. In the end, the Government will still withhold the much-needed savings and leave retirees insufficient income to live on.

The SDP stands firm and unambiguous on this matter as we have for the last 20 years: Abolish, not amend, the Minimum Sum Scheme and return to retirees all their money.

The Government is under pressure to keep its promise and return Singaporeans their CPF savings. It is now trying to bargain with the people how much it can retain with this latest announcement to make the Minimum Sum more “flexible”.

The PAP says that the Minimum Sum Scheme is needed to prevent retirees from squandering their savings. Such an argument is dubious at best. There will always be the few who do not know how to spend their money wisely. The vast majority are, however, financially prudent, and they should not be penalised by having their retirement savings withheld.

Such a policy is not only unfair and unintelligent but also immoral. Retirees need their retirement savings for various purposes like investing in a business, helping to pay for their children's education or simply to survive on in expensive Singapore.

Singaporeans have taken to the Internet to clearly and loudly indicate their rejection of the Minimum Sum Scheme and the PAP, with one eye on the next general elections, is beginning to wobble. Hence, its recent announcement to introduce “flexibility” into the scheme.

The SDP reiterates our stand on this issue: The Government must return the CPF money to the people in full after retirement.

We will keep up the pressure on the PAP to honour it's obligation and we will not stop until the Government heeds the people's voice.

A few salient mistakes and oversights in this article......

1. The excuse that we're living older till 85 is a BIG FAT LIE. Read my other threads!!

2. The retirement age keeps increasing from 55 to 65 and now to 67, but people are not living till that old and yet healthy and able to work. Hence, extending the retirement age is academic and only serves as an excuse NOT to begin paying the CPF annuity till the person is one foot in his coffin.

3. Squandering the retirements is an absurd notion, because there is no comprehensive study to determine that retirees lose all their savings, and also, retirees can be males and females, so which gender is squandering the retirements? No one knows so it cannot be taken as a fact to make national policies, especially one as wide and broad as CPF

4. The article does not distinguish between the definitions of Retirement Age and CPF withdrawal Age. The two are very different. Back before 1985, there is no legal link between Retirement Age and CPF withdrawal Age. Hence, the promise to return the CPF in full is written as 'CPF will be returned to its members in full upon reaching the age of 55'. Simple as that.

5. Extending the Retirement Age longer till 65 and now 67 does not change that fact that the Manpower Ministry must ensure there are sufficient jobs for people and CPF deductions must not discriminate along age groups and more importantly, that Employers must employ and not discriminate older folks seeking for jobs which these older folks have experience more than the younger folks.

6. That extending the Retirement Age is just an excuse to withhold the people's CPF and not much has been done to ensure that these people can remain gainfully employed till their Retirement Age. Hence, this extension is a farce and excuse only to withhold the people's CPF.

7. All these years, nothing has been done for those who are self-employed and commission agents and business owners for their retirement. Since that been the case, CPF cannot say that is it providing for the people's retirement, because it cannot even pass this holistic test, since many are not salaried and falls outside of the CPF, except hindrances like contributing to medisave, which can be covered by private medical insurance scheme, which are aplenty in the market.

8. Only 1 out of 4 meets the Minimum Sum. Hence, the present CPF scheme that is actually for Retirement reasons has TOTALLY FAILED. This is because the rate of returns is just a paltry pitiful 2 to 4%, whereas CPF becomes a VERY CHEAP source of funds for the GIC and Temasek Holdings for its investments, which we were told are doing roaring well, with returns of 15 to 18% per annum. So, who gave them the right to siphon off the extra percentages when the total rate of return should be rightfully owned by the members, since it is their CPF money used to invest afterall. In the first place, who gave GIC and TH that right to invest the money without any investment report, hence totally non-transparent to the members.

I laud SDP for having this position and continue to put the pressure on. Hence, if SDP contest in my constituency, I'll surely vote for them.
 

Cosmos10

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
A few salient mistakes and oversights in this article......

1. The excuse that we're living older till 85 is a BIG FAT LIE. Read my other threads!!

2. The retirement age keeps increasing from 55 to 65 and now to 67, but people are not living till that old and yet healthy and able to work. Hence, extending the retirement age is academic and only serves as an excuse NOT to begin paying the CPF annuity till the person is one foot in his coffin.

3. Squandering the retirements is an absurd notion, because there is no comprehensive study to determine that retirees lose all their savings, and also, retirees can be males and females, so which gender is squandering the retirements? No one knows so it cannot be taken as a fact to make national policies, especially one as wide and broad as CPF

4. The article does not distinguish between the definitions of Retirement Age and CPF withdrawal Age. The two are very different. Back before 1985, there is no legal link between Retirement Age and CPF withdrawal Age. Hence, the promise to return the CPF in full is written as 'CPF will be returned to its members in full upon reaching the age of 55'. Simple as that.

5. Extending the Retirement Age longer till 65 and now 67 does not change that fact that the Manpower Ministry must ensure there are sufficient jobs for people and CPF deductions must not discriminate along age groups and more importantly, that Employers must employ and not discriminate older folks seeking for jobs which these older folks have experience more than the younger folks.

6. That extending the Retirement Age is just an excuse to withhold the people's CPF and not much has been done to ensure that these people can remain gainfully employed till their Retirement Age. Hence, this extension is a farce and excuse only to withhold the people's CPF.

7. All these years, nothing has been done for those who are self-employed and commission agents and business owners for their retirement. Since that been the case, CPF cannot say that is it providing for the people's retirement, because it cannot even pass this holistic test, since many are not salaried and falls outside of the CPF, except hindrances like contributing to medisave, which can be covered by private medical insurance scheme, which are aplenty in the market.

8. Only 1 out of 4 meets the Minimum Sum. Hence, the present CPF scheme that is actually for Retirement reasons has TOTALLY FAILED. This is because the rate of returns is just a paltry pitiful 2 to 4%, whereas CPF becomes a VERY CHEAP source of funds for the GIC and Temasek Holdings for its investments, which we were told are doing roaring well, with returns of 15 to 18% per annum. So, who gave them the right to siphon off the extra percentages when the total rate of return should be rightfully owned by the members, since it is their CPF money used to invest afterall. In the first place, who gave GIC and TH that right to invest the money without any investment report, hence totally non-transparent to the members.

I laud SDP for having this position and continue to put the pressure on. Hence, if SDP contest in my constituency, I'll surely vote for them.


Hi bro, thank you very much for giving your good ideas and constructive feedback. :smile:
 
Last edited:

ksgd0717

Alfrescian
Loyal
PAP don't need the pressure. No one can do what it is doing. It should not put up with nonsense. Drink at your own risk.
 
Top