- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 4,480
- Points
- 113
A Yummy Slice of Life
Politics, Southeast Asia, Wine, Food, Arts, and Life.
<SMALL>Posted by: soulgroovesg | November 18, 2011
</SMALL>Why do some people have pensions whereas everyone else only have CPF?
This recent blog post by an anonymous someone highlights how a retired junior minister, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon is getting an estimated S$20,000 per month as pension (read: cause you’re old you can do nothing). Having been born in 1950 according to Wikipedia, that means that she’s drawing on this lifetime pension from the age of 61.
I have nothing against Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon and applaud her for the past attempts at advancing women’s causes for Singapore in general and politics in particular. Yet the blog post sheds a rare spotlight on the issue of a select group of people having lifetime pensions in Singapore.
This problematic justification of pension comes and goes, depending on whether there is actually someone with courage for bringing up the topic. In this blog post, Yawning Bread suggests how Lee Hsien Loong dodged Siew Kum Hong ‘s questions on the justification of pensions. Most recently, earlier this year, there was again lots of controversy over pension for former Ministers such as Tony Tan, who recently took up his post as President. Some people have suggested that pensions for politicians are legally right but morally wrong. The most complete clarification is from the Prime Minister’s Office in 14 May 2011, which is discussed here.
Personally, I never thought much about the difference between pensions and CPF until one of my SMU friends whom I met a few months ago remarked that he had a job in the civil service which, if he stayed long enough, paid a lifetime pension. It is well known that civil servants in the Administrative Service, court judges, senior military and police officials are paid lifetime pensions.
Obviously, having a pension is far superior than having the CPF scheme. That’s why such a select group of people are given that privilege to attract them to stay in the system in the first place. Yet two issues constantly nag me in the back of my brain =
(1) Whilst this “political and administrative elite” happily enjoy their pensions after they retire for the rest of their lives, the rest of Singapore barely survive on the minimal sums in their CPF, which is finite. Is this a morally acceptable position?
(2) This incentive appears to be a distorting incentive used by the political elite to generate obedience in the administrative elite. No administrative elite would dare to go against the system that provides them a lifetime pension. Remember: don’t bite the hand that feeds you?
My intuitive sense tells me that the pension scheme is morally and politically untenable. It is morally untenable because it suggests that by virtue of this select group of people having done certain important jobs in the earlier halves of their lives, they get to enjoy the rest of their lies without worries, a league apart from the rest of ordinary human beings. It is politically untenable because the incentives of the overarching system run towards the administrative elite being obedient in preserving the political status quo of PAP dominance. It is not sufficiently separate enough from politics.
Conclusion: Abolish pensions.
Posted in Politics, Public Policy, Research, Singapore
« The David versus Goliath Battle for Singapore’s Soul
Politics, Southeast Asia, Wine, Food, Arts, and Life.
<SMALL>Posted by: soulgroovesg | November 18, 2011
</SMALL>Why do some people have pensions whereas everyone else only have CPF?
This recent blog post by an anonymous someone highlights how a retired junior minister, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon is getting an estimated S$20,000 per month as pension (read: cause you’re old you can do nothing). Having been born in 1950 according to Wikipedia, that means that she’s drawing on this lifetime pension from the age of 61.
I have nothing against Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon and applaud her for the past attempts at advancing women’s causes for Singapore in general and politics in particular. Yet the blog post sheds a rare spotlight on the issue of a select group of people having lifetime pensions in Singapore.
This problematic justification of pension comes and goes, depending on whether there is actually someone with courage for bringing up the topic. In this blog post, Yawning Bread suggests how Lee Hsien Loong dodged Siew Kum Hong ‘s questions on the justification of pensions. Most recently, earlier this year, there was again lots of controversy over pension for former Ministers such as Tony Tan, who recently took up his post as President. Some people have suggested that pensions for politicians are legally right but morally wrong. The most complete clarification is from the Prime Minister’s Office in 14 May 2011, which is discussed here.
Personally, I never thought much about the difference between pensions and CPF until one of my SMU friends whom I met a few months ago remarked that he had a job in the civil service which, if he stayed long enough, paid a lifetime pension. It is well known that civil servants in the Administrative Service, court judges, senior military and police officials are paid lifetime pensions.
Obviously, having a pension is far superior than having the CPF scheme. That’s why such a select group of people are given that privilege to attract them to stay in the system in the first place. Yet two issues constantly nag me in the back of my brain =
(1) Whilst this “political and administrative elite” happily enjoy their pensions after they retire for the rest of their lives, the rest of Singapore barely survive on the minimal sums in their CPF, which is finite. Is this a morally acceptable position?
(2) This incentive appears to be a distorting incentive used by the political elite to generate obedience in the administrative elite. No administrative elite would dare to go against the system that provides them a lifetime pension. Remember: don’t bite the hand that feeds you?
My intuitive sense tells me that the pension scheme is morally and politically untenable. It is morally untenable because it suggests that by virtue of this select group of people having done certain important jobs in the earlier halves of their lives, they get to enjoy the rest of their lies without worries, a league apart from the rest of ordinary human beings. It is politically untenable because the incentives of the overarching system run towards the administrative elite being obedient in preserving the political status quo of PAP dominance. It is not sufficiently separate enough from politics.
Conclusion: Abolish pensions.
Posted in Politics, Public Policy, Research, Singapore
« The David versus Goliath Battle for Singapore’s Soul
