Just a few months ago, WP was still supporting the PAP's version of Minimum Sum then.
PAP made some changes, WP flip-flops and proposes changes too.
What if other people never cow-peh and PAP never make changes? Would WP be keeping quiet, spending all its time pursuing town council contracts and conducting commercial overseas tours?
What if CPF withdrawal age is raised to 62, 63, 64, 65 and 67 after elections? You want us to watch the same movie again and again?
So,
- WP agrees that compulsory bequest for singles is reasonable?
- WP agrees that converting our personalised CPF to non-personalised is acceptable?
- WP thinks that CPF money is no longer our money under risk-pooling is also okay?
- WP thinks the non-rich could afford to spend money on a luxury like longevity insurance?
- WP thinks retrenchment, age discrimination, structural unemployment won't occur before 60?
Many of the wives don't work. But sharing of CPF has always been something negotiated between the husband and wife. That's why women choose to marry well. Should the state meddle with our CPF money?